How can we simultaneously be peacemakers and politically involved in a structure that is built on contention? With the highly contested 2024 US Presidential election quickly approaching, is this something we should undertake, and if so, how can it be done?
Need for Peacemakers
Becoming a peacemaker is one of the great prophetic admonitions of our time. In the last two years alone, there have been six General Conference talks given by Apostles on the topic, [1] urging all who will hear to set aside contention and create peace in our personal lives, homes, and communities. Some of these directives include:
“We follow the counsel of our beloved prophet, President Nelson: we choose the role of ‘a peacemaker now and always.’ This inspired approach is consistent with both scriptures and prophetic direction.” [2]
“The scriptures affirm that those who practice works of righteousness and strive to walk in the meekness of the Spirit of the Lord are promised the peace they need to survive the days of commotion in which we live today...President Russell M. Nelson, recently stated, ‘Contention violates everything the Savior stood for and taught.’ Our prophet also implored that we do all we can to end personal conflicts that are currently raging in our hearts and in our lives. [3]”
President Nelson himself shared, “The Savior’s message is clear: His true disciples build, lift, encourage, persuade, and inspire—no matter how difficult the situation. True disciples of Jesus Christ are peacemakers…Contention is a choice. Peacemaking is a choice. You have your agency to choose contention or reconciliation. I urge you to choose to be a peacemaker…” [4]
It is no mystery why Church leaders are imploring us with increasing frequency to choose the road of peace—the current social, cultural, and political landscape is a quagmire of contention and anxiety, slowly being stirred by echo-chamber media coverage and our own self-reporting on social media.
In an article written for the British Journal of Children’s Health, Stephanie Thornton summed up our current tumultuous state with:
“The news cycle has been extraordinarily bleak for more than [four] years now. First, there was the pandemic, the widespread anxiety in the media of a repeat of the 1918 influenza pandemic, daily briefings on death and disaster, and report after report suggesting that the disruptions of lockdowns were permanently damaging education and future prospects of a generation. Before we were over all that came the invasion of Ukraine, threats of nuclear war, and media agitation over a return to the anxieties of the Cold War or World War III. Then came the economic crisis, the shortages, the strikes and travel disruption, the daily warnings of worse to come, and of famine for many millions. Not to be dismissed as a source of worry…are the news stories warning of threats to the very future of democracy—the rise of the ‘far right,’ and stories of prominent Western leaders who flout the law, or in one case, is actually accused of trying to mount a coup rather than concede electoral defeat. Or the frequent school and shop shootings in the United States (US), shootings in places of worship around the world…And as a constant underlying background to all this there are progressively apocalyptic claims for the imminence of climate disaster and mass extinctions…We are living through a ‘perfect storm’: a conjunction of bad news of historic proportion.” [5]
These ails have only magnified and grown in the two years since Thornton wrote this lament, with the likes of AI generated disinformation campaigns, [6] deep fake technology, and additional warfare in places like Gaza. The collective peace void has had a deluge of impacts, but of particular interest at this moment is the explosive political climate we now find ourselves in leading up to the 2024 US Presidential election.
Rise of Contentious Politics
This gruesome political landscape did not materialize overnight, but has been festering for some time. Consider the Congressional gridlock in Washington. The days of working across the aisle to achieve common goals have been waning over the past several years as moderate politicians have been replaced by peers who subscribe to party extremes. [7] Members of Congress say that “it is difficult to build relationships across party lines…and there is little incentive for doing so. The rhetoric used by some senators and representatives promotes division…[and] addressing norms of civility and bipartisan collaboration is a…difficult problem to solve. Congressional leaders can’t mandate that members and staff simply ‘behave nicer’ to one another.” [8]
But of utmost concern is the unwillingness to “behave nicer” in our executive branch. With the upcoming Presidential election, candidates from both parties are currently in the spotlight. In repeated appeals to their base, the battle cry has become putting down the other candidate as much as sharing any personal merits.
For example, former President Trump --the once again Republican 2024 hopeful-- is known for his derogatory nicknames given to his foes (i.e. Sleepy Joe, Laughing Kamala), [9] as well as his raucous rallies and spicy tweets. At a recent rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Trump posited “that President Biden ‘is a threat to democracy…and this country is finished if we don’t win this election.” [10] Once Kamala Harris became the presumptive Democrat nominee, the ‘threat to democracy’ language shifted to her. Trump said, “We have to define our opponent [i.e. Harris] as being a communist, a socialist, or someone who will destroy our country.” [11] Additionally, “Trump has long been known for profane language, perhaps making his more recent vulgarities seem less novel. He has referred to African nations as ‘s---holes,’ called Biden a ‘son of a b----’ and was captured on tape boasting of grabbing women ‘by the p----.’” [12] Tevi Troy, a presidential historian noted that “while politicians once had to apologize when their private cursing was made public, today they face little blowback—and often gain boisterous approval—as they increasingly use expletives before large crowds.” [13] Beyond colorful language, some argue Trump blatantly leans into contention and violence since “he tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election, embraced the rioters who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and threatened to seek retribution against his opponents if he wins reelection.” [14]
In similar fashion, current President Biden (before stepping aside as the 2024 Democratic candidate) also villainizes Trump in public speeches, going beyond the convicted felon titles and likening him to Adolf Hitler. As reported by Politico, “in most situations, comparing a political opponent to Adolf Hitler might seem like an extraordinary step. For Joe Biden’s campaign, it has become part of the routine of running against Donald Trump.” [15] The Democratic party rhetoric has focused on painting Trump as an authoritarian dictator who is also (ironically similar to the Republican party rhetoric) a threat to democracy. It seems like an easy strategy to convince voters “a second presidential term [for Trump], with its authoritarian inclinations unchecked, poses a civic emergency that supersedes any other normal political consideration.” [16] President Biden drew on this belief as he explained why he recently chose to step aside as the Democratic Presidential candidate after a shaky first debate and plummeting poll numbers. President Biden said, “It’s been the honor of my life to serve as your president. But in defense of democracy, which is at stake – and is more important than any title [I must]. I draw strength and I find joy in working for the American people.” He continued, “…nothing, nothing can come in the way of saving our democracy. That includes personal ambition. So, I’ve decided the best way forward is to pass the torch to a new generation. It’s the best way to unite our nation.” [17] Whether this is a tactic to garner more votes or the Democratic party truly believes democracy is hanging by a thread, the result of such life-and-death rhetoric is arguably to blame for an increase in political violence. Most notable of the rising violence is the recent assassination attempt on former President Trump during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania by Thomas Crooks. [18]
One author noted: “It is impossible at the moment to see a clear way out of America’s impasse. Both sides of the political divide regard the other side as threats, and, to speak plainly, both increasingly hate one another. No amount of ‘dialogue across differences’-type programs is going to change that situation. Is either side willing to take the first step and say: ‘We will no longer use apocalyptic terms to describe what hangs on this election?’ How can they, when those terms are viewed by those using them as empirical descriptions of reality?” [19]
The verbal sucker punches Presidential candidates throw grow exponentially during election year, which trickles down to the voters. The result is a nation divided by identity and ideology. In an effort to motivate people to vote-- and vote for them--both parties have resorted to stoking fear of what the other side is capable of. Politics has thus come to speak a language grounded in criticism, belittling, self-righteous judgement, extremes, and contention.
A Need to be Involved
So how do we reconcile the prophetic admonition to be peacemakers with the contentious state of American politics? We might assume to be a peacemaker, we must therefore avoid political involvement, but the truth is the exact opposite. Church leaders have also been specific in our need to be “warm, engaged members of the communities where we live.” [20] Dallin H. Oaks counseled: “We should seek out and support wise and good persons who will support [good] principles in their public actions. We should be knowledgeable citizens who are active in making our influence felt in civic affairs.” [21] Under the topic ‘Citizenship’ in the topics and questions section on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint’s website, we are instructed:
“Members of the Church who are citizens in nations that do their ‘business by the voice of the people’ bear an especially important and sacred responsibility as citizens to raise their voices for good and right causes, including the fundamental freedoms of conscience and religion.” [22]
“To live as a free people in safety and peace, we must become informed and involved…As members of the Church prayerfully study the issues and decisions facing today’s communities and nations, they will be able to discern and understand how to apply eternal principles to issues being debated by politicians and public officials.” [23]
“Latter-day Saints are encouraged to be informed and participate in civic and political activities…where possible, this includes a special obligation to seek out, vote for, and uphold leaders who are honest, good, and wise. Likewise, ‘Church members are encouraged to participate in political and governmental affairs. In many countries, this may include…serving in elected or appointed offices in local and national government.’” [24]
Furthermore, the General Handbook of the Church outlines in section 38 under Church Policies and Guidelines that “Church members are encouraged to participate in political and governmental affairs. In many countries, this may include: voting, joining or serving in political parties, providing financial support, communicating with party officials and candidates, participating in peaceful, legal protests, serving in elected or appointed offices (etc.)” [25]
Thus, the question is not ‘should’ we be involved, but how-- while being a peacemaker-- in a political structure that is built on contention. Can we be politically engaged in our communities, including within our religious communities, without coming to blows or negatively impacting each other’s’ faith? I believe it can be done in this unprecedented election cycle with knowledge of our ultimate identity, a desire to follow Christ’s admonition to love our neighbor, and discernment to see things as they really are.
Our Ultimate Identity and Church Political Neutrality
Understanding our ultimate identity in a society that values identity politics is essential to taking the teeth out of political involvement. Identity politics would have us “evaluat[e] issues through the lens of [our] association with a specific group.” [26] This outlook requires people to be divided into groups so those who are deemed ‘other’ can be blamed for x, y, z. It allows us to “retreat to somber enclaves of like-minded participants” [27] and judge one another based on group association. We often see our own group as ‘right,’ concluding that the other groups must be wrong. This line of thinking tends to justify unkind behavior towards those who identify with a group other than our own, assuming they must be inferior in intellect, experience, morals, worthiness, etc. to remain in a ‘wrong’ group.
Yet this common philosophy of man is in direct opposition to the teachings of Jesus Christ. In the words of the Lord, “let every man esteem his brother as himself…I say unto you, be one; and if are not one ye are not mine.” [28] The gospel of Jesus Christ allows us to know we have an eternal identity that is far more encompassing than any earthly box we can categorize ourselves into. We are children of Heavenly Parents. This noble heritage is a trait we share with all other subcategories and thus makes all people worthy of respect and civility; none are less than. Even when others choose to act beneath their means, the Lord instructs: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” [29]
President Nelson illuminates this concept by sharing, “As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are to be examples of how to interact with others—especially when we have differences of opinion. One of the easiest ways to identify a true follower of Jesus Christ is how compassionately that person treats other people.” [30]
Thus, we avoid the contention of identity politics by remembering our true, overarching identity as children of God. We can allow this knowledge to drive how we engage with others and make political decisions. This enables us to think critically as individuals instead of blindly following our self-identified herds.
President Dallin H. Oaks taught: “There are many political issues, and no party, platform, or individual candidate can satisfy all personal preferences. Each citizen must therefore decide which issues are most important to him or her at any particular time. Then members should seek inspiration on how to exercise their influence according to their individual priorities. This process will not be easy. It may require changing party support or candidate choices, even from election to election. Such independent actions will sometimes require voters to support candidates or political parties or platforms whose other positions they cannot approve.” [31]
A common pitfall our religious community struggles with is the false notion that the Church supports or endorses one political party over the other. The general handbook clearly states, “The Church is politically neutral.” [32] Specifically, “the Church is neutral regarding political parties, political platforms, and candidates for political office. The Church does not endorse any political party or candidate. Nor does it advise members how to vote.” [33] In a few exceptional cases (only authorized by the First Presidency), the Church may take a position on political matters regarding moral issues or Church practices—but member politicians and voters still make their own decisions. [34] There is not a political party that represents the righteous—good and evil can be found in both parties. This is why discernment is critical in choosing issues and candidates to support, as well as wisdom to know that we should not judge others for their choices.
Church teachings are clear that “members should not judge one another in political matters. Faithful Latter-day Saints can belong to a variety of political parties and vote for a variety of candidates. All should feel welcome in Church settings.” [35]
For this purpose, Church policy is that “political choices and affiliations should not be the subject of any teachings or advocating in Church settings.” [36] Statements that detract from focusing on the Savior should not be permitted in sacrament meeting, including political statements. [37] Again, personal discernment and a love for our neighbors should guide how we go about our political engagement. This is not to say our Church meeting prayers cannot include a hope of blessings or guidance for political leaders, but it does mean we should not sprinkle in our opinions, judgements, and condemnations of political leaders, parties, and actions over the pulpit. In line with our knowledge of our ultimate identity, our goal (especially in Church settings) is to bring each participant closer to Christ, not divide over the false assumption that everyone in the congregation should feel the same way we do about politics.
In reference to the gift of our political agency, President Oaks said: “we encourage our members to refrain from judging one another in political matters. We should never assert that a faithful Latter-day Saint cannot belong to a particular party or vote for a particular candidate. We teach correct principles and leave our members to choose how to prioritize and apply those principles on the issues presented from time to time. We also insist, and we ask our local leaders to insist, that political choices and affiliations not be the subject of teachings or advocacy in any of our Church meetings.” [38]
When we say or even imply that members who do not subscribe to our same political preferences are less righteous, we in fact are the ones who are deceived. The correct teachings have been outlined for us, and the Savior taught, “whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock.” [39]
Virtual Need for Peace
While understanding a variety of opinions have merit is a key ingredient to being a politically involved peacemaker in today’s climate, how we contribute to the dialogue is equally important. We have established that politically advocating during church meetings is inappropriate, but what of our advocacy outside sacrament meetings and gospel classes? The bulk of contentious political content shared happens on the internet. The perceived anonymity of online commenting can easily eliminate personal restraint, with “digital conversation often lead[ing] people to personal attacks and heated disputes, creating disappointments, wounding hearts, and spreading flaming hostility.” [40] Perhaps we are good at bridling our passions in person, but being a peacemaker in this election cycle will also require restraint in what we post, comment, and follow on social media. It is one thing to believe we are all children of God when we are face to face, but on the internet, where things are intangible, we can forget. It further complicates peacemaking efforts because social media platforms are built on the identity politics model—we often only see content related to our smaller identity boxes served up by algorithms.
President Nelson observed: “If a friend on social media has strong political or social views that violate everything you believe in, an angry, cutting retort by you will not help. Building bridges of understanding will require much more of you, but that is exactly what your friend needs. Contention drives away the Spirit—every time. Contention reinforces the false notion that confrontation is the way to resolve differences; but it never is.” [41]
What we say online matters and has ramifications, just as much as our spoken words. We cannot be deceived into thinking our online presence does not count towards our efforts in being a peacemaker. While not as popular as sharing clickbait and viral clips, we can share our beliefs and preferences with credible sources in non-confrontational ways. There is a difference between sharing what you admire in a candidate or about a policy and ranting about why a certain candidate is terrible or why a policy is garbage. Before we repost a political claim or statement, we can make sure the information is accurate from reputable news sites. We can also check sources such as the AllSides Media Bias Chart to see how the reputable news site ranks on political leaning and reporting accuracy. We can discover for ourselves what is fact and what is generated to emotionally trigger.
For example, a friend recently shared an outlandish claim one of the Vice-Presidential candidates said that made her angry. Even though I am not a fan of that candidate, I thought ‘that seems like an unreasonable thing for a person to say. I would be interested to see where they actually said that.’ I shared this thought process with my friend. She sent me the article she got the news story from. Interestingly, I found that it was not the candidate who had said the phrase that went viral, but the other person in the interview. The article went on to say that the candidate “appeared to agree” and “he also seemed to agree” and finished with it is fair to assume because he “certainly doesn’t vocally disagree” on the podcast. [42]
My friend’s emotional rollercoaster was based on an assumption rather than fact. Much of what we fight about online likely falls in this category. With the rise of negative political ads we may believe this is an effective way for us to communicate as well, but the truth is it leaves most feeling disillusioned and disgruntled. [43] On the other hand, there is peace in truth—we can apply this to politics by making our case for candidates and policies we agree with by using facts instead of worldly tactics like inciting fear or using emotionally triggering language. In the words of our Prophet, “anger never persuades. Hostility builds no one. Contention never leads to inspired solutions.” [44]
Should We Be Silent?
While some struggle with the illusion that they can say whatever they want online without consequence, others struggle with the illusion that silence is the equivalent of peace. As a mother of four children, I know full well the pull to disengage and hide in the bathroom when chaos reaches peak level. I also know from experience this usually ends badly.
In a BYU study conducted in 2022, researchers found that dialogue on social media is driven by the extremes of the political spectrum, with the middle majority self-censoring into silence. “The results indicate that those who self-identify as a strong conservative and or liberal possess the lowest levels of self-censorship and will speak up about the issues they care about. Conversely, the majority in the middle; including moderate conservatives, independents, and moderate liberals are self-censoring on social media and creating a silencing effect of the majority.” [45] Reasons for remaining silent include fear of losing friends or worrying that stating an opinion will make them appear to identify a certain way. Here again we see the effects of identity politics—its impact is insidious across our culture and largely drives contention.
How do we handle this conundrum? When we notice the chaos or intensity level building around an issue or candidate, must we remain silent online or in in-person discussions with others to theoretically keep the peace? And if we do so, is this peace authentic or merely our absence?
My belief is that when it comes to being a peacemaker, silence may be necessary in some situations, but disengagement never is. I consider when Christ was brought before the chief priests and elders to be questioned before His crucifixion. When asked who He was, He answered. When they went on to accuse Him, “he answered nothing.” [46] Pilate himself asked the Savior if had anything to say about all the accusations said against Him, “and He answered him to never a word…” [47] but He stood there before them.
Likewise, in highly contentious situations, we do not need to yell over the fray, but we also need to remain present. Our Prophet has counseled us that “we can literally change the world—one person and one interaction at a time…[b]y modeling how to manage honest differences of opinion with mutual respect and dignified dialogue.” [48]
This is not “peace at any price,” which President Nelson defines as feeling required to agree with the ideas and beliefs of others to be a peacemaker, [49] or disengaging in the name of peace, like washing our hands of a contentious situation we could have impacted for good. Instead, it is choosing the time and place to share personal opinions and beliefs without having to feed into comment chains that are already reeking of vitriol. It is respecting the opinions of others we are spending time with while also being able to articulate personal opinions in an equally respectful way. It is remaining calm when it is much more in Vogue to yell.
It is essential to understand that ‘peace’ does not mean uniformity of thought and opinion, but rather the absence of contention when we disagree. The necessary bridges of understanding to make this happen are made possible by charity—the pure love of Christ—which President Nelson confirms “is the answer to the contention that ails us today.” He continues that it is “charity [that] allows us to demonstrate how men and women of Christ speak and act—especially when under fire.” [50]
What does this look like in practice? Perhaps your family is like mine, a variety of personalities all landing on different notches in the political spectrum. I have an ongoing text chain with a few family members where we discuss the latest goings-on in the political world. We are invested and interested; we agree on some topics while passionately disagreeing on others including politics and religion. When a family member shares an opinion that clashes with my own, instead of lashing out and shutting the conversation down, I have had the opportunity to think how a peacemaker would proceed. I have learned I can ask questions about why they see it that way. I can ask about the data, where did they get that information and do they feel it is reliable? I can share my own thoughts, and when they inevitably push back, I can make sure I have reliable facts to support my opinion so it holds weight in the conversation. I can discern when a family member is venting on a topic because they feel strongly about it and when there is something else about it that is triggering them, and it is okay to put politics on hold and just be there for them in those cases. I have also learned I can step away from the conversation when my emotions are taking over and come back later. And I certainly have had plenty of opportunities in our texts to say ‘I have not looked into that yet,’ ‘I did not know that,’ and ‘I do not think we are going to see eye to eye on this one, but that is okay.’
While we are not perfect at it, we have been able to carry on a long-standing, robust dialogue among non-like-minded individuals with decency. It has required me to think critically and be open-minded, and when I want to lose it at someone on there like only a sister can, I stop and remind myself that I am talking to people I love, all politics aside. On a small scale, our text chain shows me that when there is love between people, there is a greater desire to understand. This combination of love and understanding becomes the bridge that extends across all our differences.
Can it Be Done?
While building off of love within a family is one thing, is it possible to love others enough to build bridges within communities and online among strangers? Can we live the second great commandment [51] during this election year to such an extent that we can be peacefully involved?
In the current system we have and left to our own devices, it is honestly hard to say. However, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we have access to additional capacity that our leaders are urging us to draw on like never before. We need the power of the Holy Ghost to see things as they really are in a time of deception. There are political actors who use religion to serve their own ends and create wedges instead of bridges—we need to be able to discern this.
President Nelson has counseled us, “If we are to have any hope of sifting through the myriad of voices and the philosophies of men that attack truth, we must learn to receive revelation…[otherwise] in coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost.” [52] This applies to our role in politics. We need the Spirit with us to navigate our political minefield if we are to do so differently than the rest of the world.
Additionally, Prophets and Apostles have been increasingly urging us on to the temple. President Nelson has explained that there we “are endowed with priesthood power through the sacred priesthood covenants [we] make.” [53] As we honor those covenants, we are given “constant access to God’s power.” [54] While we often think of priesthood power as a nebulous concept tied around ordinances and healing, perhaps we could think of this ability to act in God’s name as the means to show restraint and civility to people who are painfully different from us this election year. By what other power could we possibly love our enemies?
In a General Conference talk given by President Oaks entitled Love Your Enemies, he taught:
Loving our enemies and our adversaries is not easy. “Most of us have not reached that stage of … love and forgiveness,” President Gordon B. Hinckley observed, adding, “It requires a self-discipline almost greater than we are capable of.” But it must be essential, for it is part of the Savior’s two great commandments to “love the Lord thy God” and to “love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 22:37, 39). And it must be possible, for He also taught, “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find” (Matthew 7:7). [55]
We need power beyond our own to overcome the level of contention we are facing. This power can be found through the covenants we make in Lord’s holy temples. Truly, to respond differently than the world in our political involvement, we need power beyond what this world has to offer. This is a tangible reason why we should do, quickly, the things the Prophet counsels us to do.
Conclusion
As members of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, we have the unique capacity to be in the political arena affecting change without yelling or demanding uniformity of opinion. We know we have agency to choose for ourselves and the Spirit to guide us to choose wisely. We have access to heavenly power through covenants made with the Savior to do hard things we could not do on our own. We know love is the root of understanding and serves as the way to avoid contention when we do not agree. We must draw on this knowledge and the powers of heaven to operate in a political system that believes otherwise and continue to be present.
We need to remember “as His followers, we are His peculiar people,” [56] and act like it; even when peace in politics is peculiar indeed.
NOTES:
[1] Preaching the Gospel of Peace, Pres. Russell M. Nelson, April 2022; Following Jesus: Being a Peacemaker, Elder Neil L. Andersen, April 2022; Finding Personal Peace, Pres. Henry B. Eyering, April 2023; Followers of the Prince of Peace, Ulisses Soares, April 2023; Peacemakers Needed, Pres. Russell M. Nelson, April 2023; Be Peaceable Followers of Christ, Elder Quentin L. Cook, October 2023 [Back to manuscript].
[2] Be Peaceable Followers of Christ, Quentin L. Cook, October 2023
[Back to manuscript].
[3] Followers of the Prince of Peace, Ulisses Soares, April 2023 [Back to manuscript].
[4] Peacemakers Needed, Russell M. Nelson, April 2023 [Back to manuscript].
[5] How Will the Bad News Cycle of Recent Years Affect Young People, Stephanie Thornton, 2 August 2022, https://www.journalofchildhealth.com/content/mental-health/how-will-the-bad-news-cycle-of-recent-years-affect-young-people/
--- [Back to manuscript].
[6] Election disinformation takes a big leap with AI being used to deceive worldwide, Ali Swenson and Kelvin Chan, 14 March 2024, https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-elections-disinformation-chatgpt-bc283e7426402f0b4baa7df280a4c3fd
--- [Back to manuscript].
[7] Insight: Moderates fleeing U.S. House, setting stage for more Washington gridlock, Joseph Ax and Jason Lange, 14 September 2022, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/moderates-fleeing-us-house-setting-stage-more-washington-gridlock-2022-09-14/ --- [Back to manuscript].
[8] Fixing Congress: Operations Improve, Bipartisanship and Civility Need Attention, J.D. Rackey and Michael Thorning, 18 April 2024, --- [Back to manuscript].
[9] A Guide to Trump’s Nicknames and Insults About the 2020 Democratic Field, Adam Edelman, 25 April 2019, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/everything-trump-has-said-about-2020-field-insults-all-n998556
--- [Back to manuscript].
[10] Donald Trump Calls President Biden a “Threat to Deomcracy,” Clip of Former President Trump Holds Rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin, 2 April 2024, c-span.org
[Back to manuscript].
[11] Harris, Trump Propose Divergent, Costly Solutions for Inflation, Aaron Zitner and Paul Kiernan, The Wall Street Journal, 17 August 2024 [Back to manuscript].
[12] Harris Rallies Get Edgy with Four-Letter Words, Toluse Olorunnipa, 9 August 2024, The Washington Post [Back to manuscript].
[13] Harris Rallies Get Edgy with Four-Letter Words, Toluse Olorunnipa, 9 August 2024, The Washington Post [Back to manuscript].
[14] About 3 in 4 US Adults Say the 2024 Election Will Determine the Fate of US Democracy, Ali Swenson and Linley Sanders, 8 August 2024, PBS, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/about-3-in-4-u-s-adults-say-the-2024-election-will-determine-the-fate-of-u-s-democracy --- [Back to manuscript].
[15] Why Biden’s Campaign Keeps Linking Trump to Hitler, Holly Otterbein, Elena Schneider, and Jonathan Lemire, 19 December 2023, https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/19/biden-trump-hitler-00132367
--- [Back to manuscript].
[16] The Democrats Who Care More About Their Careers Than Beating Trump, Jonathan Chait, 8 July 2024, Intelligencer, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/do-democrats-care-more-about-their-jobs-than-beating-trump.html --- [Back to manuscript].
[17] Biden Calls His Decision to Step Aside From 2024 Race A Matter of Defending Democracy, Michael Williams, Kayla Tausche, MJ Lee, and Betsy Klein, 25 July 2024, CNN, https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/24/politics/biden-oval-office-address-2024/index.html --- [Back to manuscript].
[18] Update on the FBI Investigation of the Attempted Assassination of Former President Donald Trump, FBI press release, 14 July 2024, https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/update-on-the-fbi-investigation-of-the-attempted-assassination-of-former-president-donald-trump --- [Back to manuscript].
[19] The Edge of the Abyss, Heather Mac Donald, 15 July 2024, City Journal.org
[Back to manuscript].
[20] Be Peaceable Followers of Christ, Quentin L. Cook, October 2023
[Back to manuscript].
[21] Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution, Dallin H. Oaks, April 2021
[Back to manuscript].
[22] Citizenship, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Topics and Questions, churchofJesusChrist.org [Back to manuscript].
[23] Citizenship, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Topics and Questions, churchofJesusChrist.org [Back to manuscript].
[24] Citizenship, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Topics and Questions, churchofJesusChrist.org [Back to manuscript].
[25] 38.8.30 Political and Civic Activity, Church Policies and Guidelines, General Handbook of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Back to manuscript].
[26] Identity Politics in Context, Frank Newport, 3 December 2021, Gallup, https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/357812/identity-politics-context.aspx --- [Back to manuscript].
[27] Be Peaceable Followers of Christ, Quentin L. Cook, October 2023
[Back to manuscript].
[28] Doctrine and Covenants 38: 24 and 27 [Back to manuscript].
[29] Matthew 5:44 [Back to manuscript].
[30] Peacemakers Needed, Russell M. Nelson, April 2023 [Back to manuscript].
[31] Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution, Dallin H. Oaks, April 2021
[Back to manuscript].
[32] 35.5.6.3 Political Purposes, 35. Care and Use of Meetinghouses, General Handbook, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Back to manuscript].
[33] 38.8.30 Political and Civic Activity, Church Policies and Guidelines, General Handbook of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Back to manuscript].
[34] 38.8.30 Political and Civic Activity, Church Policies and Guidelines, General Handbook of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Back to manuscript].
[35] 38.8.30 Political and Civic Activity, Church Policies and Guidelines, General Handbook of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Back to manuscript].
[36] 38.8.30 Political and Civic Activity, Church Policies and Guidelines, General Handbook of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Back to manuscript].
[37] 38. Church Policies and Guidelines, General Handbook, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Back to manuscript].
[38] Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution, Dallin H. Oaks, April 2021
[Back to manuscript].
[39] 3 Nephi 11:40 [Back to manuscript].
[40] Followers of the Prince of Peace, Ulisses Soares, April 2023 [Back to manuscript].
[41] Peacemakers Needed, Russell M. Nelson, April 2023 [Back to manuscript].
[42] Keep Talking, JD! Vance’s Creepy Views on ‘Females’ are Repelling Women Voters, Arwa Mahdawi, The Guardian, 17 August 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/17/jd-vance-women --- [Back to manuscript].
[43] What Have Negative Political Ads Done to Us?, Gerald F. Seib, 17 February 2024, The Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/what-have-negative-political-ads-done-to-us-610da576 --- [Back to manuscript].
[44] Peacemakers Needed, Russell M. Nelson, April 2023 [Back to manuscript].
[45] Social Media Conversations Are Driven by Those on the Margins, Says New BYU Research, Tyler Stahle, 28 November 2022, https://news.byu.edu/intellect/social-media-conversations-are-driven-by-those-on-the-margins-says-new-byu-research
--- [Back to manuscript].
[46] Matthew 27:12 [Back to manuscript].
[47] Matthew 27:14 [Back to manuscript].
[48] Peacemakers Needed, Russell M. Nelson, April 2023 [Back to manuscript].
[49] Peacemakers Needed, Russell M. Nelson, April 2023 [Back to manuscript].
[50] Peacemakers Needed, Russell M. Nelson, April 2023 [Back to manuscript].
[51] Matthew 22:39 [Back to manuscript].
[52] Revelation for the Church, Revelation for Our Lives, Russell M. Nelson, April 2018 [Back to manuscript].
[53] Embrace the Future with Faith, Russell M. Nelson, October 2020
[Back to manuscript].
[54] Embrace the Future with Faith, Russell M. Nelson, October 2020
[Back to manuscript].
[55] Love Your Enemies, Dallin H. Oaks, October 2020 [Back to manuscript].
[56] Followers of the Prince of Peace, Ulisses Soares, April 2023 [Back to manuscript].
Full Citation for this Article: Zirkle, Rachel (2024) "Politically Involved Peacemakers: The Peace in Politics Dilemma," SquareTwo, Vol. 17 No. 2 (Summer 2024), http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleZirklePeacemakers.html, accessed <give access date>.
Would you like to comment on this article? Thoughtful, faithful comments of at least 100 words are welcome.