Official Church Statement on Cheney's Commencement Speech

I’m really, really glad that the Church released the official statement that they did regarding Cheney’s speaking engagement at BYU’s commencement—I think, above all, that such a statement was what I wanted personally. I was willing to give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt in terms of their motives for extending the invitation, but I also really wanted personally to understand why. And I think their statement perfectly expressed that.

As they say in the first paragraph, “[this] invitation is seen by the university’s board of trustees as one extended to someone holding the high office of vice president of the United States rather than to a partisan political figure.”

That’s not how I see Dick Cheney—and that’s not how I think most people see Dick Cheney, especially given the current political climate—but looking historically at how the Church as a governing body has approached and dealt with other standing political officials from the around the world, I can understand how that is the way that the Board of Trustees sees this visit.

As far as I know, the Church has never allowed any Church building or Church official to officially endorse a political candidate in the name of the Church—but very often the Church as a body has recognized and Church leaders have visited with and respected standing political officers, out of respect for their office, even when the individuals themselves have been completely morally despicable. Pinochet comes to mind.

I don’t think that I could (or should) take such a stance towards political figures personally, but I think that’s exactly the point—in recognizing standing political leaders, the Church is acting as the organization of the Church, and acting in a way that is necessary to further the greater mission of the Church, which is the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ (or as it’s called in the statement, the “central mission” of the Church). In the case of Pinochet and Chile, and East German leaders when East Germany was still Communist, and many other similar cases, the Church has had to recognize (solely on the basis on political office) many morally corrupt leaders in order to gain permission for the gospel to be preached in those countries, furthering the mission of the Church. Though some might consider it more appropriate and morally correct to not recognize such leaders, looking from a spiritual perspective, such a stance would have prevented all of the people in these countries from hearing and having the chance to accept the gospel. I can understand that as a not-ideal-but-necessary stance for the Church as an institution to take in order to complete its greater, eternal mission.

Thus, as the statement says, “To engage in partisan politics or to take up every social cause would be to divert the Church from that mission.” However, as the statement continues, “There is also another side to the neutrality policy, apart from prohibitions. The Church ‘encourages its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections.’ … Further, the Church ‘expects its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner.’”

In that sense, I feel perfectly willing and able to accept the Church’s neutral stance towards not only Dick Cheney, but all international leaders, because I understand that any other position is a role the Church as an institution is not really in a position to take—however, as an individual, as both a concerned citizen and someone striving to live the life of a disciple of Jesus Christ, I can and should make my voice heard. If I disagree with the actions of Vice President Cheney on moral and spiritual grounds (which I do), then it is not only my right, but the expectation of my Church that I respectfully stand up for those things.

In that sense I think it’s easier to understand why BYU has officially sanctioned protests against Cheney (note: not against BYU or against the Board of Trustees) to take place on BYU campus—because it recognizes the right and duty of students who don’t agree with Cheney to be able to respectfully express themselves. In that sense, I hope that all of us who disagree with Cheney find ways to respectfully make our voices heard, through protest, through letters to the editor, or through whatever means we are able to find—not only is that our right, but as individuals who have covenanted to “stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that [we] may be in” (Mosiah 18:9), I think it’s our duty.