The Weight of Accountability: Joseph Smith, Trump, and the Iron Rod

The current political climate feels… charged. We’re told to pick sides, to demonize the opposition, to abandon principles for the sake of perceived victory. But as Latter-day Saints, we are called to a higher standard – a standard of righteousness, of accountability, and of unwavering adherence to the teachings of the Restoration. A recent discussion on the Thoughtful Faith podcast, debating whether Latter-day Saints should vote for Donald Trump, served as a stark reminder of this challenge.

The debate, between Ben Pacini and Jacob Hansen, wasn’t merely a political disagreement; it was a collision of fundamental approaches to moral decision-making. Hansen’s core question— “If I had 100% accountability for what was going to happen, would I feel comfortable putting my name on it?” — struck a resonant chord. It's a question that demands more than a cursory glance at policy platforms or campaign promises. It demands a sober assessment of character, of consequence, and of the covenant path.

Pacini, in contrast, framed his position through a utilitarian lens, weighing outcomes and prioritizing what he perceived as the ‘best’ result. While the pursuit of good outcomes is inherently valuable, it cannot be divorced from the means by which those outcomes are achieved. As Joseph Smith taught, and as Hansen rightly pointed out, “I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, yet deals justice to his neighbors and mercifully deals his substance to the poor, than the long, smooth-faced hypocrite.” This isn't a justification for profanity, but a powerful indictment of a superficial righteousness that prioritizes appearances over genuine integrity.

The Brethren have consistently cautioned against the dangers of partisan politics, reminding us that our allegiance is first and foremost to God. To blindly endorse a candidate, regardless of their flaws or character, is to diminish the power of the Spirit and to compromise our own witness. D&C 101:38 exhorts us to seek righteousness in all things, and that includes the selection of our civic leaders.

The temptation to rationalize our choices—to convince ourselves that the ‘lesser of two evils’ is somehow a righteous decision—is a powerful one. But the iron rod of truth demands a more rigorous examination. Do we truly believe that supporting a particular candidate aligns with the principles of the gospel? Are we prepared to accept the consequences of that decision, both personally and as a community?

This isn't about demonizing those who hold different views. It’s about holding ourselves accountable to a higher standard. It’s about recognizing that our votes are not merely expressions of political preference; they are declarations of our values and our commitment to the covenant. As Isaiah prophesied, “And there shall be an altar for the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar thereof to the Lord in the land of Egypt” (Isaiah 19:21). Our actions, in every sphere of life, must reflect the light of the gospel and point others towards the Savior.

Let us not be swayed by the fleeting winds of political expediency, but rather anchor ourselves to the eternal truths found in the scriptures and the teachings of the prophets. Let us strive to emulate the example of the Savior, who always sought to do the will of the Father, even when it was difficult or unpopular.

Consider these questions: How does your civic duty relate to your covenant obligations? What principles guide your choices when evaluating potential leaders?