I am deeply disturbed by the recent news that general authority Seventy José A. Teixeira and his Area Presidency counselors issued an official letter telling Idahoans that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes Proposition 1 on the November ballot, and that this letter will be read in our congregations over the next two weeks.

This directive conflicts with several of my core convictions. First, it advocates using state power to enforce a particular belief system onto others. Beliefs about abortion are diverse, even within the church, and are rooted in a wide variety of legitimate spiritual and secular frameworks. For many people, reproductive autonomy is itself a profoundly moral position. We are not dealing with something like drunkenness, in which society generally agrees on the moral hazard but simply chooses not to criminalize it; we are dealing with competing, well-reasoned ethical systems. By lobbying to uphold strict state bans, the church is demanding that the government use the threat of prison to enforce our specific theology onto citizens who hold entirely different, equally valid moral convictions.

Just days ago at the Washington National Cathedral, church President Dallin H. Oaks spoke to this exact principle of pluralism. He warned that believers should be careful “not to seek total dominance for all our own positions.” He taught that “where there is genuine conflict on the effect of constitutional rights, contesting positions need to be balanced legally and negotiated politically in a way that upholds all essential rights to the greatest extent possible.”

The U.S. Central Area Presidency’s letter ignores this counsel. Instead of seeking balance among competing rights, as Prop 1 attempts to do, it demands the dominance of one legitimate ethical system over all others, by preserving the nation’s most restrictive abortion ban. It is, fundamentally, an attempt at religious supremacy.

Furthermore, this political mobilization ignores the glaring gap between church policy and Idaho’s current statutes. The church’s General Handbook explicitly allows for abortion in cases of rape or incest; when the mother’s life or health is in serious jeopardy; or for fatal fetal anomalies. Idaho’s extreme abortion ban does not allow for such tragedies, and the medical exceptions are so narrow that doctors are fleeing the state. This highlights the central contradiction regarding my first concern: We are not even asking the state to enforce our convictions. By urging a “no” vote on Prop 1, the church is effectively lobbying to maintain a secular law that is far more restrictive than our own theology. We are actively advocating to use state force to trap our neighbors — and ourselves — under a moral code that denies women the very compassion and medical exceptions our own policy provides.

This letter also violates a second profound conviction of mine: our doctrine regarding unrighteous dominion. While the church frequently affirms its strict political neutrality, reading a letter like this over the pulpit is a jarring and alienating departure from that stance. It is a clear pressure campaign clothed in the robes of priesthood authority. A letter from the Seventy read over the pulpit undeniably creates spiritual coercion and division in the pews. Doctrine and Covenants 134:9 says that “we do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government.” Even church founder Joseph Smith stated that the Latter-day Saints “are not disposed ... to deprive anyone from exercising that free independence of mind which heaven has so graciously bestowed upon the human family as one of its choicest gifts.”

Put plainly, this letter is using institutional power to pressure church members to vote to use government control to enforce our worldview onto the rest of our state. It’s force upon force upon force. It is not peacemaking; it is coercive control at every level.

Our leaders frequently advocate for peacemaking, which should mean bringing together and honoring the vastly diverse moral convictions of our membership. Yet, within our institutional hierarchy, there is no legitimate channel to actually facilitate that peace or to petition the church to change a divisive administrative decision.

Therefore, I offer this formal objection in the spirit of true peacemaking.

Because I believe in defending moral agency over state compulsion, and because I refuse to be complicit in unrighteous dominion, I have sent a letter to my local leaders, who must now administer this political directive. I want them to know my profound distress, and I will be exercising my own agency by stepping away for the weeks this mandate is broadcast from our pulpit.

I already hoped Prop 1 would succeed in Idaho to protect women and human dignity; now, seeing this attempt at religious supremacy, I have another reason I hope it succeeds.

Brad Price is a 39-year-old member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was born in Moscow, Idaho, and graduated from high school in Boise. He served a church mission in New Jersey, got a chemical engineering degree from the Colorado School of Mines and had a more than 10-year career on the U.S. Gulf Coast and in the Middle East before returning to Boise about two years ago. He was married in a Latter-day Saint temple and has four kids.

The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.