Download Print-Friendly Version

In a Latter-day Saint meeting I attended two  years ago on September 17, we sang patriotic hymns and marked Constitution Day. To my surprise, many young single adults didn’t realize the significance of the date.

In comparison to Independence Day, Constitution Day isn’t celebrated at all. Especially for Latter-day Saints, this is unfortunate. Many doctrines from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are directly connected to the Constitution. President Dallin H. Oaks has taught, “The United States Constitution is unique because God revealed that He ‘established’ it ‘for the rights and protection of all flesh’ (Doctrine and Covenants 101:77; see also verse 80).” Why is the Constitution so important?

Second, the constitution presupposes a clear-eyed view of human nature, one we find illustrated and explained in scripture. The Old Testament is replete with examples of peoples, kings, and nations repeatedly falling into sin and pride. In the Doctrine and Covenants, we read: “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion” (D&C 121:39).

Because humans are fallen and have a tendency to misuse power, government should be structured so that bad actors have a hard time oppressing others. The checks-and-balances system among the three branches of government outlined in the Constitution allows human nature to be used against itself. Instead of relying on the goodwill of leaders, the three-branch government relies on the fact that each branch of government will become jealous of the other’s power, and “check” the other. In a way, the problem becomes the solution. 

“Ambition is one of the more ungovernable passions of the human heart,” John Adams wrote. “The love of power is insatiable and uncontrollable. There is danger from all men. The only maxim of the free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”

When humans ignore or deny this tendency, tyrants have an opening. Many revolutions result in another tyrant. The perpetrators of the French Revolution were upset by the aristocracy’s abuse of power, but they themselves became abusers of power.

Because of fallen human nature, it’s remarkable that our system of government has lasted as long as it has. Our ingenious system has stayed in operation longer than any other government in the world with a written charter. This is because the Constitution relies on the realities of human nature demonstrated through scripture and historical reflection.

Latter-day Saints believe in a war in heaven, where Satan rebelled because he wanted to destroy the agency of man (Moses 4:3). “The warfare is continued in mortality in the conflict between right and wrong,” the Bible Dictionary entry under War in Heaven reads, “between the gospel and false principles, etc. The same contestants and the same issues are doing battle, and the same salvation is at stake.”

We came to earth under God’s plan of agency, where Jesus Christ’s atonement enables us to make choices for ourselves, instead of being forced or excused by the lack of law or consequence. “Choosing” to follow God wouldn’t matter much if we were forced to do it by Satan or an earthly tyrant. As Princeton’s Robert P. George argues, authentic religious belief “cannot, by its very nature, be established by coercion.”

God cares about government and how we are governed. He cares about whether government leaders or voters desire to seek to exercise unrighteous dominion over others, even under the guise of noble political pursuits. The Book of Mormon teaches, “Because all men are not just, it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you” (Mosiah 29:16). The Book of Mormon also outlines the tendencies governments have toward collapsing because of corruption.

The signing of the Constitution was a great victory for moral agency. God established the constitution so that no man “should be in bondage one to another” (D&C 101:79). Under its principles, no one political leader can gain control of a whole nation. While there have been varieties of corruption from the founding of the nation to today, our system still operates with those same three branches of government.

If you have the capacity to eat a cookie on National Cookie Day, you likely have the capacity to pick up a pocket constitution this September 17 and give it a read. It’s striking to see how the checks and balances were designed to work, and how carefully the founders limited federal power. At the very least, say a prayer to God thanking Him for the wise men He raised up and continues to raise up. The Constitution remains one of the great blessings of our time.

The post The Constitution Was Built on Human Weakness, Not Idealism appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

In the fall of each year, the Jewish people observe a holiday called Sukkot, or the Feast of the Tabernacles. This holiday commemorates the miraculous protection God provided to the Children of Israel during their 40-year journey to the promised land. During this week-long celebration, worshippers re-enact aspects of this monumental journey to varying degrees, in particular by worshipping inside a booth called a sukkah, which is intended to represent the tents in which the Children of Israel dwelt, and the cloud, which shadowed and protected the travelers by day. 

While observers typically strive to at least eat all of their meals in the sukkah (including certain symbolic foods), more orthodox observers try to spend as much time in the symbolic dwelling as possible, reciting prayers and reading the Torah. The week culminates with the end of the cycle of Torah reading for the year, after which the cycle immediately begins again. The Feast of the Tabernacles is a joyous holiday, intended both to remember the goodness of God to the Jewish people and to inspire practitioners to turn the spiritual insights of the season into spiritual growth and devotion over the coming year.

In a quite peculiar tradition sometimes disparagingly referred to as “pioneer LARPing,” we send thousands of teenagers into the wild each summer to re-enact the momentous journey of our ancestors across the plains to our own modern promised land, complete with costumes and working handcarts (albeit with much better footwear and supply chain operations). We are a “peculiar people,” and Trek is one quite peculiar example of that. 

For those not familiar with the practice, a Pioneer Trek reenactment is a large-scale camping and hiking activity for youth ages 14-18 put on by the Church at the local level. Typically, the youth dress in pioneer-style clothing, pack everything for the trip (except food) into a sleeping bag and a 5-gallon bucket, and divide into groups or “families” which each work together to pull their own hand carts with all their belongings for three to five days of hiking. During this time, they play pioneer era games, have religious devotionals, learn about real pioneers, and share family history.

Though there were a few instances of Pioneer Trek re-enactments beginning in the 60s, they first gained real popularity among the saints in the United States in 1997, the year of the Mormon Pioneer Trail Sesquicentennial Celebration. The idea quickly caught on, and suddenly, stakes all over the United States, as well as some in other countries, began routinely holding Treks for their youth. Today, most stakes in the United States, as well as many others internationally, hold Trek once every four years for all the youth in their area.

Although it is sometimes criticized as pointless, unnecessarily difficult, or too expensive, Trek is generally quite popular (as evidenced by the thousands of youth who sign up each year) and fulfills an important role in our religious culture. Like the exodus of the Children of Israel in the Old Testament, the Latter-day Saint exodus to the Salt Lake Valley was a defining event in church history. Thousands of faithful saints trekked thousands of miles by wagon or handcart, facing trials that beggar comparison in the 21st-century United States. They left behind everything they knew, buried loved ones along the trail, and in some cases never even saw our own “promised land” in the Salt Lake Valley. For many years, most members of the Church could trace their ancestry directly back to the pioneers, and pioneer stories were told and retold as part of rich family histories.

Not by coincidence, the sudden surge in interest in Trek closely followed a huge surge of growth in the Church (between 1947 and 1997, the Church rapidly grew from about 1 million members to about 10 million). Within the span of a few decades, the Church suddenly had an enormous number of members who did not have direct pioneer heritage. The history of the pioneers achieved a new place within our culture—a way to connect us both to literal ancestors, pioneer stock or not, as well as to our spiritual forbears in the faith, regardless of actual ancestry. In this sense, Trek is another way in which the Old Testament prophecy is fulfilled, that the spirit of Elijah would “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers.”

The Church’s official guide for Trek leaders states that the goal of Trek is to provide opportunities for youth to “strengthen testimonies, build unity, do family history, learn and appreciate Church history, feel gratitude for the sacrifices of the pioneers and the heritage they provided, appreciate their blessings more fully, seek and find guidance to overcome challenges, focus on serving and rescuing others, [and] learn core gospel principles.” In essence, those excellent goals are accomplished in a few days of hiking by teaching our youth resilience at two levels.

The second and even more important way that this experience teaches resilience is by teaching the reason for that resilience. Several studies have shown that storytelling and family history have a positive effect on identity formation by helping people find a secure place within a family narrative that extends beyond themselves. President Russell M. Nelson said, “When our hearts turn to our ancestors, something changes inside us. We feel part of something greater than ourselves.” 

By connecting their own personal experience of overcoming challenges to the experience of the pioneers, youth on Trek can make a connection between the strength their ancestors (literal, spiritual, or both) drew upon and what they can also draw upon when facing the difficulties of life. That strength is, of course, the enabling power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, as the central point of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In speaking of connecting to our pioneer ancestors, Elder Russell M. Ballard said, “I have a deep conviction that if we lose our ties to those who have gone before us, including our pioneer forefathers and mothers, we will lose a very precious treasure. I have spoken about “Faith in Every Footstep” in the past and will continue in the future because I know that rising generations must have the same kind of faith that the early Saints had in the Lord Jesus Christ and His restored gospel.” The stories of the pioneers are filled with ways in which they drew upon the hope and strength of the gospel, so newly restored, to persevere through incredible challenges and tragedies. 

President Dallin H. Oaks said, “It is not enough to study or reenact the accomplishments of our pioneers. We need to identify the great, eternal principles they applied to achieve all they achieved for our benefit and then apply those principles to the challenges of our day. In that way, we honor their pioneering efforts, and we also reaffirm our heritage and strengthen its capacity to bless our own posterity and “those millions of our Heavenly Father’s children who have yet to hear and accept the gospel of Jesus Christ.” We are all pioneers in doing so.”

When young people are able to connect to their histories and see their place in a tradition of faith and courage, they are able to go forward in life with confidence, even if that confidence was discovered in the peculiar garb of a 19th century bonnet, a pair of suspenders, or a week in a modern tabernacle.

The post The Sacred Psychology of Pulling a Handcart appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

On April 21, 2025, Pope Francis, 266th Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, passed away. At that time, the Catholic Church entered a sede vacante period, which is Latin for “the chair is vacant.” On May 7, 2025, the College of Cardinals, 135 of which are eligible to vote but only 133 will participate, will convene in the Sistine Chapel to elect a successor to Pope Francis. Who will it be? What could this mean for the future of the Catholic Church and other Christians? This article will attempt to answer these questions.

How The Conclave Works

If you’ve seen the movie Conclave, you already have a somewhat accurate picture of how a papal election works. The College of Cardinals—comprised of Catholic leaders from around the world—gathers to elect the man they believe is best suited to lead the Church’s 1.4 billion members.

Technically, any baptized male is eligible, but the pope is almost always chosen from among the cardinals. To be elected, a candidate must receive a two-thirds majority—about 90 votes, depending on attendance. The voting will begin on May 7 and continue until a new pontiff is chosen. Once elected, the pope must accept the role and choose a regnal name—the name by which he will be known throughout his pontificate. Afterward, the ballots are burned. If a pope has been elected, white smoke will rise from the Sistine Chapel chimney, signaling to the world that a new leader has been chosen. He will then appear before the public in St. Peter’s Square.

Why the Conclave Matters

Whether you are a Catholic or not, the outcome of this conclave is of vital importance. Ever since the Second Vatican Council concluded in 1965, where the church issued proclamations on revelation, liturgy, religious liberty, ecumenism, and even the church itself, the state of the Catholic Church has been one where no one is sure exactly where the Church is headed. This is in large part because there is no universal consensus on how to interpret that council. Some see it as not a radical break with the past, but merely some updating and non-fundamental change. This is known as the hermeneutic of continuity, which Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI championed. Others see the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the Catholic tradition and long for a return to the church as it was in the past. This position is most associated with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s Society of Pius X and Catholics who refer to themselves as Traditionalists. Others see Vatican II as progress and want to see more reform and a greater break with the past. Pope Francis and his supporters generally fall into this camp. Which camp will prevail is unknown, and thus the future of the Catholic Church is unknown. The next pope will play a significant role in determining where the Catholic Church is headed, for better or worse.

But if you are not a Catholic, this upcoming conclave is still of value to you, especially if you are a Christian. This is because the Second Vatican Council emphasized ecumenism, and the three different camps hold different opinions on the topic. For example, Traditionalist Catholics often reject it, believing that unity can only be achieved through conversion to Catholicism. Others, like Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis, champion interfaith outreach.

The pope’s influence also extends beyond religion. As the sovereign of Vatican City and a representative at the United Nations, the pope has diplomatic and moral influence across political and humanitarian spheres as a member state.

By next week, the Catholic Church will likely have a new pope—and potentially a new trajectory. Who it will be, and what his leadership will mean, remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: the days ahead will not be dull.

As a convert to Catholicism and a committed Traditionalist, I don’t claim to be an impartial observer. But no matter the outcome, I intend to follow the counsel of Pope Boniface VIII in his papal bull Unam Sanctam: to submit to the authority of the newly elected pontiff.

The post A Church in Waiting: A Conclave of Possibility appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

We see Gessius Florus attack a temple in the middle of these folks. And then we see this sect, in revenge, slaughter the Roman soldiers. While this is happening, we cut back to the leader of this traitorous sect, someone named Jesus, and we hear him give a voiceover to the violence.

“The strong shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after blood: for they shall be filled. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Those who do not bear fruit will be cut down.”

Now, as a Christian you might be rather upset with a show of this type. As a Christian, you’re probably rather fond of Jesus, and this retelling of his life is blatantly inaccurate. But how do you articulate that?

If you argue that this Jesus is clearly not historical, the retort is simple. This isn’t a History Channel show; it’s a historical epic set in a history-inspired setting.

If you argue that words have been put in Jesus’ mouth, the retort is simple. Lots of the words are what He said. And you have to grant artistic license. Since Jesus did, in fact, say He came to bring a sword, the other changes are simply to make His character make more sense.

If you argue that this depiction is appallingly offensive to the more than a billion Christians around the world, the retort is simple once again. Grow up. People are allowed to tell stories about you. You should be mature enough to recognize historical fiction for what it is.

Yet, for all these well-articulated retorts, I hope you recognize that this would still be wrong. And because the Christian movement more generally has enough cultural cachet in the US, we would never really expect a show like this to hit our cultural zeitgeist.

I’m sorry to report that a show of just this type has been made and will be released on Netflix on January 9th. Of course, as you might predict, the target of this show’s attacks is not Christians more generally, but rather my own specific religious faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The show is called “American Primeval,” and it is Netflix’s latest attempt to capture the ratings magic of “Game of Thrones.” It features multiple factions, all striving for power and using whatever means they can to achieve it. 

But just like “Game of Thrones” was based on England’s War of Roses, “American Primeval” is based on the settling of the American West. And instead of changing the names around, it would be as if we just called Joffrey Edward III to make it feel more historically accurate. 

But it’s worse than that because the character that “American Primeval” chooses to make into a violent mockery of himself isn’t George Q. Cannon, who was a representative to Congress, or William Jennings the influential mayor of Salt Lake City. It’s Brigham Young—a man I believe God called to be a prophet.

Brigham Young led the Church of Jesus Christ at a precarious time. The state of Missouri threatened to kill any Latter-day Saint in the state and we suffered the massacres to prove they would follow through. The Saints built a new city in Illinois, only for a mob to assassinate their leader and prophet, Joseph Smith. Mobs then began to burn farms on the outskirts of town. Brigham Young led them out, and those who didn’t go were forcibly expelled the next year at gunpoint.

There is no need to paper over history here. Brigham Young also had racist attitudes about Native Americans. The Latter-day Saints he led didn’t always follow his counsel. And as with nearly every other group of settlers in the US there was conflict. 

But this is a far stretch from the violent murderer that appears in Netflix’s new television series under the name of Brigham Young.

The problem is that “American Primeval” is a pretty good show. It would be easier if I could just tell you that it’s all trash and easy to ignore. But the production design is great, and the acting performances are good. It always takes a good bit of luck to find the next big show, but “American Primeval” is good enough that it wouldn’t surprise me if it becomes one. And even when it comes to Latter-day Saints, the producers have relied on former Latter-day Saint and anti-Mormon activist Lindsay Hansen Park, so they get a lot of the cultural “feel” right too.

But in reality, the fact that the show is good makes the problem worse.  

The persecution that Brigham Young dealt with in his time has hardly gone away. Since 2020, Latter-day Saint chapels have been attacked 47 times. And the last time the FBI reported on the matter, hate crimes against Latter-day Saints were on the rise.

When McKay Coppins, a journalist for the Atlantic, spoke to BYU’s Quarterback Jake Retzlaff, a Jewish man, Retzlaff said he faces way more anti-Mormonism than anti-Semitism. Coppins observed that Retzlaff is “less scandalized by the heckling than the lack of outrage it seems to engender. Retzlaff said, “The blatant disrespect for their faith—it’s something to think about. What if there was a Jewish university that had a Jewish football team, and they were saying that in the stands? … Like, imagine if that hit the papers. That would be a big deal.”

Throughout history, one of the most effective attempts to marginalize religious or other minority groups is to paint them as inherently violent. “American Primeval” is now the second major prestige drama to do just that. “Under the Banner of Heaven” was another well-made drama that told a story about a couple of murderers who were excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but attempted to somehow paint all Latter-day Saints as violent. American Primeval is now doing the same by telling a fictional story about a real leader who would never do what he is being shown doing.

This is odd because the best available evidence suggests that Latter-day Saints were less violent in the 19th century, and they remain less violent today. 

Netflix and Lindsay Hansen Park’s choice to defame Brigham Young under the pretense of “fiction” says very little about Brigham Young and Latter-day Saints in the 19th century or today. All it tells us is that the larger culture disfavors Latter-day Saints, and we don’t have the cachet to prevent this kind of treatment.

The post Netflix’s American Primeval: The Prejudiced Fiction of Brigham Young appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

“Surreal.” That’s all my mind could conjure on the morning of September 11, 2001. I was sitting in the waiting area of the old Moran Eye Center on Salt Lake City’s east bench. The entire wall across from me was a window, giving me a majestic view of the entire valley below. I was watching plane after plane glide from left to right and land at the Salt Lake International Airport. “So many planes.” Each one’s descent caused me to descend into greater anxiety and fear.

When I arrived to have the stitches removed from the corneal transplant in my right eye, everything already felt surreal. I had already heard the news of the second plane striking the World Trade Center and knew our nation was under attack. Just as I sat down in the waiting room, news broke of yet another plane hitting the Pentagon. “Surreal.” Then, the South Tower collapsed. I remember watching the inverse mushroom cloud engulf Lower Manhattan and thinking, “How is that even possible? There must be tens of thousands dead.”

While all civilian flights were being forced to land, reports continued of other hijacked aircraft. My eyes kept switching from the television to the endless parade of planes crossing the valley. From my vantage point, each one seemed headed straight for the Church Office Building of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with its eerily similar architecture to the Twin Towers. “Is one hijacked?” Fear overwhelmed me. “This can’t be happening. Surreal.” Suddenly, loud gasps, including mine, filled the room as the North Tower collapsed. Everyone reflexively looked at one another, confusion, shock, almost desperation, in our eyes. “What’s next? Surreal.”

“Dr. Lundergan,” I said, “I can wait or come back another day.” This stoic professional broke down, dropping the tweezers as her hands sought unsuccessfully to hide her tears. I stood up and weakly offered, “It’s OK. We’re all having a really bad day.”

“No, no. My husband is still on a plane,” she blurted out between deep sobs. His flight had departed from Boston, the same airport as the first hijacked airliner. My heart filled with sympathy and sorrow. I embraced her, a relative stranger, and tried my best to reassure her. After a few moments, she excused herself.

Sometime later, Dr. Lundergan returned relieved, even joyful. Her husband had called her from Chicago, where his flight had landed. Her expert hand steadily removed the stitches on my eye. I thanked her, and she, embracing me this time, replied, “And thank you.”

As I returned to work, that tender moment gave me some momentary hope. It was soon dashed by fear and anxiety as I listened to the news and worried about the world my young sons would inherit. I drove past the World-Trade-Center-look-alike Church Office Building, with hundreds of evacuated employees fleeing to safety. As my anxiety deepened, I saw the Salt Lake Temple. At that moment, I felt the words, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” That intense feeling of “the peace of God, which passeth all understanding” filled my heart and mind. It was, well, surreal—beyond reality.

Surrealism’s greatest advocate, André Breton, described the movement as a way “to resolve the previously contradictory conditions of dream and reality.” The tragedy of 9/11 was a surreal nightmare, yet what followed in the days, weeks, and even months was a surreal sense of national unity. It seemed the “resolving” of raw reality with the elusive dream of a people “of one heart and mind,” “having their hearts knit together in unity,” with “no contention one with another” who “mourn with those that mourn; who “are willing to bear one another’s burdens,” and who “[dwell] in righteousness.” 

America experienced a strong trauma bond, from the tens of thousands directly affected by the attacks to the hundreds of millions who experienced it through media coverage. In Pew’s survey just days after the attacks, 92% of Americans responded they felt sad, 77% felt frightened, and 71% felt depressed. Yet, three weeks later, the rates had already halved. As a nation, we “mourned with” and “comforted” one another.

Much of this healing came from a nation turning to God with “hearts knit in prayer,” greater religious observance, and most importantly, an increase in character “righteousness.” Before the attacks, Pew found that only 37% felt religion’s role in American life was increasing. A month after 9/11, that number was 78%, the highest ever recorded. Furthermore, in a survey following the attacks, 69% responded that they prayed more, and 16% that they attended religious services more. 

Most importantly, the character of the nation improved. As one study showed, people exhibited sharply increased “gratitude, hope, kindness, leadership, love, spirituality, and teamwork” in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. Diminished, yet still elevated levels persisted even 10 months later. The authors wrote, “The theological virtues allowed people to enhance their sense of belonging in ways that could be self-perpetuating. In the immediate aftermath of September 11, people behaved differently by turning to others, which in turn changed their social worlds so that the relevant behaviors were rewarded and thus maintained.”

Politically, the nation was of “one mind.” George W. Bush, the winner of a controversial election, saw his approval rating go from 50% to an astounding 90%, again, the highest ever recorded. Patriotism soared. Eighty percent of citizens displayed an American flag outside their residence. Levels of trust in the federal government hit 60%, a number not seen since 1968. News organizations received a record 70% approval. 

That unity even spread to other nations. It was most palpable when Salt Lake City hosted the 2002 Winter Olympics just five months after 9/11. On the evenings my wife and I attended the medal ceremonies downtown, I remember the strong feeling of solidarity between people from all across the world. The intense unity in the opening and closing ceremonies was unforgettable. I remember thinking, “This is how Zion will be; this is how the Millennium will feel.”

On the one-year anniversary of 9/11, while the intensity of the unity had faded, its afterglow was still vibrant. In a devotional that night, then-church president Gordon B. Hinckley noted, “We know that much good has come of these dreadful circumstances. From the smoke and ashes of New York, Washington, D.C., [and] Pennsylvania…has arisen a greater sense of unity and purpose.” In that same meeting, James E. Faust noted, “These ignoble acts of terrorism reawakened in all of us an appreciation for our blessed land. Out of this disaster have come hundreds of stories of courageous acts of unselfishness and heroism.”

September 11 is officially Patriot Day and a Day of Service and Remembrance. We who lived through that time surely remember the surreal nightmare of 9/11, the stories of the courageous, patriotic men and women of that time, and especially the memories of the victims. The National September 11 Memorial Museum’s motto, taken from the Aeneid, declares in large letters of recovered World Trade Center steel, “No Day Shall Erase You From the Memory of Time.”

Tragically, however, the surreal national unity was erased, or as another society once proclaimed, “ZION IS FLED.” The chart below demonstrates just how far we are from those precious months of national unity, patriotism, and loving service.

There are many reasons that our surreal unity evaporated. Chief among them was how short-lived the post-9/11 religious revival was. A study on young adults’ responses to 9/11 put it best. The attacks “exerted only modest and short-lived effects” on religiosity and spirituality. What it said of young adults was true for most of the populace. “[T]urning toward religion simply helped them get through the aftermath of the event, but was not something that resulted in any considerable religious or spiritual change.” Later polling demonstrated that it was “largely those already highly religious” whose increased religiosity and spirituality endured.

In the Book of Mormon, the Nephite civilization repeatedly went through similar experiences. After a period of prosperity, peace, unity, and righteousness, pride led society into “ranks” or “classes” based on wealth, education, and political power. As a result, internal discord brought civil wars and/or societal weakness that enemies exploited with war. Following those societal traumas, the humbled people generally repented and found a new season of peace and unity—only to fall again. This seems the reality of not just Nephite history, but history in general. An enduring period of unity and peace for a people or a nation is truly surreal—“beyond reality.” 

And yet, many of us experienced it, if only briefly, after 9/11. While we were “compelled to be humble,” most Americans chose “repentance,” and chose to change. We passed, again, if only briefly, what Elder Dale G. Renlund in 2021 likened to a cardiac stress test. However, our society has transformed greatly since 2001. Many cultural, religious, political, technological, and institutional changes have left us fractured like the late 1960s and early 1970s, if not the late 1850s.

As a nation, we generally failed the 2020 pandemic and presidential election stress test. Divisiveness, distrust, and anger have all increased dramatically. The results were mixed and certainly not good enough within the Church. As Elder Renlund put it, “The spiritual stress test [of the pandemic/political environment] has shown tendencies toward contention and divisiveness. This suggests that we have work to do to change our hearts and to become unified as the Savior’s true disciples.”

There will continue to be societal stress tests until He comes whose right it is to reign. Along with many others, I believe the next six months will be one of those tests. Regardless of how the nation performs, the Church of Jesus Christ, the covenant people of the Lord, need to pass the test!

I encourage us on this year’s Patriots’ Day and Day of Service and Remembrance to solemnly remember those we lost and to remember the lost, surreal post-9/11 national unity. We must do the hard work of unity in the Church, in our communities, and in the nation. We can serve one another, particularly those we disagree with. We can ask the questions Elder Renlund posed. “What can I do to foster unity? How can I respond to help this person draw closer to Christ? What can I do to lessen contention and to build a compassionate and caring Church community?”

And we can be patriots. As President James E. Faust said at the September 11, 2002 devotional:

We, as [American] citizens, are among the most favored of any of God’s children ever to live under any government on the earth. This is still true despite our country’s many challenges and difficulties. With all of these favored circumstances come the responsibilities and duties of citizenship. We should be participants, not merely bystanders, in the processes of democracy to ‘preserve us as a nation.’

We must choose to be the surreality that, to paraphrase Breton, resolves the contradictory conditions of the dream of Zion and the reality of human society. Let us choose to be surreal.

The post Reflections on 9/11: Why America’s Unity Didn’t Last appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

In July 1847, the first company of pioneers viewed the Great Salt Lake Valley from the mouth of Emigration Canyon. It was reported that Brigham Young, who was ill in his carriage, raised his head and gazed intently to the west. Then he said, “It is enough. This is the right place. Drive on.”

Each July 24, throughout Utah, parades, celebrations, and century-old traditions mark the day which represents the pioneers’ trek to freedom and a new beginning. This day honors the determination and hard work of the pioneers who made the difficult journey to Utah. In an effort to highlight this holiday, Public Square Magazine took the time to talk with Tresha Kramer, public relations and marketing director of This Is The Place Heritage Park, a state park that commemorates these amazing pioneers, their journey, and their life in the settlement of the Salt Lake Valley.

Public Square Magazine: Could you tell us why This Is The Place is so significant? 

Tresha: I feel like it is so significant because it is literally the cultural and heritage/historical anchor of our community when you consider it represents the founding of Utah. It is, of course, founded by the pioneers in terms of settlement and establishment, but This Is The Place also celebrates the Native American story because we recognize they were here long before the pioneers. We do talk a lot about the cooperation between the natives and the pioneers because they helped the pioneers thrive during the early difficult years. Yes, there were conflicts, but there were also great times of peace and partnership. 

This Is The Place tells that story, and it also gives a snapshot of what it took to create the multicultural community we have today. I believe there were dozens of languages spoken when the pioneers first came into the valley. Today when guests ride the trains, many of them will wonder why a chair is perched on the roof of a building. In pioneer times, the chair was an advertisement for a furniture or cabinet shop. Boot shops were often known by the iron fixture in the shape of a boot hanging near the entrance. These icons helped overcome the language barriers in the new and very diverse settlement. In spite of many challenges the pioneers faced, their shared goal of seeking religious freedom was a unifying force.  

This is very significant because the banner of freedom is something I speak about frequently when I’m hosting groups that come from all over the world. The one thing I have found that unites almost every human heart is the desire to be free. The pioneers were refugees seeking freedom to worship as they pleased, and as I share their story I witness people identifying and making a connection with the pioneers because most cultures have a similar story in recent or past history. We strive to have the stories and engaging activities at the Park that tie back to the characteristics of the pioneers that helped Utah thrive as a brand-new territory. They had to have grit, determination, cooperation, partnerships, and friendships. Everything we do at the park reinforces all of those principles, and you have a lot of fun learning about them.

PSM: I had not thought about the park before in terms of representing freedom and what it can represent for different groups of people. What is a main highlight or a few main highlights about the park? 

Tresha: One of the highlights of the last few years is the Pioneer Children’s Memorial. The memorial pays tribute to the children who died on the journey to Utah, and it is one of the most beautiful features of the park. It is very, very popular and speaks to the hearts of both the young and old. I am always amazed this is universally one of the most moving places people love to visit. 

A BYU professor did the research and found over 650 names of children who died on the trail and did not have a permanent resting place or gravestone to mark their names. Today, their names are engraved on beautiful giant stones and their story is recorded along a picturesque trail that goes through these winding oaks up to the top of the hill, where a monument is placed named Journey’s End.  The monuments were cast in bronze by the husband and wife team Roger and Stefanie Hunt, and tell stories through these symbolic markers. For example, in one place, there is a big wagon with a family crossing a river, representing the crossing of the Sweet Water River. Even some of the rocks in this little river display were brought from the actual Sweet Water River.

At each stopping point, there is a 2-3 minute explanation of the bronze statue display and accompanying story. Each story also highlights a specific characteristic that we hope the young will be especially touched by. Specifically, there is a story at the beginning of the Pioneer Children’s Memorial about a young girl named Bodil Mortensen who left Europe when she was 9 or 10 years old. She was brave as she walked down the wharf, left her family, and boarded the ship alone to come to America to meet her sister, who had joined the Church of Jesus Christ and had already arrived in Utah. Little Bodil perished in the freezing cold before she was able to be reunited with her sister.  It’s one example of the incredible stories told through this memorial. It was dedicated in 2019 and is a beloved feature.

One of the other real highlights is the handcart pull. This is something guests wanted for a long time and we just needed to have enough handcarts in circulation to make it a good experience. People can now experience what it was like to pull a handcart, and it’s been fun and very popular. Panning for gold and pony rides are probably two of the top sites for visitor fun, along with a Prospectors’ Pit where children can dig for gemstones. The trains are very fun to ride throughout the park and make it easy for guests to get to all the historical homes, activities, and shops. 

PSM: Why do you feel like it is important for us to preserve this part of history? How is this relevant for us now? 

Tresha: It is truly the mission of our park and employees to have people come and spark their imagination on what it really took to get something done back in these times. Guests are able to have fun but are also taught about the pioneers and their lives in a way that is genuine and authentic. They can go wash clothing on a washboard and understand how it used to be and how it is different from what we know today in this modern and convenient era. They can come away with a great appreciation for the luxuries of today. It is something that connects us to valuable traits that we need today. Especially for our young people where so much of their time is with a screen in their hand. That just seems to melt away when you are at the park; you don’t often see children on their phones, they are really engaged. That is something we always hope to offer. A moment to step back in time!

The principles of success that helped the pioneers be successful are the same ones that will help us be successful today. Traits like determination, patience, love, friendship. Stories like the ones the pioneers lived can help connect young people to feel inspired. It can also help them feel more connected to their own individual family history. We really do have a lot of people who come through and feel inspired to learn more about their own history and their ancestors. Even as they come from different backgrounds, cultures, and religions, This Is The Place can connect people to stories shared in this historical state park, peaking their imagination and curiosity to look into their own family tree and wonder where they came from and just maybe, they too can be a modern-day pioneer!  We want to spark their imagination and desire to feel connected to the past and live by the principles that made the pioneers great; this is an integral part of our mission and story.

The post History in Motion: The Living Legacy of This Is The Place Heritage Park appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

I grew up hearing the oft-used justifications for the nude sculptures of antiquity and assurances that they were innocent rather than prurient or even sexual. As a kid, I was skeptical of these justifications, but my doubts only grew as I grew older and read more Greek literature. 

Sexual humor and references abound in Aristophanes’ Assembly Women, a play so lewd that the Victorian translation I initially picked up was excessively opaque as to purposely veil the original text’s meaning. Plato’s Symposium reveals the prevalence of sexual relationships between older mentors and young students. Metamorphosis is replete with tales of lust, adultery, and rape. Sexual exploitation of both women and men was rampant in both ancient Greek and Roman cultures.

Art vs. Pornography: Where Is the Line?

In light of these cultural trends, one would be hard-pressed to find evidence that nudity in Greek art was innocent. Despite this, one of the most common and seldom-questioned assumptions in the art world is that nudity in art is different from nudity elsewhere.

I concede that distinctions exist between art and pornography. Unlike pornography, art is not likely to be addictive. Additionally, its primary purpose is not to arouse, though judging by the number of artists who slept with their models, that could be argued differently. However, the differences are still widely understated. Art may feel different than modern pornography because, unlike modern pornography, art elicits feelings of awe for the expert workmanship and technique. The admiration a work inspires may be confused with a feeling that the featured nudity is moral. We see value in the artistry and think we must condone the nudity to reconcile our appreciation for it.  

I think people assume that in order to defend classic artwork, they must defend nudity, which is not necessarily true. Perhaps we should view nudity in art the way we view offensive ideas like sexism in classic literature; we shouldn’t condone it, but we can refrain from “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” and continue to appreciate the work’s genius. We can disapprove of the nudity while appreciating the historical importance and artistic achievement. For the most part, however, arguments defending nudity are like defending Babylon. 

After years of studying art history, I finally traveled to Europe to see the famous works I’d long studied. However, I was surprised by how different I felt viewing works without nudity. Sculptures and paintings of clothed women filled me with a sense of majesty, dignity, and appreciation for the beauty of womanhood in ways that nudes could not, no matter how expertly crafted. Though I’ve long valued works such as Liberty Leading the People, there was undeniably a different spirit about works with clothed figures. After walking through the aisle of statues of queens and notable women of France in the Jardin du Luxembourg, the depictions of nude women felt exploitative and sacrilegious. 

Many say that covering women is teaching them to shame their bodies, but I think the opposite is true. The female body is sacred, and seeing it entirely displayed feels disrespectful, almost like exposing temple rituals to the world. Not to mention that behind every nude figure is a real model who had to undress for artists, many of whom were not as virtuous as we might like to admit. Similarly, many claim that those who feel discomfort when viewing nudity are perverted and at fault. However, discomfort does not equal arousal when viewing nudity and can still bother the viewer. Instead, it could be recognized as a feeling connected to an unhallowed uncovering of something sacred.  

Similarly, many sophisticated people justify sex in more recent literature and film. It is commonly argued that portraying sex and violence in fiction is justifiable because it depicts reality. To an extent, this is true, but I reject the notion that we need explicit portrayals to do so. Les Misérables, Anna Karenina, Tess of the D’Urbervilles, and A Tale of Two Cities all deal with difficult themes such as prostitution, adultery, and rape; however, they do so without graphic depictions. Readers are moved with sympathy for the plights of tragic heroines such as Tess and Fantine without being dealt detailed descriptions of sexual exploitation and other obscenities.

The word “obscene” derives from the Greek term “offstage,” referring to the practice of having violence and other jarring events in a play occur offstage. Gritty elements can be essential to the story, but the audience does not have to see them acted out before them. We seem to forget that fact when we justify explicit portrayals in literature and film. 

Watching Violence and Sex Can Hurt the Soul

I recently read a book by a Christian author defending the graphic violence and sex in a popular fantasy series because of what it shows about reality. However, watching violence and sex can hurt the soul, and justifications do not change that fact. It’s like putting candy in a salad and expecting the lettuce to counteract the damage from the sugar.

Art always has the purpose of entertaining. We know this because if a story does not interest us, we rarely continue reading or watching it. If it is not interesting or engaging, we consider it a failure on the part of the artist. Yes, art can have other tandem purposes, such as 

education or enlightenment, but entertainment is always a part of it. That is why certain portrayals, even if based on the realities of life, can seem exploitative or voyeuristic. The fact that the material is based on reality does not justify seeking it out.  

Art Should Inspire, Not Exploit

Just as the assumption that nudity in Ancient Greek sculpture was innocent and pure is unsubstantiated, our excuses for sex in modern literature and film are similarly specious. This matters because it is undeniable that what we view affects our views and shapes us. The fact that art affects us has never been disputed; it is only how it affects us that is up for debate. It has been too long since nudity in high art has been given a full cultural examination.

Related Articles 

• Child exploitation on Pornhub is just another reason Section 230 needs an overhaul
• The Moral Foundation of the Pro-life Position
• How a Failed Dance Class Taught Me the True Meaning of Belonging

The post The Myth of Artistic License: When Art Becomes Exploitative appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Modern peoples observe the violence, slavery, colonialism, sexism, racism, and homophobia of the previous ages and conclude that those people were oblivious to the blatant sins of their time. However, today “we know better,” due to our perceived enlightenment.

Answers to the ‘sin’ of our time usually reflect an underlying belief that the trends in society since the 1960s will continue unabated and that future generations will judge us for not being sufficiently advanced in our behaviors, education, and intellectual and political discourse. Common answers about the ‘sin’ of our time include not giving women enough rights, allowing our world to disintegrate through climate change, failing to acknowledge transgender and other related LGBTQIA+ movements, and not giving developing countries the help and rights they deserve on a world scale. Other answers include entitlements, which they believe those in the future will be surprised we didn’t have, such as universal health care or a basic universal income.

The common theme of this answer suggests that many Americans today share an ideology that history is deterministically linear. They believe that history will necessarily move in one direction, the direction it is currently moving. 

This idea has become more assumed than perhaps ever before. It was articulated by Alexandre Kojève, the French philosopher who was the father of the European Union. Kojève expressed that the Western liberal order represented the “end of history.” While Kojève’s work was influential in political change, Francis Fukuyama brought this idea to the masses in the 1990s and lodged it firmly in the imagination of today’s adults. 

To Kojève and Fukuyama, the phrase “end of history” meant that they believed today’s political systems were the endpoint of advancing ideologies. While we may have gone from feudalism and monarchy to communism and fascism, the progress of those ideas was over, and democracy had won. While these historic events would  continue to happen through time, the arc of history would always bend in the direction of the liberal world order.

While the popularity of these ideas made sense in the wake of the victory in World War II and the Cold War, the past thirty years have not been kind to Kojève or Fukuyama. Radical Islam, notably considered extremely conservative, has persevered as more than the mere roadblock that Kojève and Fukuyama predicted. Additionally, democratic reforms in Russia and China have reverted, creating the specter of an authoritarian world order.

Regardless of these setbacks, for the casual American thinker, there has been little change in the assumption that there exists an “arc of history” and that it bends in the same progressive direction as US politics have over the last sixty years. Even those who oppose this direction seem to accept the inevitability of the underlying premise. For example, one friend, in announcing her opposition to same-sex marriage laws, said she knew she was on the wrong side of history but wanted to be on the right side of God.

However, the set of assumptions I described as a “deterministically linear” view of history leaves us with two substantial blind spots. 

First, it blinds us to the excess of confidence in our own intellectual and moral prowess. Take, for instance, the popularity of eugenics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Several prominent eugenicists noted how the future would look down on their own age as primitive for not having universalized eugenics sooner. Nikola Tesla, a prominent advocate for eugenics, said, “The year 2100 will see eugenics universally established. … A century from now, it will no more occur to a normal person to mate with a person eugenically unfit than to marry a habitual criminal.” Not only was it presented as a legitimate vision for the future, its proponents saw it as the superior vision of the future. 

Eugenicists never imagined history would see them as extreme, corrupted, and morally depraved as we do today. The only judgment they imagined the future having for them is that they hadn’t gone far enough. This self-righteous aggrandizement is the same trait in those who can only imagine the future judging us for not going far enough in our liberal, individual-rights-based regime.

The second blindspot inherent in the deterministic linear view of history is that we can not fully appreciate the threat of old ideologies. It’s hard to spend too much time worrying about the threat of communism or authoritarianism when we’ve been assured that history’s endpoint will have rejected those ideas. On both the American right and left, authoritarian approaches are being adopted, perhaps naively assuming that history will necessarily prevent those tendencies from spiraling into an authoritarian state. 

This deterministically linear view of history has become baked into many of our media and educational institutions. For example, the fight for government-recognized same-sex marriage was often tied to the civil rights fights of African Americans, despite the fact that the substance of the movements was based on very different ideological backing.

These views each come with their own strengths and weaknesses. 

But as we approach the question of what the “sin” of our time is, what we are really wondering is where are the blind spots? How can we be better? And how do we want our communities to change in the future?

It’s more than a mere game; it’s an important question that gets to some of our most deeply held ideas. So rather than feeling trapped by our projection of a trajectory we had no role in creating, we ought to instead think of the question through the lens of first principles. 

Do we really want our culture to become even more individualistic? If not, maybe we can imagine a future where we don’t keep moving in that direction.

Do we want to risk our society falling into the traps of authoritarianism? If not, maybe we can take seriously the threat that old-fashioned ideologies still pose. 

What will be seen as the sin of our time? I can only guess. But I know it would be unwise to assume it will result from a deterministically linear historical progression. We owe ourselves and our future to have a bigger vision than that.

The post The Sin of the Era: Misreading the Lessons of History appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

On October 11th, there were already angry crowds on college campuses or blocking city streets, yelling, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!”. These crowds are still combining in America and other countries, becoming ever more threatening and violent. Anti-semitism is on the rise everywhere. In an article in the Wall Street Journal, Ron E. Hassner reported on a survey of 250 college students across the USA. 

Most said they supported the chant, some enthusiastically so (32.8%), and others to a lesser extent (53.2%). 

But only 47% of the students who embrace the slogan were able to name the river and the sea. Some of the alternative answers were the Nile and the Euphrates, the Caribbean, the Dead Sea (which is a lake), and the Atlantic. Less than a quarter of these students knew who Yasser Arafat was (12 of them, or more than 10%, thought he was the first prime minister of Israel). 

Asked in what decade Israelis and Palestinians had signed the Oslo Accords, more than a quarter of the chant’s supporters claimed that no such peace agreements had ever been signed. There’s no shame in being ignorant, unless one is screaming for the extermination of millions.

The demonstrators don’t seem to realize that the chant calls for the displacement or annihilation of 9.5 million people. True genocide. But it is almost as bad to say, “Israel is doing this for revenge,” “Israel is apartheid,” “Israel is purposely killing as many Gazans as it can,” “Israel is blocking aid to Gaza,” or any sort of pat statement that ignores the befuddling complexity that is the Middle East generally and the Israeli/Palestinian situation specifically. The cultures, behaviors, and beliefs of the Middle East and Israel/Palestine are almost completely unfathomable for Westerners, and the history must be mastered in detail to make sense. Once it makes sense, irony besets us and makes us pace and stammer. Our best experts are pulling their hair out. We can’t relax and think we know because we read the news.

On the Ground Now

Today is March 5, 2024, and Hamas, demanding the exchange of about 100 Israeli hostages for many more Palestinian prisoners, scuttled the newest peace deal by refusing to list the hostages remaining alive, thus prolonging Gazan’s suffering. Hamas could have saved tens of thousands of Gazan lives by accepting a previous offer from the Israeli government—just release the hostages and let your terrorist leadership leave Gaza safely into exile, and the war would end. Now, Bibi Netanyahu is working to find talented, moderate Gazans to organize the delivery of aid in northern Gaza and talented, moderate Gazans to establish a new Gazan government in order to rebuild. The trouble is that moderate Palestinians who attempt to lead tend to be assassinated.

Extremists are determining the ongoing situation. The people who suffer most from extreme Moslem fundamentalism are other Moslems. Years ago (1981), when jihadists assassinated Anwar Sadat, president of Egypt, who had just established detente with Israel, the assassins claimed that it didn’t matter how many people were killed as they tried to get to Sadat. They would all become martyrs for the cause and go to heaven. Does Hamas care how many Gazans suffer and die in this war? One Israeli commander said they were finding a tunnel under every school, hospital, mosque, and many private homes—part of a 350-mile network built with funds that could have made Gaza a Singapore. While Israel has spent billions of dollars to protect its own citizens (the Iron Dome and Iron Beam systems, defensive missiles, shelters, the Home Front Command), Hamas has spent nothing for defensive weapons development, nothing for bomb shelters, nothing on evacuation plans, and nothing on stockpiling food or resources in case of war. Its four leaders outside of Gaza are billionaires. Golda Meir, who was the Prime Minister during the Yom Kippur War, said, “Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.”

We’ve all noticed the intransigence of bordering Arab countries that adamantly refuse to accept Gazan refugees. There is an Egyptian entity that gets Gazans out if they pay enough. Few have been able to gather up the funds. Why have these countries closed their gates? The answer is that these countries have taken in Palestinians in the past. In Jordan, Palestinian extremists tried to assassinate the King and take over the country, then teamed up with Syria and triggered a full-scale war. They were ejected into Syria. The problems they caused there made Syria eject them into Lebanon. In Lebanon, they helped to trigger a years-long civil war. Lebanon is now a failed state. In Egypt, they fomented terrorist attacks. Egypt considers Hamas a dangerous terrorist group, so the border is closed. In Kuwait, they supported invading Iraqis. Kuwait ejected them after Iraq was defeated. In Gaza, Hamas killed at least 600 Fatah supporters. Children are groomed to be martyrs by Hamas, so the rising generation could be as radical as their parents. Meanwhile, moderate, innocent Palestinians suffer.

And then there’s the weather: If you’ve been reading the news, you know displaced Gazans have suffered from hypothermia and a few drenching rain storms. Israel essentially has only two seasons—summer (completely dry and hot) and winter (cold and wet). You get a couple of weeks of spring in March and a couple of weeks of fall in September. On April 15th, it will be summer and very hot, creating a new and awful host of problems for the homeless in Gaza. 

The Politics of Onlookers

The woke/left portion of Western leaders and followers tends to view the situation in Israel/Palestine as a simple case of white imperialists oppressing native people of color. Since the Jews of the world were originally from Israel, their DNA just barely differs from the DNA of the Arabs from the same area, even among the Jews whose recent ancestors emigrated to Israel from Europe. So, this supposition is false.

Both the left and right views have big problems. 

Warping History

Note how the study of students cited at the beginning of this article denied the existence of the Oslo Accords. Through those accords, “Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. [The PLO has been governing the West Bank since then. Abbas is now 88 years old.] Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held.” It sounds so good. But Fatah and the PLO are corrupt and inept and can’t possibly take over governing Gaza. In the vacuum left by departing Hamas, new leadership is necessary.

There have been many attempts to create deals for peace, and the Palestinian leadership has rejected nearly all of them because they want it all, as stated in Hamas’ charter, which calls for the genocide of Israel’s population.

Many in the West say that Israel doesn’t have the right to defend itself, and some say it doesn’t have the right to exist. History says they had no choice. No other country would accept Holocaust survivors. No one wanted the Jews. They were destitute and hated in Europe. No country outside Europe would take them as refugees. They were looking for somewhere they could gather and be safe and even considered locations in Africa and Nevada (!). Although the British were leery, they finally agreed that Palestine made sense. After all, that’s where the Jews came from. The Holy Land felt like the logical place to dump them, come what may. Surprisingly, the Jews prospered, made the desert bloom like a rose, bought property legally, and built military might that has thwarted enemies in every war they’ve had to fight. If they had remained poor desert dwellers, the modern landscape would be entirely different. Despite that success, Jews are barely recovering their numbers to pre-Holocaust figures (now at about 15.7 million, with over 8 million in Israel). Note that there are 2 billion Moslems, with about 382 million in the Middle East.

One thing you will hear often is that Palestinians want revenge for the “Nakba.” This refers back to 1948 when about 700,000 local Arabs fled as large Arab armies fought Israel. Israel, not yet being a country, had no standing army, just whatever they could cobble together. Historians squabble over whether the Jews chased out the local Arabs or whether the warring Arab countries encouraged them to leave while they defeated the Jews, the prospect being that they could return to their homes within weeks. According to Israel, the latter is true, but the Jews were happy to take advantage of the situation as they began to triumph. The Palestinians cry, “We will never forget!” meaning, “We will take revenge and get our land back. The Jews often use the same phrase—”We will never forget!” It means, “We will remember the Holocaust and keep all Jews safe.”

Regarding the Nakba, Palestinians leave out of their history the fact that about the same amount of Jews (around the same time) were violently driven out of Arab nations, and most of these Jewish refugees found shelter in Israel. Baghdad used to be 40% Jewish.

Understanding Culture

One thing that really bothers the countries of the Middle East is that Israel is a “Western” country. It has a Western mindset and is capitalistic and democratic. All around Israel, the culture is Oriental—it’s a communal shame culture, where the individual means little, it is humiliating to compromise, and for its extremist groups, revenge is admirable.

Did you see the Gazans rejoicing after their attack on southern Israel? The barbarity of the incursion didn’t matter. The sure and devastating response from Israel didn’t matter. This is a different culture. Culture is extremely powerful, and the West may never understand the reasoning in the Middle East.

Religion is Everything

This is a holy war. Hamas’ attack on Israel was called “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.” The Al-Aqsa mosque compound sits on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which also includes the Dome of the Rock, the oldest standing Islamic structure in the world, built from 688-692 AD. Tradition holds that Mohammed dreamed he ascended from there to heaven, although he never personally visited Jerusalem. The temple site in Jerusalem is Islam’s third holiest site. For Jews, of course, it is THE holy site, the site of Solomon’s Temple, Herod’s Temple, and in the future, the Messiah’s temple. 

Israel and Jews had no access to the Temple Mount until it won the Six Day War in 1967. Although Jews rejoiced to have access to their most holy site, they refrained from accessing it (except as infrequent tourists) out of respect for Islam. They left the mount under the management of the Jordanian Arab Waqf. Jews prayed instead at the Western Wall, which holds up the mount and was never part of the temple itself. For the Orthodox, this situation was less awful than it could have been because they feared stepping on the location of the ancient temple’s holy-of-holies—a possible sacrilege. Things have changed in the past few years. 

Fringe, ultra-religious Jewish groups have been encouraging their followers to pray openly at the Temple Mount. In 2019, at the end of the month of Ramadan, hundreds of Jewish ultra-nationalists entered the Al-Aqsa mosque compound to celebrate Jerusalem Day—the first time the Israeli authorities had allowed them to do this in 30 years. The mosque’s director bitterly complained that Israeli authorities had broken a promise not to enter during the final days of Ramadan.

In April 2023, amid rumors on social media of Jews heading to the Temple Mount to perform an animal sacrifice, Palestinian rioters illegally barricaded themselves inside the Al-Aqsa Mosque. In response, Israeli police entered the compound and raided the mosque … arresting those inside. These scenes of stone-throwing Palestinians, Jewish zealots, and Israeli police in riot gear are now familiar at the Al-Aqsa mosque compound. Rocket attacks from Hamas have duly followed each incident, along with Palestinian chants in the street: “In spirit and in blood, we will redeem Al-Aqsa.”

Days before the recent attacks, the situation had escalated to a critical point. On October 1, 2023, thousands of ultra-religious Jews began to carry out religious, apparently “provocative” tours of the mosque complex. …

But why are thousands of ultra-religious Israeli Jews suddenly intent on reclaiming the Temple Mount as a place of worship? And why did Hamas name Al-Aqsa as their cassus belli (“occasion for war”), neglecting the security of their own people and instead provoking an all-out, existential war with Israel?

Because Israel now has a Red Heifer. 

A perfect red heifer is so rare that the Mishnah says its sacrifice has only happened nine times in Jewish history. The sage Maimonides, a Jewish scholar, believed that the tenth animal would only be found and sacrificed when the Messiah was ready to appear.

Two groups, The Temple Institute and the Temple Mount Faithful (both extreme, orthodox Zionist groups), have for years been preparing for the advent of the Third Temple. They have been creating the implements needed for temple service for quite some time. 

[Orthodox groups] have built close ties with, and receive financial assistance from, Christian fundamentalist groups in the United States, who believe a Third Jewish Temple will herald the return of Jesus to Earth and the subsequent Rapture. This influential but subterranean belief helps explain, in part, the United States’ warm relationship with Israel.

Jews don’t agree on who will build the Third Temple, whether it will be the faithful preparing for the coming of the Messiah or the Messiah Himself, but this is an end-of-times, world-changing event.

This spring, that moment for the sacrifice arrives. The sacrifice could take place during Passover or any time through the Feast of Weeks. The important Moslem holiday of Ramadan is also coming soon.

To fundamentalists like Hamas, Jews and Zionism represent no less than the Dajjal (comparable to the Antichrist in Christianity). … This is a holy war fought between the most extreme, militant elements of two ethnoreligious groups to either cause or prevent the End of the World. …This is a war escalated between the most religious, extremist segments of both societies, while innocent civilians, women, and children are forced to suffer. 

The post No Simple Slogans for Israel and Gaza appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Last week, Community of Christ demonstrated its commitment to peace. On Tuesday, March 5, a joint statement from leaders of Community of Christ and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced the sale of a number of historic sites and artifacts—most notably the House of the Lord in Kirtland, Ohio. An official set of questions and answers listed the price of the sale as $192.5 million, but this was not the most notable aspect of the arrangement. What truly made this transfer remarkable is that it took place peacefully. Sacred property and objects were exchanged with no spilling of blood and no acts of violence. In the history of religions, this is a rare occurrence. One need only think of the history of the tragic conflict in the Holy Land, which continues up to this very moment, to see where other religious disagreements can lead. In a world marred with blood and conflict over religion, the Kirtland Temple transfer is truly remarkable.

Why was such a peaceful transfer possible? Much of the credit goes to the emphasis on peace taught by Community of Christ throughout its history. One of the most formative and beloved figures in the history of  Community of Christ is Joseph Smith III, son of Joseph Smith, Jr., founding prophet of the Latter-day Saint movement. Joseph III, as he is usually referred to by church members, grew up in a world surrounded by violence. When he was just six years old, he witnessed his father dragged away from his family. Young Joseph desperately held onto his father’s leg, crying, “My father, my father, why can’t you stay with us? O, my father, what are the men going to do with you?” According to one witness, the guards responded to the little by saying, “You damned little brat, go back; you will see your father no more.” Only six years later, Joseph III saw the bodies of his father and his uncle, Hyrum Smith, brought back in a wagon after their murder in Carthage Jail. 

These scenes made a deep impression on Joseph III. Later, as a grown man, he accepted leadership over a collection of Latter-day Saint movements that united to form the Reorganized Church. As a leader over the church, two words described Joseph III’s administrative style: pragmatism and peace. Presiding over a diverse coalition with a number of strong leaders, Joseph III used his pragmatic nature to calm dissent, bring compromise, and create a cohesive movement. It was no simple task, and the fingerprints of Joseph III’s leadership are still evident in the way the church is run. When I attended their World Conference a few years ago, I was struck by the respect and adherence to parliamentary procedures. Everyone seemed to know by heart Robert’s Rules of Order, a 19th-century handbook on parliamentary procedure that was last updated in 2015. It was necessary for the movement to survive as it built consensus among the disparate branches coming together to form the reorganized church. A member of the church once expressed his admiration for Joseph III’s leadership by saying, “I think Brigham got all the dogs, and Joseph III got all the cats, but somehow he made it work.”

The second hallmark of Joseph III’s leadership was his emphasis on peace. An 1873 revelation given to Joseph III taught, “Let contentions and quarrelings among you cease. Sustain each other in peace, and ye shall be blessed with my Spirit, in comforting and strengthening you for my work.” Having seen the horrors of violence in his youth, Joseph III constantly pled for peace. Under his leadership, the peace seal was adopted as a symbol of the church, and then after World War I grew in prominence. Joseph III served as church president from 1860 until his death in 1914. Part of his service overlapped with the tenure of his first cousin, Joseph F. Smith, Hyrum’s son, who presided over The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1901 to 1918. The two cousins even hosted each other several times during their lives. They had sharp disagreements on a number of topics, but that never overwhelmed the familial bond between them.

Community of Christ is led today by the spiritual descendants of Joseph Smith III. For the past eight years, I have had the privilege of meeting with a number of leaders and scholars from Community of Christ twice a year for interfaith dialogue. The meetings have hosted a number of fruitful discussions on topics ranging from Jesus Christ to sacraments and ordinances, to scripture, to personhood, and a host of other topics. There have been sharp disagreements at times, though the meetings have always been peaceful and possessed a unique spirit of fellowship. I must admit that as a fiery new religion professor I initially entered into these discussions with the aim to defend the faith. I still love to defend my beliefs, but I also learned to listen, to love, and to learn about and celebrate the wonderful good accomplished by members of both faiths.

These meetings have also taken place in a number of sacred spaces. One of our most memorable dialogues took place in the Kirtland Temple, where we met on the top floor where Joseph Smith saw a vision of the Celestial Kingdom. Earlier that day, our friends from Community of Christ allowed us the sacred privilege of kneeling down to offer our own prayers in the Melchizedek Priesthood pulpits where the resurrected Christ, along with the ancient prophets Moses, Elias, and Elijah appeared. On another occasion, our friends from Community of Christ joined us in Utah. They toured through the Jordan River Temple open house. The event organizers even permitted us to use an endowment room for our discussions, and we talked about the different perceptions of temple worship in a sacred space.

When I heard about the sale of the historic properties and artifacts on March 5, my first emotion was shock, then elation. I love these sacred spaces and objects. But shortly after, I began to receive messages from my friends in Community of Christ and other Restoration movements. The responses were quite different from mine, ranging from sadness to anger, to devastation, to pragmatic acceptance. I began to realize what a difficult day this was for many of the people that I care about. My impulse to celebrate was replaced with an impulse to “mourn with those that mourn, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort.”

The reasons for the sale were pragmatic. A joint statement released by both churches announced that negotiations over the agreement began in the summer of 2021. Stephen M. Veazey, the president of Community of Christ, wrote, “This exchange of assets is significant for our church. Through funding from increased endowments, Community of Christ will have greater capacity to pursue our mission priorities around the world, including continuing to fulfill the divinely envisioned purposes for our Temple in Independence, Missouri.” Russell M. Nelson, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, responded by saying, “We are deeply honored to assume the stewardship of these sacred places, documents, and artifacts. We thank our friends at Community of Christ for their great care and cooperation in preserving these historical treasures thus far. We are committed to doing the same.”

I sincerely hope we can resist the urge to see this agreement as a win or a loss for either church. For me the most remarkable part of the entire event is that a piece of sacred geography was transferred peacefully. Artifacts that members of both faiths believe were touched by divine power exchanged stewardship with no loss of life or even sharp words. There were and still are deep emotions on both sides. Lachlan Mackay, who is both an apostle in Community of Christ and a descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr. and Joseph Smith III, released a tender video message  where he remarked, “The decision to part with these places has been devastating emotionally. There was a time when I thought it might break me. But if I inherited anything from Joseph Smith III, it’s his pragmatism, and intellectually, the path forward is clear. I care deeply about our past, but I care even more about our future.”

It is a historical oddity that descendants of Joseph Smith, Jr. became key leaders in Community of Christ and descendants of Hyrum Smith became key leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Wallace B. Smith, a Joseph Smith descendant and former president of Community of Christ, passed away only this past September. M. Russell Ballard, a descendant of Hyrum Smith and an acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints passed away just two months later. I can’t help but think that both Joseph and Hyrum would be pleased with the peaceful way this agreement has been carried out. I also imagine that Joseph III would feel sadness over the transfer of the historical properties but also a sense of pride in seeing his spiritual descendants still adhere to his values. His peaceful nature and his pragmatism still guide the movement he loved.

I can also hope that the exemplar of both churches, the Teacher who declared “blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God,” would be pleased to see a religious exchange carried out in a peaceful way.

The post The Most Important Lesson Learned from the Kirtland Temple Agreement appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

The man ran from here to there, chasing the snake and heaving heavy things to crush it. After a long struggle, he finally landed enough blows to finish the job. This exertion pumped the blood through his veins, carrying the life-threatening venom more quickly throughout his body. He went to the hospital, but it was too late. He died from the effects of venom. The doctor said if he had immediately gone to the hospital instead of chasing the snake, the venom wouldn’t have had time to do so much damage, and he could have lived. Such is the nature of vengeance—it wreaks its damage on us as well as upon our enemy.

As a youth, this story struck me. I knew that if a snake bit me, I, too, would be angry. I understood having one’s life threatened by a snake could create a magnetic pull toward immediate retaliation. But anger needs to be channeled. Otherwise, the knee-jerk reaction of a hardened heart may be fatal to oneself. This is not necessarily a story about pacifism. After all, the man could have armed himself for future encounters with the snake if he had first healed from the bite. Instead, it is about the pitfalls of rash vengeance.

In December, US Defense Secretary Austin spoke about the conflict in Gaza. From experience, he learned that “the lesson is not that you can win in urban warfare by protecting civilians. The lesson is that you can only win in urban warfare by protecting civilians.”  He pressed Israel to reduce civilian casualties. And with the civilian death toll climbing higher and higher, he warned that Israel may “replace a tactical victory with a strategic defeat.” Strategic defeat is an apt descriptor for our story about the man and the snake.

The tragedy of attacking an enemy with rash retribution is multiplied manifold by war when innocent lives are damaged and destroyed. Prime Minister Netanyahu has directed his country to battle Hamas in a state of vengeance that is causing extreme damage to not only Hamas but many innocent civilians in Gaza and to Israel itself. While many hospitals no longer function in Gaza, more than 70,000 people have been injured. Over 30,000 Gazans have perished in this war, the majority women and children, according to health authorities in Hamas-run Gaza. That is many thousands of non-militant lives. Let us mourn them. It will be remembered that this fight comes in the wake of the tragic loss of life in Israel and the hostages that Hamas still holds, whom we also mourn. These linked tragedies, connected and mounting, combine for a higher and higher, unspeakably painful, cost.

Some question the Gaza casualty figures. That is understandable, given that Hamas runs the government in Gaza. However, there is reason to believe that the Gaza death count is a reasonable estimate based on the precedent set in previous wars where Gazan officials also counted casualties. In the war of 2014, for example, the BBC showed that Gaza’s numbers were roughly comparable to counts produced by both the UN and Israel’s foreign ministry. In that war, the Gaza health ministry reported 2,310 casualties, while the Israeli foreign ministry reported 2,125. Indeed, as the BBC reported, a US official in November said that the actual casualty count in Gaza could be higher than that reported by its health ministry.

Some have argued that Israel goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. There are reports of them warning before bombing strikes. Preventing civilian casualties is to be commended. However, in December, the New York Times reported that “[n]early half of the air-to-ground munitions that Israel has used in Gaza have been unguided … which Pentagon officials say may help explain the high civilian death toll.” One study underscores the vast destruction employed by the Israeli military by reporting that over half of the buildings in the Gaza Strip have been damaged or destroyed.

What’s more, over 80 percent of Gazans have been displaced from their homes. The Hamas-Israel conflict has resulted in about 1.4 million people cramming into the city of Rafah, which, before the war, was home to under 300,000 people. Over half the population of the Gaza Strip, at the time of this writing, resides in that one city. The humanitarian disaster is in a downward spiral, with many, many lives at risk. Healthcare, medical supplies, and basic humanitarian aid have been severely restricted. Many are on the brink of starvation. It is with this context that Netanyahu has indicated he wants to bring the fight against Hamas to Rafah, evacuating the civilians living there.

Netanyahu’s smashing glass may end up causing his own country great harm. The region is intensely volatile, with Iran-allied militias barraging US and Israel interests in the region. But it isn’t just those forces who are up in arms about the destruction in Gaza and the potential of forcing Gaza’s internally displaced refugees to flee once again. Rafah borders Egypt. Though Egypt famously signed a peace deal with Israel four decades ago, if Israel pushes them by force into Egypt, it could mean a serious strain in relations with that country, which itself has bolstered security at the border with tanks and “armoured personnel carriers. It has issued a warning “that any movement of Palestinians across the border into Egypt would threaten the four-decade-old peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.” Populations in other surrounding Arab countries are also appalled at the destruction in Gaza. Such a move as Netanyahu is planning in Rafah would endanger Israel.

The US should persuade its ally, Israel, to reduce civilian casualties and allow more aid into Gaza. President Biden and Secretary Blinken should do this not just by reprimands but by putting conditions on its military aid to Israel. This will be safer for Israel and the wider Middle East. The snake can be hunted another day and in another way that does not kill so many women and children while putting many more at risk of death by famine. The current hunt, apparently guided by rashness, is embroiling the whole region and further endangering Israel.

As I wrote previously, “Making the Hamas fight deliberate, strategic, and precise rather than reducing half of the Gaza Strip to rubble will prove more effective for the long-term peace and security of the Israeli people.”

The post Winning the Battle, Losing the Peace: War in Gaza appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

While there is a literal appendix full of the particulars of the transfer, the main takeaway will be that the Kirtland Temple has changed hands.

In the little more than a year that the Church of Jesus Christ operated the temple, some of the most remarkable spiritual experiences associated with the Church’s early founding occurred. Among the remarkable visitations included Jesus Christ, who visited in an event recorded in the Doctrine & Covenants section 110. During this visit, Christ accepted the temple as His house. In addition, Moses and Elijah appeared. Moses gave Joseph Smith the priesthood power to gather Israel. Elijah gave Joseph Smith the priesthood power to seal families together. These two functions remain at the heart of the Church’s teaching and mission today.

For Latter-day Saints, the Kirtland Temple is sacred ground. M. Russell Ballard, the former acting President of the Church of Jesus Christ’s Quorum of Twelve Apostles, said, “[Kirtland] is hallowed … sacred ground! There is no other place … where there have been as many spiritual manifestations, save the Holy Land. It has been said that we may yet discover that Kirtland is our most significant church history site … you have to think that Heaven was walking here with the people.”

Jesus is recorded as appearing in the Kirtland temple at least ten times. In Latter-day Saint historical records, no other place has claimed that many visits from the Savior. 

But by 1838, the persecution of Joseph Smith and the other Latter-day Saints had reached a breaking point, and they left for Missouri, leaving their sacred temple behind. Many of those who persecuted the Latter-day Saints had themselves been members but became disaffected after the failure of the Kirtland Safety Society, a banking attempt by Joseph Smith. 

Various factions of those former Latter-day Saints remained and took control of the temple, sometimes carrying guns. These include Warren Parrish, William McClellin, and Leonard Rich. 

After being driven from Missouri, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints moved to Nauvoo, Illinois. After the death of Joseph Smith in 1844, the leadership responsibility for the Church fell to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, with Brigham Young as its president. Once again, they had to flee—this time to Utah, surely believing that they the geographic realities of the day permanently foreclosed their return to their first temple.

But there was contention over Young’s succession. While most Latter-day Saints followed Young, there remained a contingent in Illinois.

The Community of Christ also recognizes the period of the Kirtland temple as part of their early history. Because they had not been driven out of the area, they could remain and care for many of the important sites that had been abandoned, including the Kirtland Temple. 

While there have been historical tensions between the denominations because of their competing succession claims, the relationship between the churches has improved significantly over recent decades. Both groups respect one another’s appreciation of the history and artifacts related to their shared history. The Church of Jesus Christ has been helping the Community of Christ fund their care for these sites for many years.

As a result of their relationship, the Church of Jesus Christ and the Community of Christ have exchanged many historically important artifacts and property. In 2012, The Community of Christ sold the site of the Haun’s Mill Massacre to the Church of Jesus Christ. In 2017, the printer’s manuscript of The Book of Mormon was sold. Details from today’s report explain that this sale has been in the works since 2021. 

The Church of Jesus Christ paid $192.5 million for the transfer of these items. 

Like many similar protestant denominations, the Community of Christ has been in a period of contraction over the last generation. Stephen Cranney details their finances in a 2021 analysis. In their last report, they remained $14 million short of their pension obligations. In addition, the Community of Christ was looking at cutting its missions by one-third in 2025.

On March 1st, four days before the announcement about the transfer of property, the Community of Christ announced, “The church has exceeded the Bridge of Hope Retirement Responsibility without the need for any investment account loans.”

The official announcement spoke generally of the ability of the funds from the sale to help the Community of Christ advance their mission, specifically through increased endowments. While the Community of Christ has projected this won’t meet all their projected expenses, it goes a long way in filling the gap. As they continue to readdress their finances, it is possible that the funds from the Church of Jesus Christ spent on these historical artifacts will not only help the Community of Christ meet its obligations to its pensioners but also help it operate into perpetuity—a worthy cause in aiding our religious cousins. 

While certainly, some members of the Community of Christ mourn no longer being the caretakers of these sites, the religious mission of many in the church has come to emphasize the importance of fellowship over their unique history. Many members of the Community of Christ have welcomed and even celebrated the announcement as a way of refocusing and funding their priorities. In the Community of Christ’s statement, they highlighted their new ability to fund missionary and temple work. They also emphasized that the church leaders were unified in their support of the move. While some in both churches have framed this transfer as a victory or defeat, the reality is that this helps both groups continue in their respective directions. As the two largest groups who value these properties, this is a mutually beneficial arrangement that will allow these properties to continue to be cared for with the proper resources. The Community of Christ said in their announcement, “A spirit of collegiality, mutuality, and shared interest in the stewardship of the sites and items for future generations was present during the negotiations.”

In the announcement, The Church of Jesus Christ made clear that the temple would remain available to members of the Community of Christ and would continue to be available to them for meetings.

The Church of Jesus Christ’s new caretaking responsibilities have been celebrated among practicing Latter-day Saints and historians. The Church of Jesus Christ’s resources will allow them to maintain the temple and other properties acquired at a high level. In addition, the Church’s recently completed Joseph Smith Papers project has represented the pinnacle of historical accuracy, thoroughness, and transparency. Many reasonably expect these same high scholarly standards to be applied to the Church’s care for the Kirtland Temple.  

Among Latter-day Saints, this news means that the temple’s caretakers will believe in and celebrate the miraculous encounters that shaped their faith there.

While the Kirtland Temple will be the major takeaway for most, the transfer also includes the Red Brick Store, the Mansion House, the Nauvoo House, the Smith Family Homestead, and the Bible and manuscript used in the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible. These items represent almost all the items that had been in possession of the Community of Christ that are of historical and/or religious interest to The Church of Jesus Christ. They have kept ownership of the Smith family gravesite and much of the land surrounding the temple lot in Independence, Missouri (though not the lot itself). As a result, this sale may represent the end of substantial property transfers between the two groups—at least for some time. The Church of Jesus Christ has many other historical properties in Kirtland and Nauvoo, and these new properties will join those already cared for.

Our overall feeling at this moment is one of gratitude. Russell M. Nelson, the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said, “We thank our friends at Community of Christ for their great care and cooperation in preserving these historical treasures thus far.” Latter-day Saints have long expressed gratitude for the exceptional care the Community of Christ put into caring for the temple.

During the latter half of the 19th century, when the Community of Christ took ownership of the temple, The Church of Jesus Christ was in a period of conflict with the US federal government. While the Church’s distance in Utah helped preserve the Latter-day Saints, it is possible that had they still owned the Kirtland temple, federal authorities could have confiscated it. And if the Community of Christ had not cared for the temple, it may have simply been lost to time. 

This site exists today because of the faithful stewardship by the Community of Christ for the past one-hundred sixty-four years. For many, this arc of history reflects both the hand of the Lord in preserving this sacred site and the fulfillment of prophecy. 

This transfer allows The Church of Jesus Christ to take control over one of its most beloved sites, and it allows the Community of Christ to fulfill its mission of fellowship. We congratulate all involved and celebrate this important milestone. Details of the transfer can be found at the Newsroom of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The post Inside the $200 Million Temple Transfer appeared first on Public Square Magazine.