Download Print-Friendly Version

Attack dog. Enforcer. Culture warrior. These labels and more have been used to describe Elder Clark G. Gilbert, newly called apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He has also been described as a “high-profile defender of doctrinal orthodoxy” and a proponent of “retrenchment.”

What’s all the fuss about? As Commissioner of Church Education, Elder Gilbert is accused of instituting a variety of measures to ensure that professors at BYU support the doctrine of the Church that pays their salaries—specifically on issues related to marriage, family, and gender. According to some, these measures have ushered in a culture of fear among faculty who have reservations about Church doctrine or policy. Other concerns have been mentioned, but this seems to be the heart of the issue.

Before I say a few words in defense of Elder Gilbert, I want to take a moment and recognize the difficult space that many Latter-day Saint scholars inhabit. The Church’s views on family, sexuality, and gender are (to put it gently) not popular in academia. Despite stated aspirations to diversity and inclusivity, there isn’t much room in academia for researchers who vocally promote the Church’s positions on family life. I have seen this first-hand in my nearly two decades in academic life. Those who support marriage as the union of a man and a woman and claim that sexual relations should only happen in such marriages are castigated as out of touch, prudish, ignorant, hateful, and bigoted. It’s hard to get along in your profession when your colleagues view you as little better than a racist.

There are intellectual resources to defend the Church’s positions on these matters (more on this below), but the opposition to such arguments is so loud, so confident, and so strident that often it’s easier to just keep quiet. Latter-day Saint scholars are generally trained in the same graduate programs, go to the same academic conferences, and are under the same pressure to publish in top journals as scholars who don’t belong to the Church. It’s hard to not imbibe the norms, expectations, assumptions, and conclusions of the culture, including revisionist views about gender, sexuality, and family. The implicit and explicit pressure to fall in line with the prevailing orthodoxy can be suffocating. Even Latter-day Saint scholars who want to resist the prevailing academic culture on these issues can feel bewildered about how to do so. 

In an environment where so much of your professional success is influenced or determined by people who are hostile to the Church’s views, I can see why many people would feel concerned about Elder Gilbert’s efforts to align the faculty with the doctrine of the Church.

At the same time, I, like many other faculty and students, choose to study at BYU precisely because of its doctrine. I want to be at a university where I can “seek learning, by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). As Elder Gilbert has emphasized many times, institutional drift in academia is real, and many universities that start with religious aspirations end up abandoning them later. It’s tempting to say that this is the standard arc for religious universities in the United States. Believing that BYU’s distinctive religious heritage can be maintained without intentional efforts to preserve it is naive.

But perhaps it is not possible to run a quality university that is committed to religious beliefs? Indeed, many of the criticisms of Elder Gilbert presuppose that it is inherently wrong to try to get professors to align with Church teachings. The critique takes two forms: first, that any attempt to align (or more darkly, “impose”) views about any topic at a university is wrong; and second, that it is wrong for BYU to expect faculty to support the Church’s doctrine on marriage, family, and gender.

The first view is widespread but breaks down upon inspection. As I have explained in detail, it is neither possible nor desirable for a university to be completely devoid of commitments. Without well-known and agreed-upon standards, university life would descend into a cacophony of competing claims, none of which could be evaluated as better than any of the others. The scholarly practice of peer review presupposes that practitioners in the discipline know what counts as “legitimate” scholarship and can reject submissions that do not meet disciplinary standards. (A more blatant example of institutional gatekeeping would be difficult to imagine.) As I wrote in the previously mentioned article,

The point of academic study is to produce knowledge. This search is a winnowing process, as academic ‘disciplines’ (note the word) seek to separate the wheat of truth from the chaff of unsupported opinion and bias. Good scholars are committed to getting it right, which presupposes that truth is real and knowledge is possible, which in turn is premised on a host of philosophical and other presuppositions. Academic freedom cannot mean the freedom to be supported in whatever one believes; rather, it is the freedom to seek truth, which means being accountable to reality.

It may come as a surprise to some readers, but some people actually want to go to a university that includes religious beliefs among its commitments (see Elder Gilbert’s recent article on this in The Chronicle of Higher Education). A recent essay by prominent Catholic sociologist Christian Smith explains that he chose to teach and research at Notre Dame because he wanted more direct engagement with the Catholic intellectual tradition. But after 20 years at Notre Dame, Smith decided to leave because (in his view) the university was not living up to its potential. He writes: “When I came to Notre Dame, I believed the university was serious about its Catholic mission. I tried to make my contribution, I think with some success. But I also saw much of the institution absorbed by other interests that, in my view, were often irrelevant to or at odds with the Catholic mission.” I don’t have enough information to know if he is right about Notre Dame, but many people want something other than the standard secular university experience. In general, the world is enriched, not diminished, by religious universities that pursue truth in a distinctive way.

To be clear, as Commissioner of Church Education, Elder Gilbert wasn’t some rogue actor trying to sneak something past Church headquarters. The family proclamation may be controversial in some quarters, but it is firmly established as Church doctrine. It would be hard to make this point more emphatically than President Dallin H. Oaks recently did: “Those who do not fully understand the Father’s loving plan for His children may consider this family proclamation no more than a changeable statement of policy. In contrast, we affirm that the family proclamation, founded on irrevocable doctrine, defines the mortal family relationship where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.”

Some critics might be concerned that Elder Gilbert’s efforts to align the faculty with the Church’s teachings diminish academic freedom. In my view, this gets it exactly wrong. There are hundreds of universities in the United States where revisionist scholarship about marriage, family, and gender is welcome and rewarded. The orthodoxy on these issues is clear and intolerant. There is a much smaller number of universities where one can pursue scholarship that is aligned with the family proclamation. If BYU became just like other universities, there would be less academic freedom than there currently is. (Attentive readers will realize that I’m using “academic freedom” in two senses here, individual and institutional, both of which are explained in detail in BYU’s Academic Freedom Policy.)

Though debates over marriage, sexuality, and gender are often framed as conflicts between “rigid defenders of orthodoxy” and proponents of love and authenticity, the reality is not so simple. At the heart of these conflicts are deep disagreements over personal identity, sexual morality, the meaning of human life, and the common good. There are many resources available to Latter-day Saints and others to think through these issues carefully. In my view, these are not issues on which one has to “blindly accept” Church teachings; the assumptions that lead to revisionist conclusions about marriage, gender, and sexuality are highly contestable.

Which brings us back to the idea of Elder Gilbert as a “culture warrior” or an “attack dog.” It’s strange that people on only one side of these controversies get called names like this—even when the university in question is clearly owned and operated by the Church. As my former teacher Robert P. George writes in a related context, “There is a culture war, alright, but supporters of the sanctity of human life and the conjugal conception of marriage are not the aggressors in it. It was people on the other side–those who reject sanctity of life principles and the idea of marriage as a conjugal union–who wanted to change longstanding legal and cultural norms.” In my view, Elder Gilbert took reasonable steps to ensure that BYU students get the education that is advertised in the BYU mission and aims, and I’m grateful for his efforts.

In a recent interview, Elder Gilbert recounts an important conversation he had with President Holland. Both the mandate from President Holland and his ultimate hope for BYU seem like a good way to conclude: 

I remember I was talking to President Holland, and he was bemoaning that he could feel this drift happening to the university. And he’s like, ‘What have they done with our school that we love so much?’ And I felt awkward. I wasn’t even the commissioner yet. And I felt like I needed to defend them. And I said, ‘Well, President Holland, you know, we have the honor code, we have devotionals, we have religion classes, we have the academic freedom policy.’ And I said, ‘They’re like bumper lanes protecting us from bowling into the gutter.’ And he didn’t even let me finish. And he said, ‘That’s very different than bowling for a strike.’ And he said, ‘We need to bowl for a strike at BYU.’

The post Bowling for a Strike at BYU and Beyond appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Elder Clark G. Gilbert was announced Thursday, February 12, 2026, as the newest member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His call fills the vacancy that followed the passing of President Jeffrey R. Holland, who died December 27 at age 85. 

Years before today’s announcement, Elder Gilbert sat in a devotional hall in Lima, Peru, surrounded by first‑generation university students enrolled through BYU–Pathway Worldwide. A visiting General Authority, Elder Carlos A. Godoy, looked over the room and urged those students to “involve the Lord in this process” of lifting their lives through education and discipleship. In a general conference address, Elder Gilbert later used that scene—and his now‑familiar “parable of the slope”—to teach that in the Lord’s calculus, our eternal trajectory matters more than our starting point: “In the Lord’s timing, it is not where we start but where we are headed that matters most.” That anecdote captures his blend of faith, data‑driven pragmatism and pastoral concern that has marked his ministry. 

Born in Oakland, California, in 1970 and raised in Arizona, Clark G. Gilbert served a mission in the Japan Kobe Mission before graduating in international relations from Brigham Young University. He earned a master’s in East Asian studies from Stanford University and a doctorate in business administration from Harvard Business School, where he later joined the faculty in entrepreneurial management. He and his wife, Christine C. Gilbert (née Calder), are the parents of eight children. 

After returning to Church education in the mid‑2000s, Gilbert became associate academic vice president at BYU–Idaho, working on online learning and what would become the Pathway program. In 2009 he was appointed to lead Deseret Digital Media and soon after the Deseret News, where he orchestrated a widely watched digital transformation that separated fast‑growing digital operations from legacy print, refocused editorial priorities, and drew national notice from media analysts. 

The Church’s Board of Trustees named him the 16th president of BYU–Idaho in 2015. Two years later, in February 2017, the First Presidency announced BYU–Pathway Worldwide, a new global higher‑education organization for the Church; Gilbert was appointed its first president. In April 2021 he was sustained as a General Authority Seventy and that August began service as Commissioner of the Church Educational System (CES). 

Under Gilbert’s leadership, BYU–Pathway matured from a promising pilot into a large‑scale, global gateway for degree seekers who often balance study with work and family. In 2024, nearly 75,000 students in 180+ countries were served through BYU–Pathway; a Church announcement described the initiative’s subsequent rollout of three‑year, outcome‑based online bachelor’s degrees—offered by BYU–Idaho and Ensign College with NWCCU approval—as a way to reduce time and cost while preserving required learning outcomes. 

His scholarship and executive experience have also shaped his public profile beyond the Church. Gilbert co‑authored Dual Transformation (Harvard Business Review Press), a playbook for leading legacy institutions through disruption while simultaneously building new growth engines—an approach visible in his work at the Deseret News and later in CES reforms. 

In his recent ministry, Gilbert has emphasized a number of important themes. 

Divine potential and covenant identity. Elder Gilbert’s October 2021 general conference message, “Becoming More in Christ: The Parable of the Slope,” distilled a recurring theme: that conversion to Jesus Christ changes our “slope”—our trajectory—through grace, repentance and covenant discipleship, regardless of starting point. He illustrated that theology with stories from inner‑city youth in Boston and first‑generation learners in Peru, connecting pastoral care to measurable change. 

Education as religious responsibility. As CES commissioner, Elder Gilbert has argued that learning in the Church is inseparable from discipleship. In a June 2025 broadcast to tens of thousands of seminary, institute and Church‑sponsored higher‑education teachers, he reiterated CES’s mission to “prepare young people … to grow spiritually and become lifelong disciples of Jesus Christ,” signaling a continued push to align curriculum, hiring and student support with revealed priorities. 

BYU’s distinctive mission—“gospel methodology.” In August 2025, addressing the BYU University Conference, he urged faculty and staff to be “deliberate” in building a university that engages the world “without being defined by it,” emphasizing prophetic governance, mission‑fit hiring and the charge to employ “gospel methodology” in research and teaching. He highlighted the call—traced from President Spencer W. Kimball to modern apostles—to teach “truth with love” while preparing students for the Savior’s return. 

Home, family and the Savior. In September 2025, Elder and Sister Christine Gilbert taught BYU–Idaho students how to find Christ in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” underscoring a Christ‑centered view of family relationships and identity. That devotional, and similar messages across CES, reflect his conviction that doctrine, belonging and spiritual habits must be taught together. 

To journalists and Latter‑day Saint observers, Elder Gilbert’s selection reads as both pastoral and programmatic. His ministry has consistently fused access (lowering barriers to education across continents), alignment (anchoring institutions to revealed mission) and accountability (measuring outcomes without losing sight of grace). BYU–Pathway’s scale—tens of thousands of learners worldwide—and innovations like the three‑year degree show a willingness to rethink form while protecting substance. In media, peers noted the boldness of his digital “dual transformation,” separating the old and the new to let both flourish. Those same instincts—build the future while strengthening the present—have characterized his counsel to teachers and students: teach truth, elevate slopes, and center every effort on Jesus Christ. 

Colleagues describe Elder Gilbert as an exacting but pastoral leader—comfortable with spreadsheets and scripture alike. He met Christine at BYU; together they have raised eight children through moves that traced a calling‑heavy life from California to Massachusetts to Idaho and back to Utah. The biography pages maintained by the Church and BYU‑Pathway emphasize both his scholarship and his family‑first discipleship, a through‑line visible in his local service as a bishop, counselor in a stake presidency and Area Seventy before his 2021 call as a General Authority. 

Within the Church’s governing structure, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are “special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world.” When an apostle passes away, the President of the Church calls a replacement. His background in global education and institutional renewal suggests he will bring a data‑literate, prophetically aligned voice to a quorum that travels, teaches and administers worldwide.

The post Who is Clark Gilbert, Our New Apostle? appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Few Church leaders have been as well-liked as President Holland, who recently passed away at age 85. He had a talent for connecting with nearly everyone: old and young, rich and poor, academic and practical, believers and skeptics, people within the Church and people outside of the Church, and just about everyone else.

This is why I think his 2021 talk, “The Second Half of the Second Century at Brigham Young University,” is particularly noteworthy. In this talk, President Holland defended the unique mission of Brigham Young University (BYU) and said the University should be willing to forgo some “professional affiliations and certifications” rather than renege on its core commitments. The talk attracted particular ire for discussing LGBTQ issues and suggesting that BYU professors provide “musket fire” in favor of the Church’s teachings on marriage and sexuality.

I have discussed President Holland’s talk in more detail elsewhere, but what I want to focus on here is what the talk says about his character. President Holland likely knew that his talk would be unpopular. He knew that many people would (falsely) accuse him of hatred and insensitivity. He knew that his standing as the apostle that everyone liked, as a leader that everyone could relate to, would be seriously threatened.

It’s also noteworthy that President Holland gave this talk at the peak of Progressive confidence about issues related to gender and sexuality. The Church’s views were castigated as false and harmful; members of the Church were constantly told that they were on the “wrong side of history” for holding to the views expressed in The Family: A Proclamation to the World. At a moment when the forces of political, social, and academic respectability were all blowing in the opposite direction, President Holland was willing to stand up and be counted as someone who was committed to the Church’s teachings.

Of course, Church leaders (as well as the rest of us) are not supposed to care about what the world thinks of us. We are repeatedly warned in scriptures about loving the praise of men more than the praise of God. Popularity can become an idol, distracting and deflecting us from commitment to God. But Church leaders are human, and humans like to be liked. President Holland knew that this talk would put his reputation and public standing in jeopardy. He gave the talk anyway.

Jesus taught: “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6:24). He also taught: “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets” (Luke 6:26). Though a message of peace, the gospel is also “a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence” (1 Peter 2:8) to those who do not believe. Perhaps by design, the gospel can never be made completely respectable by worldly standards.

To me, President Holland’s 2021 talk demonstrated his ultimate allegiance. He was willing to give up his worldly popularity and respectability to stay true to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe he gave the talk with great eloquence and sensitivity, but that is not how many people received it. He was criticized by people within and without the Church; even some national publications took notice of the talk and criticized it. But this was a price he was willing to pay. Perhaps there is not better way to end than with President Holland’s own words about courageously defending the gospel:

“Be strong. Live the gospel faithfully even if others around you don’t live it at all. Defend your beliefs with courtesy and with compassion, but defend them . . . In courageously pursuing such a course, you will forge unshakable faith, you will find safety against ill winds that blow, even shafts in the whirlwind, and you will feel the rock-like strength of our Redeemer, upon whom if you build your unflagging discipleship, you cannot fall.”

The post Popularity Is a Terrible God—and Jeffrey R. Holland Knew It appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

When President Russell M. Nelson passed away, I felt both grief and gratitude. He was a prophet whose warmth and vision expanded my understanding of the Savior. When President Dallin H. Oaks stood at the pulpit during General Conference and spoke tenderly of his “dear friend” President Nelson—his voice catching with emotion as he recalled learning of Christ through him—I saw a man feeling the full weight of both loss and legacy. It was the first conference he attended without the companion apostle who had served alongside him for decades.

I know the anticipation of his presumed imminent ascendancy to the Presidency of the Church has some feeling joy and excitement, while others feel anxiety or frustration. That tender moment when President Oaks opened his heart as he opened General Conference sets the tone for how I want to invite you to approach him as the probable new leader of the Church: with empathy, curiosity, and a willingness to see not only his divinely-appointed office but his humanity.

A Ministry of Law and Love

These stories and insights show how President Oaks’ seriousness about sacred things reflects not coldness but reverence. They flow naturally from his lifelong effort to balance love and law—firm in conviction yet humble enough to be guided by the Spirit.

When his critics accuse him of harshness, they often stop reading before they reach the part where he pleads with us to treat each other tenderly. It’s true: it is all too easy to call out sin. It is far harder to move beyond professing love to practicing it—leaning in, reaching out, and staying committed without reservation. Yet that is exactly what he asks of us—and what he tries, however imperfectly, to model himself.

These glimpses into his private spirituality show how his devotion to divine law deepens, not diminishes, his capacity for love. A poignant anecdote from Richard Turley’s biography of him adds further insight. Early in his calling as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, he gave a 45-minute talk to a local congregation in New Zealand that was peppered with personal stories and humorous asides. The audience ate it up (as I would have), but he later recorded in his journal feeling rebuked by the Spirit (“never do that again”), warning him to focus more on preaching and testifying of Jesus Christ.

His current wife, Sister Kristen Oaks, remarked to Turley that one of his daughters said to him, “Daddy, you look like you are mad sometimes when you speak.” But Sister Oaks explains, “he was never angry or irritated, just somber as he shared sacred truths.”  It seems like in President Oaks, we have the inspired leader the Lord needs us to have, even if we may not always realize it or appreciate it.

The Purpose of a General Authority

President Oaks once explained, “As a General Authority, it is my responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions.” He was describing not cold detachment but duty—the call to declare doctrine broadly and trust members to apply it individually; in the same address, he quotes Joseph Smith: “I teach [people] correct principles and they govern themselves.” I believe the perceived firmness we sometimes hear in his addresses grows out of that stewardship, not a lack of compassion. In private, he is always described as gentle, personal, approachable, even playful, and cracking jokes. (When my friend met him at his local Church meeting, he introduced himself as “Brother Oaks.”) I think understanding this difference between his public General Authority ministry and his personal ministry “to the one” helps us broaden our perspectives and judgments about him.

Seeing Beyond the Headlines

President Oaks’ comments about sexual and gender minorities have often stirred controversy. Some hear his warnings about “gender confusion” as a lack of understanding or criticism of people. But careful attention to his words suggests otherwise.

That distinction matters. It may not erase the pain some have felt from his words, but it clarifies the intent behind them: to preserve a pattern he believes God established, not to belittle the people he knows God cherishes.

Private Encounters of Warmth and Humor

Those who have met him describe a different side than his public reputation, as stern, aloof, and detached. One of my friends, a man who experiences same-sex attraction, met privately with President Oaks years ago. He expected formality; what he got was warmth and humor. President Oaks cracked jokes, asked penetrating questions, and listened with real interest. Another friend saw him after a controversial address and mentioned the online uproar. President Oaks simply smiled and said he paid no attention to it before asking for personal details about my friend, wanting to get to know my friend, rather than (as I likely would have) getting distracted by and sucked into the drama about himself. His focus on what truly mattered in that moment struck me—it wasn’t indifference, but a refusal to let outrage define his ministry, or allow controversy to detract from connection with the person in front of him.

Recall that other incident when he visited my other friend’s downtown ward: he introduced himself not as “Elder Oaks,” but as “Brother Oaks.” That single word change encompasses a world of meaning. It said, in effect, I am one of you. He did the same thing when he visited my Stake a few years ago—showing that this is not a one‑time gesture but a pattern of humility. Whatever else one may think of his expository style, humility is part of his discipleship.

Stories of Compassion and Bridge‑Building

One of President Oaks’ relatives and a friend of mine within the North Star community (an LDS-focused ministry for sexual and gender minorities and their families) once shared a moment that beautifully captures his heart. In 2019, at a family reunion, this friend’s gay son and his husband attended–though a bit hesitantly. President Oaks, then in his mid‑eighties, went out of his way to greet this family. With unmistakable kindness, he warmly greeted the son and his husband. That simple act sent a clear message to everyone there: we can always choose to be kind, loving, and welcoming—no matter what.

This North Star friend also recalled that an attorney involved in the Utah “Fairness for All” legislation described how pivotal President Oaks’ behind‑the‑scenes efforts had been. And those efforts did not stop in Utah. People close to the process of the federal Respect for Marriage Act confirm that he worked relentlessly—quietly but personally—to safeguard both religious liberty and LGBT dignity. His conviction was steady: religious freedom and civil respect can and must coexist. I can confirm this—I heard the same thing from more than one employee at Church Headquarters. 

Similarly, I know of another person who struggles with persistent gender dysphoria and hears from President Oaks often, asking questions and offering support and encouragement. 

These two examples also suggest that those who assume President Oaks is unaware of the personal and private pain experienced by sexual and gender minorities—and that if he knew more, he would speak differently—may want to reconsider that assumption.

A Broader Pattern of Growth and Change

Prophetic callings often bring new emphases. Ezra Taft Benson was famous as a fierce anti‑communist throughout the time he was an apostle. Yet, once he was ordained President, he became the prophet of “flooding the earth with the Book of Mormon” and warning about pride. I cannot predict what themes President Oaks will be inspired to emphasize as president, but we should not assume that the themes he has dwelt upon during his apostleship will extend to his presidency. His legal mind may still prize order, but his heart, refined by years of listening to those who hurt, seems relentlessly focused on healing and unity. Whatever happens, his record shows consistency in one thing: he deeply and lovingly respects people, even when he cannot agree with them.

A Personal Connection to the Family-Centered Gospel

In his concluding remarks at the October 2025 General Conference, President Oaks emotionally recounted the pain and grief he experienced as a young boy upon learning from his Grandfather Harris that his father had died of tuberculosis. Fleeing to his room, he collapsed on his bedside and cried out to God. This personal tragedy gave President Oaks a firsthand understanding of the profound impact on children when families are fragmented. He acknowledges that few families fully embody the ideals presented in the Proclamation on the Family, often due to circumstances outside our control. However, his own experience as a suddenly fatherless child highlights the suffering that arises when those ideals are not achieved. That burden is primarily borne by the most vulnerable—our children. It is likely that his own experience of fatherlessness has made the ideals expressed in the Proclamation, particularly the statement that “children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother,” especially meaningful to him.

An Invitation to a Fresh Start

Some may still struggle with his tone or with the weight of his words—both past and their fears of his future words. That is understandable. I get it. I have been pricked by his words more than once myself. But perhaps the challenge is not to turn away from him, but to walk beside him—to practice the same discipline he preaches: loving without surrendering conviction, and holding conviction without losing love. When I’ve tried to do that with his words or other leaders’ words, the spiritual struggle has always been worth it.

If, as I expect, President Oaks will soon rise to lead the Church, then we will also have the chance to rise a level as well. To accept the challenge he’s set before us, to prove that disciples of Christ can hold truth and tenderness in the same outstretched hands, that we can disagree with courage, clarity, and love. I pray we will enter this new season of the Church not with fear or cynicism, but with faith: faith that God can continue to work through imperfect servants to do perfecting work. I know He has done that with me, and I am very far from perfect. If we can try to trust that divine pattern, then perhaps, under President Oaks’ leadership, we will all have opportunities to increase our ability to love boldly, speak truly, and walk humbly before our Heavenly Father.

Further Reading

For those who would like to explore more of President Oaks’ compassionate and faith‑filled teachings, consider reading or watching these talks:

1. He Heals the Heavy Laden (October 2006) – A deeply empathetic message about how the Savior heals our burdens and sorrows.
2. Love and Law (October 2009) – His foundational statement on how divine commandments and divine compassion work together.
3. The Paradox of Love and Law (BYU–Idaho Devotional) – A more conversational address on the same theme, rich with examples of humility and understanding.
4. Love Is the Great Commandment and the Law Is the Great Framework (October 2024) – His most recent treatment of this balance, emphasizing empathy and faith.
5. Helping the Poor and Distressed (October 2022) – Focused on compassion, ministering, and the Christian call to lift the vulnerable.
6. Always Remember Him (April 1988) – An early talk reflecting his tenderness and reverence for the Savior’s atonement.

The post When Law Meets Love: Dallin H. Oaks’ Ministry to Sexual and Gender Minorities appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Sunday’s episode of Music & the Spoken Word, the weekly broadcast of The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square, included the following description of the late President Russell M. Nelson. Nelson served as the 17th president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until his passing on the evening of September 27, 2025:

“President Nelson met with kings and presidents, queens and princesses. But he also knew and loved the common person. He was their friend.”

As I heard those words, they felt less like a description and more like a reminder of things I’ve seen and felt myself.

I think too of a moment during Nelson’s Pacific ministry tour when he met a man named Mateo Lautaimi. Mateo had recently lost his wife, and his home had been destroyed by a cyclone. Nelson paused, listened, and in a private pastoral moment, told him simply, “Your wife is smiling at us.” Those were not the words of a visiting dignitary, but of a man willing to step into another’s grief and offer comfort.

Another story comes from Susan Cunningham, who met Nelson during a visit to San Antonio, Texas. 

“My husband served as the stake Young Men president, so he attended the leadership session of the stake conference the day before. After a general session, everyone was invited to come and meet him. I went up. 

“I had felt loved and cared for by his message, but I assumed that he was just doing this to be polite, because people get excited about being with an apostle. But I didn’t think there was any chance he would ever remember me. 

“When I got to the front, he took my hand and asked my name. I confess my first thought was, ‘Why does he care what my name is? He’ll never see me again.’ There must have been more than a hundred people in line, but when I said my name, he responded, ‘Are you the wife of the stake Young Men president?’ He knew our family well enough to recognize who I was just from my last name.”

There are countless other examples—some well known, many tucked quietly into people’s private memories. Early in his ministry as president of the Church, he traveled not only to Vietnam but also to Kenya, Zimbabwe, India, and other countries where Latter-day Saints had rarely seen church leadership before. For them, his presence was more than ceremonial. It was a way of saying, “The Lord sees you here, too.”

Perhaps the most poignant example came as he approached his 100th birthday. Instead of asking for gifts or honors, Nelson gave an invitation. He called it “99+1.” He asked each of us to think of someone who might feel lost or alone and to reach out—just as the Savior taught in the parable of the ninety-nine and the one. It was a birthday celebration not centered on himself, but on turning hearts outward. Even at 99 years old, he was still teaching us the pattern of his life: to remember the one.

When my son watched Latter-day Saints in Vietnam rejoice at Nelson’s visit, when Lautaimi felt comfort after his devastating loss, and Susan felt seen, the message was the same: President Nelson remembered the one. And in doing so, he showed us how to be like Christ.

The post Russell M. Nelson: Guiding the World, Remembering the One appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Today, TIME published an essay by President Russell M. Nelson, the leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who is considered by followers of the faith as a prophet. This is a rare instance of a Latter‑day Saint prophet addressing a general audience in his own voice. It is a pastoral invitation to the blessings of following Jesus Christ.

Scripture sets a clear pattern: prophets speak where the most can hear, and they send the message beyond earshot—Noah before the flood, Moses before Pharaoh, Samuel the Lamanite on the wall, King Benjamin from the tower. President Nelson’s TIME essay belongs to this lineage: a modern tower enabling written sending beyond earshot. 

TIME is a uniquely effective platform for such a message, and the invitations are concrete: see the divinity in each human being, and love the people around you, especially those in your family. 

Contemporary Context

Across the last century, presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints have typically taught through Church‑owned channels (general conference, official magazines, broadcasts) and pastoral administration (ministering visits, councils). Signed, first‑person pieces in major U.S. general‑audience outlets have been exceptional, and generally aligned with moments calling for moral clarification or consolation in the broader public square. President Nelson’s TIME essay belongs to that limited set and therefore carries heightened signaling value.

Publishing in TIME positions the message before a general public rather than a pre‑selected ecclesial audience. Many who would not watch a conference address may still encounter a well‑crafted essay in a magazine they already read. Analogous to Paul at Athens, the venue signals a willingness to speak in the marketplace of ideas without diluting core claims (Acts 17:22–23).

What the TIME Essay Says

At 101, President Nelson frames his message around two enduring truths he has tested across a century—as a heart surgeon and as an apostle.

Second, he encourages us to love our neighbor. Peacemaking is not optional civic etiquette but moral law: “anger never persuades, hostility never heals, and contention never leads to lasting solutions.” He commends bridge‑building across differences and the simple dignity we owe every person.

He extends the ethic to the most immediate community: the family. In a lonely age, “fidelity, forgiveness, and faithfulness within families yield deep, enduring peace”—and strong families radiate kindness outward.

He opens with an analogy from his career as a surgeon. He learned that when natural laws are honored—the right balance of sodium and potassium—the heart can safely be stopped, repaired, and revived: “It always works.” He draws a parallel to spiritual law: when we align with eternal truths, life revives. The essay ends with a birthday wish—that these truths make our lives, and our world, steadier and more joyful.

Context in a Prophetic Ministry

On his 101st birthday, this essay does not launch something new; it compresses the through-lines of President Nelson’s ministry since 2018. From the invitation to “Hear Him,” to “Let God Prevail,” to the charge that gathering Israel is the great work of our time, to appeals for peacemakers and the plea to “Think Celestial,” his teaching has been remarkably consistent. The article’s two themes—divine worth and neighbor-love—sit squarely inside that arc: identity in God, and charity toward God’s children.

Read in that light, familiar notes surface. Come unto Christ personally and daily (Matthew 11:28). Hear Him in scripture and by the Spirit (Matthew 17:5; Joseph Smith—History 1:17). Let God prevail through covenant belonging that is renewed and clarified in the temple (Genesis 32:28; Jeremiah 31:33; Doctrine and Covenants 128:18). Gather Israel one by one on both sides of the veil (3 Nephi 20–21; D&C 128:18). Be peacemakers—reject contention and choose charity (Matthew 5:9, 44). Think celestial—set your affection on things above so priorities re-order (Colossians 3:2). And bear and honor the name of Jesus Christ openly and reverently (3 Nephi 27:7–8; 1 Peter 3:15).

Together, these themes describe a public posture as much as a private practice. They urge Latter-day Saints to speak to the world in a love-letter key: witness before argument, blessing before debate, invitation before indictment. The center of that witness is not a policy or a brand, but a Person. In that sense, the TIME essay is a synthesis—a clear, external expression of what President Nelson has been asking the Church to be and to say from the beginning of his tenure.

Why Publish in TIME?

King Benjamin wrote so the absent could still receive the word (Mosiah 2:8). TIME operates as a modern tower that reaches readers far beyond Church‑owned microphones. The decision also signals trust—that core Christian claims (mercy through Christ, hope by His Atonement, the dignity of every soul, the sanctifying power of covenants) remain intelligible and appealing within pluralist discourse. Members, in turn, are invited to carry the message further “with quiet confidence and charity,” functioning as digital runners who help others hear (Mosiah 2:8).

Founded in 1923 by Henry R. Luce and Briton Hadden, TIME effectively invented the American newsmagazine: a concise, organized digest for busy readers, written in a recognizable “Timestyle,” and later amplified by cultural touchstones like Person of the Year and the TIME 100. Across a century, its covers and language have helped shape the way Americans—and an international audience—talk about leaders, crises, and ideas. Today, beyond its print cadence, TIME’s multi‑platform reach gives a single essay outsized distribution, and its Ideas pages explicitly welcome outside contributors while distinguishing contributor views from the magazine’s own editorial positions. In other words, the tower is both tall and capacious: a broad audience, a clear invitation for first‑person witness, and a familiar format for civic address.

For a century, TIME has stood at the junction of civic attention and general‑interest reading: a weekly cadence that privileges synthesis over outrage, a magazine architecture that frames essays as addresses to the public rather than duels, and a global subscriber base that encounters it in airports, classrooms, offices, and living rooms. Its Ideas pages invite first‑person contributions from public figures while clearly labeling them as such, preserving both accessibility and a distinction from reported news. The brand’s recognizable cover language and franchises—Person of the Year, the TIME 100—signal to casual and serious readers alike that what appears there participates in a broader civic conversation. A message placed on this tower arrives with prestige without being trapped in a single partisan lane; it is discoverable, shareable, and quotable across communities. That combination—prestige, breadth, and a format hospitable to direct moral speech—makes TIME an unusually effective carrier for a prophet’s love‑letter intended to bless first and persuade by the quiet force of lived invitation.

Amplifying Light

Our public posture should match the essay’s: a love letter, not a lecture. The world we address is not an opponent to defeat but a neighbor to bless. In print, online, and across a pulpit, let our first sentence be witness, not winning; benediction before debate.

Let our outreach be one by one and to all at once: a personal invitation joined to a public witness. See them for their divine identity, and love them. In neighborhoods and in the national square, let the Name be present, the welcome explicit, the door held open. We are not curators of a brand; we are messengers of a Person.

When prophets stand and speak, the faithful “pitch their tents” toward the word and toward the temple (Mosiah 2:6). We do not wait for the world to change before we change. We let God prevail now; we hear Him now; we follow Jesus Christ now. Properly received, such love binds families, mends neighborhoods, and promotes unity—until the day a tower is no longer needed because “every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ” (Philippians 2:10–11).

May the Lord inscribe His law on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33) and make our public words a real invitation—to the person beside us at church, the neighbor across the street, and the reader who stumbles on a magazine essay and hears, perhaps for the first time, that a prophet has written to them.

The post A Prophet in TIME: Healing the Heart of a Nation appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

The previous month had been a humbling one as I experienced the intensity of motherhood. Recovering from childbirth, while caring for a new little life, had been overwhelming. I distinctly remember asking myself – “Every woman who has given birth has gone through this?!”

There are many perspectives on how best to respond to this conundrum. Some voices emphasize women’s strength while downplaying the source of vulnerability. Others attempt to eradicate the vulnerability but are only successful to the point that biology allows. Still others become ambivalent, or even antagonistic, to the life-giving power of women.  

Among the various viewpoints is the one provided through the gospel of Jesus Christ. I am convinced that the gospel vision brings women and men together in the most synergistic way. Both in the doctrine of the family, as well as in the functioning of the church, women and men have the potential to flourish while working together to ensure that children are valued and protected. 

Recently, there has been a great deal of social media commentary about women’s place in the church due to a quote from Sister J. Anette Dennis’ talk. She said, “There is no other religious organization in the world, that I know of, that has so broadly given power and authority to women. There are religions that ordain some women to positions such as priests and pastors, but very few relative to the number of women in their congregations receive that authority that their church gives them.”

Many have pushed back on this quote by pointing out that other churches have ordained female leaders. This is accurate, but it is not, to my understanding, what Sister Dennis was emphasizing or claiming. She was describing the power and authority that has been given broadly to women in the church. All women in the church are invited to the temple where they make covenants and participate in ordinances including the endowment which “offers power, purpose, and protection in daily life.” Potentially all women are set apart in callings at the ward, stake, and general levels of the church and receive the accompanying authority to act in those callings.

For those who do not agree with how the church is organized, a good faith effort to understand why it functions the way it does is warranted. The work of political theorist, Jean Bethke Elshtain, sheds light when applied to the church. Elshtain describes that voluntary community organizations, including churches, make up ‘civil society.’ These are institutions that are not created or controlled by the state. Such institutions “foster competence and character in individuals, build social trust, and help children become good people and good citizens.” Elshtain argues that the family is “the first and most basic” unit of civil society and that it is the “cradle of citizenship.”  From the private care of the family, children move outward into the broader public community. Significantly, Elshtain points out that, “Civil society is a realm that is neither individualist nor collectivist. It partakes of both the ‘I’ and the ‘we.’” 

She explains:

Families teach the first lessons of relationships among persons, some of which are essential not only to private life but to public life as well. Within the family, one learns to act upon others and to be acted upon. It is in the family that we learn to identify ourselves with others or fail to learn to love. It is in the family that we learn to give and take with others–or fail to learn to be reciprocal. It is in the family that we learn to trust others as we depend on them or learn to distrust them. We learn to form expectations of the others and to hold them accountable. We also learn to hold ourselves accountable. These lessons of reciprocity, trust, discipline and self-restraint are important to the forming of relationships in public life.

This family is not an isolated unit but very much a social institution, nested in a wider context, that either helps to sustain parental commitment and accomplishment or puts negative pressure on fathers and mothers. That pressure obviously takes many forms…(but) being a parent isn’t just another “lifestyle choice.” It is an ethical vocation. Communities, including churches, should lighten the burden and smooth the path for parents so that the complex joys of family life might rise to the surface and the undeniable burdens of family responsibility might be more openheartedly borne.”

 Elshtain’s last sentence is particularly valuable when looking at the church. In the opening section of the General Handbook, it states “God’s work of salvation and exaltation is centered in the home and supported by the Church.” The importance of the family is similarly emphasized in President Nelson’s repeated phrase – “In God’s eternal plan, salvation is an individual matter; exaltation is a family matter” (which was again quoted by President Oaks in the October 2023 General Conference). At the root of the doctrine of Christ is exaltation through families. Whether one agrees with this doctrine or not, it needs to at least be acknowledged when trying to understand the organization of the church. When others may ask “What is best for women?” OR “What is best for men?” – in the church, these questions are asked concurrently within the broader question of “What is best for men and women together, so that families will flourish, and children will be nurtured – and, ultimately exalted together?”

She observes:

“Secular male dominance is most visible and extreme in societies in which complementarity of powers has given way to an enhancement and expansion of institutionalized male authority accompanied by a simultaneous diminution in women’s domestic, sacral and informal authority….In societies, past and present, in which the home is the hub of human life, an arena of economic production as well as human procreation, a school, a hospice, a symbolically and actually potent place, women are often the repositories of several understandings of power associated with that sphere. Such female power is complementary to the more institutionalized, juridical authority of men.”

Elshtain’s words are thought provoking. Has women’s authority been desacralized in our current age? How has this affected our homes and our society? Specifically, is this playing a part in the online conversation surrounding Sister Dennis’ talk? Has the diminution of women’s sacral authority negatively affected perceptions of women-led organizations–Primary, Young Women, and Relief Society-and caused less appreciation for the foundational work they do in bridging the private and public spheres in the upcoming generations? Prophets and apostles have worked against this desacralization by repeatedly testifying of the sacred nature of womanhood. Some individuals have interpreted these teachings as putting women on a pedestal, but rather, it is prophets reminding the world of primary truths. President Russell M. Nelson has said that women have the “spiritual power to change the world.” These are not patronizing words, but rather prophetic ones and the responsibility is on each of us to understand what it means to ‘change the world’ when the charge is given by a prophet of God. 

As I look back on that Sunday many years ago when my first baby was blessed, I am filled with gratitude for the good husband who has been at my side. In our private life at home, we have worked together as a team. As one bathed a sick little child, the other stripped the bed and put on fresh sheets. Both the mundane tasks of parenting, as well as the more daunting ones, were supported by the public institution of the church. We were mentored and supported by brothers and sisters in our Elders Quorum and Relief Society. Our children were taught in the Primary and Youth programs. And, significantly, as represented by the group of men in the circle that day long ago, if I had ever been left alone in my mothering—with its inherent vulnerability—I wouldn’t have been without paternal help.

The post When Authority Wears a Skirt appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

How are we to understand the estrangement and woundedness between current and former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Why does it so often hurt so bad, and are there any ways to soften the pain and our hearts toward each other? 

One story. One Sabbath afternoon, a Sunday School teacher introduced an important conversation about different trials facing members of the Church. After several classic examples were listed on the chalkboard—cancer, mental illness, divorce—one individual in the class raised her hand and suggested another addition: “How about people struggling with their faith due to challenging questions?” 

“Oh, let’s not go there today …” said the teacher. 

The woman raising the possibility felt deflated. This kind of hesitance and fear to “go there” certainly goes in both directions, with some who have stepped away similarly hesitant to talk openly with believing members about weighty questions. Even when outright hostility isn’t present, the awkward silence and distance often involved can be wearying for all of us.  

That’s why we’re raising some ideas below we hope will make a difference—reflecting a framework of sorts to help us work towards some softening, some healing, and maybe even some reconciliation together. 

The trauma of stepping away—in two parts. It’s no great revelation to acknowledge the significant—even excruciating—pain often involved in stepping away from the Church of Jesus Christ. Many people who leave the Church report it as being one of the most emotionally wrenching things they have ever experienced. There is also real pain of believing members witnessing the change in people who may now consider themselves “former” brothers and sisters. 

The pain, then, flows in both directions. On one hand, those stepping away from the faith often experience a sharp loss of connection, closeness, and harmony with people they genuinely love—along with a removal of the larger security, meaning, and purpose their prior worldview once provided. On the other hand, believing members likewise experience a profound loss of connection, closeness, and harmony with individuals they genuinely love—alongside the loss of shared meaning and purpose they once felt together. 

The sources and drivers of this kind of pain are varied and clearly not widely agreed upon. Many of the explanations available only resonate if you share either a believing or non-believing worldview. What seems clearest is that the pain involved by all parties is real and often agonizing. 

Hypothetically imagine Mary and Jenny, who grew up in the same ward as close friends where they shared many years of spiritual and social experiences together. When Jenny confides in Mary that she’s no longer attending church and considering stepping away for good, it’s a blow to the relationship on both sides. Their friendship is strong enough to weather it, but the storm is pretty fierce. Where they once could rely upon a shared understanding of the world, the future, and God, now they are relying on a sense of personal affection and respect from their long history together.  

Even in the best of circumstances, that’s quite a transition. Mary’s and Jenny’s pain is not the same, and it may not even be equal, but it’s real for both of them.    

What this looks and feels like will depend on the nature of the relationship, with effects often compounded for family members, especially parents and children. Perhaps the highest stakes are for spouses when one person seems to be unilaterally changing the set of terms that the marriage was built upon and with which they’ve raised their kids thus far.

Let’s further imagine a different conversation, when Mary’s husband Steve announces to her that he no longer believes the Church is true. He says things implying that her faith is founded on lies. Mary, who is a lifelong member and a returned missionary, is gutted. This is harder than the conversation with Jenny. Not only have their four children been raised in the Church, but she and Steve have also both held various callings and (she thought) found mutual fulfillment and meaning in their faith. In response, she says things that accuse him of betraying the promises they made when they got married.

Can their marriage survive this?  

Especially when it comes to these most intimate of relationships, we believe the intensity of emotions and experience on both sides may be well deserving of the “trauma” label.  

A two-part trauma response. Have you ever been in a bad car accident or know someone who has faced severe abuse? In recent decades, we’ve grown in our understanding as a society about the emotional and physiological “trauma response” that occurs when anyone faces severe trauma, from war to aggression to catastrophic accidents. 

Compared to a more normative response to even difficult experiences, a trauma response differs in many ways and levels—involving every part of ourselves, mentally, emotionally, and physically. Whereas normal experiences are integrated into our memory in a way that designates them as “the past,” expert Bessel Van der Kolk confirms how true trauma defies such natural memory integration in a way that ensures it intrudes into our present again and again. Thus, a war survivor at a 4th of July fireworks show might experience in their body again right now what they witnessed and endured long ago in the field of battle.  

That helps explain some of the excruciating physical, emotional, and mental aspects of a trauma response: the nightmares, the panic, the emotional instability, the hair triggers, and hyper-reactions to otherwise non-threatening situations, along with ongoing hypervigilance and a sense of continual threat. Each new event in the fast-moving news cycle can likewise be experienced as recurring instigators of fresh turmoil inside—from the various public accusations being made against the church, to the horrific killings in Colorado Spring this weekend.  

The emotional tumult of it all can be wearying and overwhelming. Books like Van der Kolk’s groundbreaking text, “The Body Keeps the Score,” have helped many of us better appreciate the reality of associated trauma responses—and how this is all definitely not “just in your head.” 

We have come to believe that what we often witness at the agonizing emotional intersection between believing and former members of the Church—however else we might describe it—represents a mutual trauma response flowing in both directions. If both parties have indeed experienced real trauma in the transition and faith separation, we shouldn’t be surprised to see an emotional and physiological response that reflects that.   

Trauma expert Dr. Bruce Perry notes that communication “is about getting some idea, concept, or story from your cortex to another person’s cortex. From the smart part of your brain to the smart part of their brain.” Yet he adds, “The problem is that we don’t communicate directly from cortex to cortex. We have to go through the lower parts of the brain.” He continues:

All the rational thoughts from our cortex have to get through the emotional filters of the lower brain. Our facial expressions, tone of voice, and words are turned into neural activity by the other person’s senses, and then the sequential process of matching, interpreting, and passing up to their cortex takes place. Along the way, there are many opportunities for the meaning of any communication to be distilled, distorted, magnified, minimized, or lost.

Perry goes on to explain what happens when an internal stress response is activated (which is often part of a trauma response): “Frustration, anger, and fear can shut down parts of the cortex. When someone is dysregulated, they simply cannot use the smartest part of their brain.” This is what Daniel Goleman calls an “amygdala hijack” in his book Emotional Intelligence—reflecting a sort of relational blinding and deafening that can happen when our more intense emotions take hold. 

This is the physiological and emotional reality we’re often dealing with in our embattled relationships. Nonetheless, we often press through with trying to drive points home conceptually and logically instead of prioritizing emotional regulation and relational connection—not recognizing that we may simply not be able to reach each other with our words and ideas without that step of settling our bodies and hearts in a way that allows us to connect first. 

What if we could reverse the emphasis and begin with more priority attention to the emotional and relational elements involved? 

Returning to Mary and Steve, their marriage after his announcement immediately feels different. There is a level of volatility and reactivity they’ve never known before. Whereas they have largely felt comfortable and at ease together through the years, there is a new sense of threat and vigilance between them. They often feel like they’re walking on eggshells, especially on Sunday mornings. 

Similar things, of course, can also show up between friends. Jenny’s and Mary’s friendship, which had always felt so comfortable and easy, now feels noticeably charged. Depending on the moment, one or both now regularly feels uncertain or on edge—worried about saying something that will trigger a negative response.  

And sometimes that’s exactly what happens. As we all perhaps know by experience, a conversation we may have assumed would be doable goes south—leaving both persons unsettled and unsure. On both sides and in both directions, we may find ourselves overreacting and reading into the relationship an emotional threat where none was honestly intended. 

If and when that happens, it’s inevitably shocking to both people—if only for how new and strange it feels to a relationship that had never experienced it before. But maybe it would be less surprising if we could recognize the predictable signs of trauma response. 

A mutual need for compassion and empathy. What could an awareness of these kinds of emotional dynamics mean for our day-to-day relationships together? 

Consider how different this framework is compared with others often shared among either believers or non-believers (focused on presumed failings within individuals or leaders). Whatever truth may still legitimately exist in these other explanations, they most often invoke in both sides a deepening sense of frustration, fear, and sorrow.  

By contrast, we believe a recognition of the reality of shared trauma and its associated trauma response might open up new reservoirs of positive feelings towards each other—the very thing we are in such a dearth of these days. 

None of this is to deny the seriousness of the questions and issues at stake. Nor does it deny the right of people on each side to believe that their position is right. But even in the presence of such jarring juxtapositions mentally, we believe a concrete sense of greater compassion for the legitimate trauma and trauma response happening in both directions might be a leavening and softening influence on everyone involved.  

In the case of Jenny and Mary, although conversation has quickly become more fraught and uncomfortable, and while that’s not a happy development for either, both are committed enough to their friendship that they’re not willing just to walk away. They want their friendship to survive and are willing to put in the work necessary to make that happen. 

Steve and Mary likewise navigate the new contours of their marriage, in part, by returning to a more fundamental recognition that each is emotionally hurting and, frankly, scared. On that basis, they find ways to come together to show compassion, while reaching for each other on that more basic relationship level. Indeed, they ultimately decide that the preservation of their family relationship is worth fighting for, and not losing over these otherwise important disagreements. 

This isn’t how things usually go. It sometimes seems that people who come to see things so differently have no choice but to part ways. Their respective friends may even tell them that they are justified in their anger toward the other party and that it would be easier simply to step away. We are suggesting that while separation is a possible outcome, it is not a necessary one. Many people have shown how these relationships can endure and even be strengthened as both parties grow in empathy and compassion for one another. If they no longer feel the same closeness around their relationship to God and the church, maybe they can find fresh reserves of understanding and love that stitch their hearts together in new ways – including, as we are emphasizing here, an appreciation of the pain that they each have experienced and felt.

The courage to stay with a relationship. The question still remains: Why should we keep trying to interact with each other when it’s hard? 

As we have discussed, the trauma of a faith exodus can make normal relationships and conversation especially hard—as both people might overreact to even the slightest indication of threat from others around them. And we’ve acknowledged where this usually leads a relationship.  

But it doesn’t have to. Because, think about it: what if you knew someone was on hair trigger about certain matters? Would it not lead you—if you truly loved this individual—to be more sensitive, careful, and tender in how you talk and what you say? If your spouse or friend were the traumatized war veteran mentioned above, wouldn’t you avoid setting off fireworks around them—not because fireworks are inherently bad, but because your care for the person matters more? 

Don’t underestimate what this kind of awareness could mean for a relationship. We’re intrigued at how all this could become a backdrop nudging people on both sides to do something challenging—but very rewarding. Rather than fleeing the discomfort, we’ve seen positive things emerge when people learn to sit with the discomfort. That’s what happens on an individual level in mindfulness meditation. And within relationships, this practically means hanging with a conversation and working to show compassion and kindness, humility and patience, even and especially when things get awkward. 

Once again, the pain and trauma that different people feel are not being equated since they differ so widely between situations and positions—with a scale of trauma that escalates for various reasons and details. But what if we could acknowledge whatever pain there is while still moving towards each other? 

Why bother, again? What would the motivation be to sit in such challenging emotions, especially when we have plenty of outlets to avoid them and feel good being among “my people” (from ex-member forums and barbecues on one side to ward parties and ongoing gospel discussions on the other)? 

This is a difficult question to answer because accepting more discomfort is never an easy sell. Nonetheless, we see people making just that choice every day when they go out on a run, meditate, eat their vegetables—or, let’s be honest, continue being a devoted parent or spouse, even when it’s boring or challenging. 

We close with an example that may not be persuasive to everyone, but for us, embodies a perfect reason to lean into this hard work of reconciliation together.  

In His steps. Why would anyone stay in a place of ache or pain when we have the option to escape it?  Maybe because that’s what Jesus did.  

When Christ neared the final moments of his life, he had other options than to undergo the brutality of torture. He had the option of turning away from what was most uncomfortable. We know he was tempted to do so, even asking the Father, “if it was possible, let this pass from me.” 

But the only way to escape that pain would have been to abandon his relationships with the people that he so deeply loved—you, me, and all of us. And so, he chose not to turn away from the pain … even at its worst. As he hung on the cross, at the very moment when he would have been completely justified in lashing out at the brutal injustice and extreme violence he was experiencing; he showed humanity another way.  

Even in the middle of torture, his words, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do,” demonstrate a different possibility.  

That image of Jesus on the cross—extending grace even to those slaying him—could perhaps give believers and nonbelievers alike a bit more courage in the difficult work of reconciliation ahead. In the midst of very real and very deep pain, there is a way forward other than the way of recrimination and gaping separation. 

In the end, compassion beats condemnation. If Jesus came not “into the world to condemn the world,” why would we?  

Let’s practice more compassion with the agony being experienced on both sides of the faith exodus. This would mean taking seriously what it would mean to live out Martin Luther King’s words, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

Even if we can’t—and may never—agree on the issues and the facts, perhaps an empathetic awareness of our mutual suffering can become another pathway to draw our hearts together again. 

The post Softening the Trauma Response Between Current and Former Members appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

But this problem does not stop at bad history and it often extends into political conspiracy theories that have the potential to lead Latter-day Saints down a path where they forsake their faith for far-right political views. This conversation provides context for the milieu in which the documentary Who Killed Joseph Smith? arose. The group Doctrine of Christ created this documentary, which premiered on January 13, 2022. Cristina Rosetti has documented this group and how they effectively canonized QAnon as their worldview for approaching scripture and doctrine. Their documentary shows how integrated conspiracy has become their historical method, leading me to conclude that they made the documentary with the intent to make their polygamy denial plausible. In what follows, I will reference several elements of the documentary to show how it better aligns more with unfounded conspiracy than it does history, while also highlighting the motive undergirding the documentary. 

The theory that the documentary lays forth is that John Taylor and Willard Richards assassinated Joseph and Hyrum Smith, not a mob of Carthage Greys. Before he establishes his own theory, the host critiques the theories of the Lyon brothers, Sam Weston, and Gary Smith. He indicates that the difference between him and them is that “they wanted to preserve the good names of Willard Richards and John Taylor,” whereas he says “I want the truth, I wanna know who really killed Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum.” A common tactic of some who promote unfounded conspiracies is to portray all ideological opponents as biased or acting in bad faith, while asserting simultaneously that they alone act in good faith. This manipulates the audience into believing that it is Justin Griffin, the principal narrator of the documentary, alone who knows the truth of what happened at Carthage Jail, but Griffin does not provide any evidence as for why the audience should trust him or why the Lyon brothers, Sam Weston, and Gary Smith are driven by a desire to defend the names of Willard Richards and John Taylor. 

This unsubstantiated claim is not the only one that Griffin makes throughout the documentary. Frequently, instead of explaining his reasons for why he disagrees with certain theories, he often says “this doesn’t make sense to me” or asserts that there is no possible way that it could have happened than the way he claims it happened.  While he states that he tried all of the possible physical positions the jailed occupants could be in, he does not show why on camera certain positions do not work. This deflection should concern the audience because it shows that he does not provide thorough evidence to bear out his claims. Instead, he attempts to fall back on what I established earlier, namely that he portrays himself as acting in good faith and everyone else as acting in bad faith or with a bias. The most prominent piece of evidence that he provides for his theory is that he says that Hyrum had an entry wound on his chin and an exit wound in his nose. He posits that this could have only occurred if John Taylor or Willard Richards shot Hyrum; however, that claim does not have any other evidence to support his narrative – nor does he consider any potential alternative explanations. Creating these salacious claims without providing further evidence or sufficient examination points towards motive-driven narratives more than rigorous historical analysis. 

Griffin’s theory leaves several unanswered questions and presents several inconsistencies or partial truths. Perhaps the most pressing question that Griffin does not answer is this:  If he acknowledges there was a mob (as his theory does), what interaction did Willard Richards and John Taylor have with the mob? It seems that Griffin portrays the mob scene occurring simultaneously with Richards and Taylor shooting Joseph and Hyrum, how did the mob not enter during this scene? Why did the mob not kill Richards and Taylor? If Griffin alleges that Richards and Taylor hired the mob, what evidence does he have of this? If Griffin does not allege this, he does not account for the mob properly. 

Griffin also does not adequately address the eyewitness testimonies of Richards and Taylor. Griffin seems to operate within the framework that he is free to discount the eyewitness testimonies if he could demonstrate that the eyewitness accounts have any implausible and inconsistent elements within them. However, there is no standard by which this represents best practices within historical research. First-hand accounts often have conflicting information within them and the mob inherently created confusion. Simply discounting the eyewitness testimonies because Griffin does not find them aligned with his preferred theory is not sufficient. Griffin refers to Taylor publishing his account of the martyrdom in 1854, but Griffin does not account for Taylor writing a martyrdom account in 1844. 

Griffin leverages the decade difference in time to indicate that Taylor should not be trusted. Taking Griffin at his word that he read all of the accounts, it seems egregious to me that he left out this important July 1844 witness to the martyrdom. John Taylor’s 1856 account provides more details than he did in 1844, but it is still disingenuous to omit any mention of this earlier account, especially as Griffin claims several times that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has hidden its history. Griffin likewise does not acknowledge more contemporary accounts that are second or third hand like this account by a Church critic, which indicates what was thought about the martyrdom at the time. In short, Griffin freely discounts historical accounts that do not corroborate with his predisposed theory, which indicates a lack of care and concern for evidence. 

As noted earlier, Griffin constructs part of his theory based on Hyrum’s death mask. He indicates that Hyrum’s mask does not show significant facial damage, even though it’s documented the creator of Hyrum’s death mask had to reconstruct his face because of damage. This either shows a lack of familiarity with the data or an attempt to mislead the audience by creating an argument on a false premise. Griffin speaks about Hyrum’s skull as well, using it as evidence for his theory, but he did not have access to Hyrum’s skull, at least to my knowledge. Like many other aspects of the documentary, Griffin inflates his speculation on very little evidence to corroborate his favored narrative and does not treat evidence carefully. 

Beyond these more minor details, Griffin leaves a gaping hole in his theory; namely, he does not answer the question of motive for Willard Richards and John Taylor killing Joseph and Hyrum. Anyone watching the documentary might necessarily wonder why would Richards and Taylor want to kill Joseph and Hyrum? They might also ask whether there is any evidence to suggest that they believed they should do that. Without accounting for this, Griffin does not have an adequate theory warranted by evidence from the tragic events of Carthage Jail. 

At this point, seeing that Griffin misrepresents historical sources, does not substantiate his claims, interweaves falsehoods, and uses other tactics like emotional manipulation to create his theory, one might ask why would Griffin accuse Willard Richards and John Taylor of killing Joseph Smith? That is a fair question and the answer to this curiosity is arguably more simple. On the day of the documentary premiere, the Facebook page for Who Killed Joseph Smith? posted, “But there is a third new alternative emerging: Those who still believe Joseph saw God but also believe the historical evidence proves he never practiced polygamy.  … This third group is uncovering all sorts of new evidence, some of which even proves that the traditional narrative of the martyrdom, based on the two eyewitness accounts—can not be correct.” At its very core, this alternative history also denies the voices of dozens of women who testified, some under oath, that they were married to Joseph Smith. 

This supposed third way of dealing with polygamy follows the same pattern as the third way of dealing with the martyrdom, namely, blatantly ignoring historical sources in order to advance a preferred narrative. In particular, they appear to be setting up the hypothesis that Brigham Young ordered Willard Richards and John Taylor (Taylor, who by the way, had personality conflicts with Brigham, especially then) to kill Joseph – so that they could then deny that Brigham was a prophet since he practiced polygamy. Instead of grappling with the reality that Joseph practiced polygamy and the reality that one has to silence the voices of women to claim otherwise, this group has created an unsubstantiated theory which relies on sensationalism, leaves several parts of the theory unsubstantiated, and fumbles important pieces of historical evidence. In order to continue their own unfounded conspiracies, they created a new one, with a final nefarious element that I will close with. 

As I watched this documentary live, I waited to see the martyrdom depicted as Griffin stated it occurred. The hymn “A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief” started to play and tears welled up in my eyes. I believe that Joseph Smith restored the original Church of Jesus Christ to the earth and I believe although Joseph was a flawed man, he was called to serve as a prophet of God. Seeing the martyrdom of a man so important in my life breaks my heart no matter how many times I see it. But as the scene played out, I watched as Griffin depicted Richards and Taylor killing Joseph and Hyrum. Beyond my disgust at the visuals of this scene, I became disgusted by the music choice, which is enigmatic of Griffin’s approach to history. 

Griffin had a parody of “A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief” playing over the scene where Griffin centered his own narrative. The lyrics told the story of Griffin searching for what happened at Carthage and described his turmoil. While Griffin claims to care what happened to Joseph and Hyrum, the music makes it clear that the story he wants to tell is not that of Brother Joseph, but that of his own, Brother Justin. 

Like other attempts to substitute history with conspiracy theory, this will certainly ensnare some individuals and hopefully, it will have a short shelf-life. I believe it’s important to challenge conspiracies with evidence and clear thinking. In this instance, my hope is that doing so will prevent Griffin from defaming Willard Richards and John Taylor for his own purpose of denying polygamy.

May truth prevail.

The post Conspiracy as History: “Who Killed Joseph Smith?” As a Case Study appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

That happened again last week in the case of Natasha Helfer’s recent membership council—as she enlisted professional colleagues to write a letter of support. Their letter was subsequently made public and led to national coverage in a well-balanced Washington Post piece by excellent journalist Sarah Pulliam Bailey.  

Since Church leaders do not comment on their deliberations, most of the people commenting on this issue are aware of only one side of the matter and they take for granted that Church discipline is punitive and aimed toward cracking down on dissent. We hope to present a better way of understanding the Church’s motivations for those who are just “listening in” on social media.    

Our larger purpose here is to highlight the purposes of Church discipline and defend the Church’s prerogative to discipline members who endanger the spiritual wellbeing of its congregants. We would not be commenting at all if it were not already national news, but our comments here must be taken generally,  with the only things specific to Sister Helfer being those facts already made public. We neither know her well nor are we in any position to judge her membership. 

Some kind of similar need for boundary maintenance, of course, has been advocated in many religious communities for thousands of years from Protestant “disfellowshipping,” to Jewish “herem.” But given the growing emphasis on tolerance, inclusion, and diversity, Americans are naturally suspicious of deliberations that could end in a member’s excommunication—even more so, when they are directed at a woman in the professional class. These details have generated a variety of emotional appeals on social media, denouncing the Church’s actions as “spiritual violence” and “religious violence,” and insisting that any such action represents a failure of charity, courage, and inclusion (see, for instance, an impassioned appeal by Jennifer Finlayson-Fife on social media shared hundreds of times).  

Thanks to commentary like this, most public discussion this week has taken for granted an overly punitive, and tone-deaf image of the Church and its disciplinary approach, with remarkably little questioning of its underlying proposition: Are membership councils, always and everywhere, “spiritual violence”?

The intent of membership councils.  Not according to the reality experienced by tens of thousands of people who have been through their own membership councils (previously called “disciplinary councils”).  These councils are grounded in fidelity to the Church and its teachings, including love, compassion, and justice. And for many, that’s precisely what they are.

In so many cases, people report experiencing their deliberations with priesthood leaders about transgressions as a loving, healing experience.  There is exquisite sensitivity and personal care brought to the decisions. As attested by one ward clerk who witnessed several councils while taking notes: 

Bishoprics, stake presidencies, and high councils seek direction from God through the Holy Ghost regarding what action should be taken. They literally kneel in prayer and ask the Lord to guide them and then seek spiritual confirmation of their decision before finalizing. I have watched as bishoprics have softened their stance after praying and asking if the action they are proposing is right. And I have watched as the person whose standing is in question also feels the Holy Spirit confirm to them that the action is right.  And the disciplinary action did help them repent and return in time to full fellowship.

One of us (Jeff) participated in several disciplinary councils at the ward level while a member of two Bishoprics and his experience was the same as this clerk’s. 

So, no—this is not an Amish-style shunning. Even excommunicated members are welcome to attend open meetings and contribute in limited ways. In fact, most members are not privy to the membership status of their fellow congregants, unless the member in question makes it public. This is why we welcome the new term “membership restriction,” which makes clear that while this process may impose limitations on one’s participation, it is not an exile.

Membership councils aim for repentance and reconciliation (the hoped-for outcome) more than formal separation (the outcome that may be necessary).  As thousands have experienced, this involves great love and continued fellowship, at whatever level the disciplined member desires.  

None of this, of course, features in much of any of the commentary around the case garnering attention this last week—nor should we hold our breath to expect it.  

But it’s the truth.  

Boundary maintenance as a crucial community need.  That truth is crucial to a fair and productive conversation about what’s going on with the Natasha Helfer case, and with membership councils as a whole. In the absence of that acknowledgment, public discourse is left with an overriding insistence that the Church of Jesus Christ is acting in a cruel and calloused way for even considering the need for an excommunication. 

But of course, that’s not true. Consider, for example, an increasingly common example of an individual speaking out publicly (online) in a way that harms others’ faith in their congregation.  Assuming that individual refuses to change, or grave damage has been done, might it be more harmful to not remove that individual, to not pursue a separation?  

The Book of Mormon prophet Alma shared something about this in his message to the people of Zarahemla: “For what shepherd is there among you having many sheep doth not watch over them, that the wolves enter not and devour his flock? And behold, if a wolf enter his flock doth he not drive him out?”

As he did throughout his ministry, Alma later emphasizes the universality of Christ’s invitation to all:  “the good shepherd doth call after you; and if you will hearken unto his voice he will bring you into his fold, and ye are his sheep.”  Yet he then underscores, “and he commandeth you that ye suffer no ravenous wolf to enter among you, that ye may not be destroyed.”

If those sound like strong words, they are.  Yet Jesus Christ himself had similarly strong words for “Whoever puts a stumbling block in front of one of these little ones who believe in me …”  He added, “…  it is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to that person by whom the stumbling blocks come.”

Subsequent leaders in the early Church raised admonitions consistent with Jesus’ own caution.  For instance, the Apostle Paul told the Romans, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.”

At a time when “dissensions … became more numerous” in the early American Church, fueled by some that “did deceive many with their flattering words,” the Book of Mosiah records the extent to which the prophet Alma was “troubled in his spirit” and “poured out his whole soul to God” for guidance. 

The bulk of the Lord’s instruction centered on how willing he needed to be to welcome and embrace those who repent, no matter how much patience that demanded. But for those who refused, the guidance was clear: 

Whosoever will not repent of his sins the same shall not be numbered among my people; and this shall be observed from this time forward. … Therefore I say unto you, that he that will not hear my voice, the same shall ye not receive into my church, for him I will not receive at the last day.

Far from a precedent of “include everyone no matter what,” then, Christian history demonstrates clearly the need for drawing some boundaries. Rather than a barrier to community unity, this is very much a prerequisite to it.  Unity isn’t unity if it’s just no-holds-barred inclusion. And discipleship before Jesus Christ is a unifying cause. That has to mean something. 

If the very act of discipline strikes one as uncharitable, we would argue it’s because our society increasingly appeals to a concept of love that makes no room for correction. The Savior has made clear that he chastens those he loves because He loves them.

In light of these scriptural precedents, we humbly submit that to not act to draw a line when someone in our congregations is actively corroding faith may well be the most “spiritually violent” thing to do. Not only does it leave someone without accountability (at least in this life), it may allow them to continue to influence other members while claiming to be a fellow “Latter-day Saint.” 

Not incidentally, that is precisely what Natasha Helfer has not only done but built her entire professional identity around, billing herself as “The Mormon Therapist.”  Across many years, this professional has advocated openly, publicly, and repeatedly against the teachings of prophetic leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ.  Leveraging her professional credentials, she has frequently insisted that the research (as she interprets it) contradicts the doctrine, as she sees it. While she claims to not have intentionally sought to lead someone away from the Church, there’s no question about the extent of her influence among those who have left. 

Needless to say, this sister’s priesthood leaders might have been right to raise some worry about whether members might be confused about how she frames herself. At the very least, it’s not an illegitimate concern from her local leaders to consider the impact she is having as she claims to be a participating “Mormon.”

What judgment they reach is, of course, up to the guidance of the Spirit—and only they can know. But in terms of whether it’s right for an institution such as the Church of Jesus Christ to take action in drawing lines like this, there should be no question. Any organization should have the ability to establish its own codes of conduct, and to maintain its institutional integrity by developing core norms, beliefs, or codes of behavior, and enforcing them. This is something we should all be able to support.

However unpopular this may be in popular culture, this is an organizational freedom that should not only be respected but appreciated in a free society, as it allows private institutions the right of free association to implement their vision for a better world. Furthermore, if the Church finds that one of its members actively endangers the spiritual welfare of others, it has a duty to protect those who find nourishment and healing through its doctrines and practices.

Not only is this good democratic practice, it’s good “community psychology.”  Brené Brown has famously emphasized the need for healthy individuals to draw lines and boundaries as an important part of life.  Should not healthy communities be able to do the same?  

We believe so.  If Christ is the Great Physician, and the Church which bears His name believes His doctrines heal wounded souls, the Church has an obligation to censure those whom it determines have undermined faith in those healing doctrines.

We recognize that cultural attitudes about any such boundary drawing will likely remain sensitive matters.  As one commentator quipped, “The Church is not allowed to control its own message and mission because it shames, but Disney can fire Gina Carano for political views which don’t explicitly contradict Disney as an institution.”

In cases where an individual believes an institution has harmed them, the primary protection available is to leave that institution. Our association with the Church is entirely voluntary, but there is a solemn covenant we make to work in accordance with its unique vision for human well-being, not against it. And in a pluralistic society like ours, there are a great number of alternate religious and spiritual affiliations one can pursue which might better correspond with one’s own vision when it comes into conflict with a specific institution’s vision. Let each institution articulate its best vision for the world, without confusion and message-muddying, and let them compete in the marketplace of ideas. People can then observe the unadulterated fruits of that vision. 

Yet rather than doing that, perhaps we should not be surprised that some like Helfer choose to controversialize any such attempted institutional accountability against the institution whose leaders and doctrines she has frequently publicly opposed over several years.   

We should also not likely be surprised to observe that some who call church discipline abusive by its nature appear to feel the same toward anyone who would dare criticize their oppositional behavior of any kind. 

It is not abusive to call people to account for potentially harmful behavior. Nor is it aggressive, as we’ve detailed, for an institution to draw clear boundary lines. Any institution that refuses to do so will not remain an institution for long. 

It’s ironic, then, that many of these same people who accuse the Church of using excommunication as a weapon are participating in a massive public messaging campaign that wields excommunication as a weapon directed back against the Church itself. They may be the ones doing “spiritual violence.” 

We pray that we may all seek humility, whatever our position—and that God may guide the proceedings in question.  

Some will continue to speak out, of course—and object loudly. We write in hopes their voice won’t be the overriding influence in the public discourse around Church discipline in general.  

Even if that happens, of course, it won’t matter as much in the end.  After Alma teaches of the eventual blessings God grants his followers, he says, “And now, my brethren, what have ye to say against this? I say unto you, if ye speak against it, it matters not, for the word of God must be fulfilled.”

The post Excommunication as a Protection Against Spiritual Violence appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

That was the first of many sermons I heard from Ravi, who died earlier this year. He was an evangelical Christian. I am a Latter-day Saint. Our doctrinal differences are real and sometimes rocky, yet we also share vast swaths of smooth common ground. From that day in 2014, I added Ravi to my quiver of leaders outside of my faith tradition who have something important to teach me. To borrow the words of the Catholic writer Peter Kreef, I have listened to Ravi with the “simple intention of becoming more saintly, more Christlike, more in love with and in the service of our common Lord.” Ravi’s witness of Jesus Christ has often warmed my heart and lit fires in my mind. He taught me to read more widely and to think more critically about what I believe. For eight years, I have followed his organization’s newsletter, listened to their podcasts, watched their videos, read some of Ravi’s books (he remains one of my favorite writers and storytellers), and even donated a few dollars a year to Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Their mission—to help believers think and thinkers believe—is a noble one.

Recent revelations of alleged sexual misconduct against Ravi have hurtled my thoughts about him and his teachings in a very different direction. Christianity Today describes, in lurid detail, some of the sexually abusive things he allegedly did in private to three women who worked in two spas he co-owned. It is an intensely depressing read for the tens of thousands, if not millions, of people who have chosen to change their lives because of Ravi’s winsome witness of the Savior of the world.

The veracity of these and other allegations is under independent investigations. Christianity Today is a faith-affirming publication, not known for hatchet jobs against leaders of the faith it promotes. Thus, it is easy to assume the worst. The implications of such an assumption are sickening and devastating. Just think: One of the world’s foremost Christian apologists—a man who railed against immorality with the same fury and passion as the prophets of the Hebrew Bible—was perhaps himself criminally immoral in some of his private moments. And his organization raised tens of millions of dollars a year for his ministry while doing it.

Vince Vitale of RZIM co-authored a book with Ravi in 2017. One chapter, written by Vitale, contains words that are now laced with cruel irony for the ministry Ravi left behind. “People will only be open to seeing [God],” Vitale wrote, “if they can also look at the lives of God’s people and see new birth, stability of character and identity, a deep knowledge of who we are, and a confident sense that we were designed for a great, life-giving purpose.” 

If proven true, Ravi’s missteps will no doubt bring about for RZIM the same effect that a Book of Mormon missionary’s sexual improprieties brought upon a church of God in the Western Hemisphere of 74 B.C. As that missionary’s prophet father said to him after his escapade with a prominent harlot in a nearby city, “O my son, how great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites; for when they saw your conduct they would not believe in my words.”

That is the steep price of hypocrisy in the religious world. And such is a perennial problem because, as the Apostle Paul reminds us, “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”

It was not by chance that I came across the following passage from Jane Austen’s Elizabeth Bennet in my reading of Pride and Prejudice on the same day I encountered the damning article about Ravi. “The more I see of the world,” Elizabeth says, “the more am I dissatisfied with it; and every day confirms my belief of the inconsistency of all human characters, and of the little dependence that can be placed on the appearance of either merit or sense.”

This is how we feel when people let us down. And the more life we live, the more opportunity we have for disappointment. Many espouse a similarly justified cynicism toward faith leaders because so many skeletons of iniquity have been unearthed in recent decades. Whether it is Jimmy Swaggart’s affairs, the Catholic Church’s sex abuse scandal, or, more recently, Jerry Falwell Jr.’s sexual missteps, prominent followers of Jesus have too often lived with misguided and unchecked passions that are anathema to the cause of Christ. These sins cannot be winked at or ignored. Justice must be meted out. The standard of conduct is higher for those in positions of Christian leadership because they know better. Repentance is always possible; God will undoubtedly forgive. But, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer reminds us, “Such grace is costly.” “Cheap grace,” he adds, “is the deadly enemy” of the body of Christ.

Thus, for those in positions of authority, zero-tolerance with sexual immorality is the only option to maintain the safety of the flock. 

For Christians, it is a tragedy when cynicism blinds us and others to the beacons of ultimate hope—God the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. We must therefore remind ourselves that we need not abandon the ship of faith because of its imperfect messengers. Rightly viewed, these revelations about Ravi Zacharias are not proof that the Christian message he spread is totally false or that every preacher runs his or her own secret den of iniquity on the side. And for Christians, this is a lesson that we should never invest our faith solely in a fallible human. There is, after all, no other kind of human.

Our faith is to be rooted in Jesus Christ, first and always.

The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi, a spiritual giant to Latter-day Saints, lamented several barriers to his own belief. These included his personal wretchedness and sin, as well as the lingering anger and resentment within his broken family. But he was able to keep his faith firm partly because he did not “put [his] trust in the arm of flesh; for [he knew] that cursed is he that putteth his trust in man” (emphasis added).

We do ourselves and our leaders a disservice when we place them on pedestals of perfection and almost, as it were, worship them—either for their position, eloquence, or celebrity. My people, the Latter-day Saints, are led by men we consider to be prophets in the same sense that Moses, Isaiah, or Peter were prophets. While the first principle of our religion is and always has been faith in Jesus Christ, our strong veneration of our leaders can at times border on a dangerous strain of idol worship.

What if a Latter-day Saint apostle fell in the way Ravi is alleged to have fallen? Lest you think this impossible, remember story after story throughout scripture that show prophets and saints failing. Also, consider a rarely-quoted portion of our scriptural canon. It contains a proviso that “there is not any person belonging to the church who is exempt” from church discipline—even the prophet. This is because, as a Latter-day Saint hymn teaches, “the fight with sin is real.” Satan’s temptations are an ever-present reality. So long as we inhabit a fallen world with free will, people will always have the potential of letting us and themselves down.

When someone we trust falls from grace—be it a pastor, a prophet, a bishop, a father, a sister—we ought not throw Mosaic stones of judgment. We should mourn for their sin and for the damage done to their victims, themselves, their spouses, their children and grandchildren, their trusting followers, and those who will turn away from the message of Christianity (or religion generally) because of a stumbling block placed in their path by yet another hypocrite among the flock. And we should be merciful because we are equally capable of stumbling.

My plea and my prayer is that honest seekers of truth will discover and hold to the transcendent hope of Christ and the communal strength found in religion, in spite of the flawed men and women they will find there.

May the believers among us not be naïve about the dangers of sin. May we recognize its insidious effect on the witness we bear. May we pray, now and always, that our Father “suffer us not to be led into temptation, but deliver us from evil” (Joseph Smith translation of Matthew 6:13). And then may we then live like we believe it, staying as far from the abyss as possible.

The post The Steep Price of Hypocrisy in Christian Witness appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

What’s next for this beleaguered country?  In ancient Israel, the prophet Ezekiel drew attention to prophets as “watchmen” on the tower to help people be aware of threats in advance—and how to respond to protect and preserve the fragile foundations of a healthy society.  

Even more than before, now may be a good time to heed and consider what prophet leaders in our day have to say.  In what follows, we summarize ten specific messages these prophets have shared aimed toward the governing and thriving of a healthy society (see our previous summary, Prophets on Pandemic for messages specific to the pandemic). 

1. Serious disagreements don’t require hatred and anger.

President Dallin Oaks acknowledged that “in a democratic government we will always have differences over proposed candidates and policies. However, as followers of Christ, we must forego the anger and hatred with which political choices are debated or denounced in many settings.”

Then he quoted one of Jesus’s teachings “well-known but rarely practiced”—“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:43-44).  “What revolutionary teachings for personal and political relationships,” he remarked, before asserting, “But that is still what our Savior commands.”

President Oaks admitted, “Loving our enemies and our adversaries is not easy”— quoting President Gordon Hinckley, “Most of us have not reached that stage of…love and forgiveness. It requires a self-discipline almost greater than we are capable of.”  But as one of the Lord’s two “great commandments,” it still “must be possible.”  

But how? “The Savior’s teaching not to ‘contend with anger’ is a good first step” President Oaks continued—underscoring, “The devil is the father of contention, and it is he who…promotes enmity and hateful relationships among individuals and within groups. He quoted Jesus in the Book of Mormon who taught, “For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not  of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the  hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.” 

It hurts to carry around that kind of anger. And unburdening ourselves of it could increase our happiness too.  Elder Cook reminded people of the historical moment after Jesus’ visit to the Americas where there were “no envyings, strifes, tumults, lyings, murders,” and so forth, and “surely there could not be a happier people among all the people  who had been created by the hand of God.”

2. More than hate, we are to cultivate love—and not just for people who think like we do.

Even more valuable than not hating others, President Oaks encouraged people “to seek to understand the power of love”—quoting Joseph Smith as saying, “It is a time-honored adage that love begets love. Let us pour forth love—show forth our kindness unto all mankind.”

In invited remarks at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 2019, President Nelson taught, “We are all connected, and we have a God-given responsibility to help make life better for those around us. We don’t have to be alike or look alike to have love for each other. We don’t even have to agree with each other to love each other. If we have any hope of reclaiming the goodwill and sense of humanity for which we yearn, it must begin with each of us, one person at a time.”

He added, “The cure for what ails us was prescribed by the Master Healer, Jesus the Christ who taught “first to love God with all our hearts and, then, to love our neighbors as ourselves” (see Matthew 22:35–39). Together, we can extend this love to all God’s children—our fellow brothers and sisters.”  That means, as he said on another occasion, “expand[ing] our circle of love to  embrace the whole human family.”

This theme comes up over and over in prophetic teaching.  President Howard Hunter taught: “The world in which we live would benefit greatly if men and women everywhere would exercise the pure love of Christ, which is kind, meek, and lowly. It is without envy or pride….[I]t seeks nothing in return. …[I]t has no place for bigotry, hatred, or violence. …It encourages diverse people to live  together in Christian love regardless of religious belief, race, nationality,  financial standing, education, or culture.” President Monson declared: “As a church, we reach out not only to our own people but also to those people of goodwill throughout the world in that spirit of brotherhood which comes from the Lord Jesus Christ.”

The Savior’s teaching to love everyone—including our enemies—is based on “a fundamental doctrine and heartfelt conviction of our religion is that all people are God’s children” as President Nelson put it. “We truly believe that we are brothers and sisters—all part of the same divine family.” Elder Holland added in an address at Harvard, “Every man, woman, and child who has ever lived, now lives, or will yet live so long as the earth shall last is a son or daughter of a loving and divine Heavenly Father. He is the God in whose image we were created, which is not surprising in that children are always created in the image of their parents.”

3. That’s why civility is crucial, and not to be dismissed as a small issue.

Rather than a secondary issue, civility is consistently taught by prophets as important—even what President Gordon B. Hinckley called “the hallmark of civilization.” But even twenty years ago, President Hinckley lamented that “everywhere about us we see the opposite. …Civility and mutual respect seem to have disappeared It is appalling. It is alarming. And when all is said and done the cost can be attributed almost entirely to human greed, to uncontrolled passion, to a total disregard for the rights of others.”

President Russell M. Nelson has encouraged people “to demonstrate greater civility, racial and ethnic harmony, and mutual respect.” And included in a letter sent to members of the Church by presiding leaders before the election is the encouragement, “Please strive to live the gospel in your own life by demonstrating Christlike love and civility in political discourse.”

In this same long-standing letter is the reminder that “principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties, and members should seek candidates who best embody those principles.”

This kind of recognition that goodness and truth are not reserved to one side of the argument can help our tolerance go beyond a begrudging one—to a curiosity and appreciation of truth that someone else may also be motivated by.   

This isn’t easy, especially when we feel criticized in our own views.  But that’s especially the time to demonstrate Christ-like humility.  On that note, Elder Robert D. Hales remarked that “Some people mistakenly think responses such as silence, meekness, forgiveness, and bearing humble testimony are passive or weak. But, to ‘love [our] enemies, bless them that curse [us], do good to them that hate [us], and pray for them which despitefully use [us], and persecute [us]’ (Matthew 5:44) takes faith, strength, and, most of all, Christian courage.”

4. Christianity was an early proponent of a beautiful form of inclusive diversity that believers can wholeheartedly embrace.

President Nelson reminded people in his remarks that the Book of Mormon, which we esteem as a scriptural companion to the Holy Bible, documents the Savior inviting all to “come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he [denies] none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; . . . all are alike unto God.”

He adds, “May I repeat that last phrase: ‘All are alike unto God.’” 

In an address at Harvard, Elder Holland added that the intent of God in this plan is “universally inclusive. All are children of the same God, and all are included in His love and His grace….Everyone is covered, though it remains to be seen whether everyone cares. But if there is a failure to respond, it won’t be because God didn’t try and Christ didn’t come.” 

“With our all-inclusive doctrine,” Elder Cook teaches, “we can be an oasis of unity and celebrate diversity”—pointing out that “unity and diversity are not opposites. We can achieve greater unity as we foster an atmosphere of inclusion and respect for diversity.” He went on to share an experience when he served in church leadership in San Francisco, where “we had Spanish, Tongan, Samoan, Tagalog, and Mandarin language-speaking congregations. Our English-speaking wards were composed of people from many racial and cultural backgrounds. There was love, righteousness, and unity.” 

He concluded, “All are invited to partake of the Lord’s goodness.”

5. Efforts to appreciate diversity should not overshadow the pursuit of unity, which is even more important to seek after. 

Acknowledging that “we live in a moment of particularly  strong divisions,” Elder Cook points out that “the millions who have accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ have committed themselves …to live righteously and be united as never before” with “hearts and minds are knit together in unity.”

He went on to cite the Savior’s intercessory prayer recorded in the Gospel of John prior to his betrayal and crucifixion where he said “that they may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.” Elder Cook also referenced the Lord’s teaching of the early Saints during a difficult time of conflict when he said, “I say unto you,  be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.” 

But how are we to become one, we are so demographically different?  Something higher than race, class, or gender can unite us—something Elder Cook came to appreciate during his time in San Francisco serving with members from numerous races and cultures speaking many different languages. During that time, he came to see the book of  Romans as “the model for us even today …for unifying diverse people” by specifically encouraging different people to “follow the culture and doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Referencing that book, Elder Cook pointed out how some aspects of both Judaic and Gentile culture that conflict with the true gospel of Jesus Christ—explaining that God “essentially asks each of them to leave behind cultural impediments from their beliefs and culture that are not consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ”—noting:

The culture of the gospel of Jesus Christ is not a Gentile culture or a Judaic culture. It is not determined by the color of one’s skin or where one lives. While we rejoice in distinctive cultures, we should leave behind aspects of those cultures that conflict with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our members and new converts often come from diverse racial and cultural backgrounds….Yet we can be united in our love of and faith in Jesus Christ.

All those differences that seem so gaping in America today, then, may not be as fundamental as they appear. As Elder Cook adds, “Wards and branches in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are determined by geography, or language, not by race or culture. Race is not identified on membership records. The Savior’s ministry and message have consistently declared all races and colors are children of God. We are all brothers and sisters.” 

6. Aching injustice does continue to exist and calls for peaceful efforts to resolve it.

President Oaks acknowledged “There have been injustices. In public actions and in our personal attitudes we have had racism and related grievances” and said, “This country should be better in eliminating racism, not only against black Americans, who were most visible in the recent protests, but also against Latinos, Asians, and other groups. This nation’s history of racism is not a happy one and we must do better.” In an address at Oxford University, Elder Cook agreed that “The concept that ‘all men are created equal’ has made significant strides, but …there is much yet to be accomplished.”

President Nelson similarly noted that “as a society and as a country, we have not yet achieved the harmony and mutual respect that would allow every man and woman and every boy and girl to become the very best version of themselves.” With the leadership of the NAACP, they issued a joint invitation “for all people, organizations, and governmental units to work with greater civility, to eliminate prejudice of all kinds, and focus on important interests that we have in common.” 

As he put it, “Simply stated, we strive to build bridges of cooperation rather than walls of segregation.”

President Oaks reiterated, “Knowing that we are all children of God gives us a divine vision of the worth of all others and the will and ability to rise above prejudice and racism.”

When injustice occurs, President Oaks reminded people that the First Amendment to the  United States Constitution guarantees the “right of the people peaceably to assemble  and to petition the Government for a redress of grief—noting, “That is the authorized  way to raise public awareness and to focus on injustices in the content or  administration of the laws.” He then raised concern that some “seem to have forgotten that the protests protected by the constitution are peaceful protests.” He continued: 

Protesters have no right to destroy, deface, or steal property or to undermine the government’s legitimate police powers. The constitution and laws contain no invitation to revolution or anarchy. All of us—police, protesters, supporters, and spectators—should understand the limits of our rights and the importance of our duties to stay within the boundaries of existing law. Abraham Lincoln was right when he said: “There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.” Redress of grievances by mobs is redress by illegal means. That is anarchy, a condition that has no effective governance and no formal police, which undermines rather than protects individual rights. 

7. The Founding documents and early leaders in the United States were imperfect, but still inspired.

President Oaks taught:

The United States was founded by immigrants of different nationalities and different ethnicities. Its unifying purpose was not to establish a particular religion or to perpetuate any of the diverse cultures or tribal loyalties of the old countries. Our founding generation sought to be unified by a new constitution and laws. That is not to say that our unifying documents or the then-current understanding of their meanings were perfect. The history of the first two centuries of the United States showed the need for many refinements, such as voting rights for women and,  particularly, the abolition of slavery including laws to assure that those who had been enslaved would have all the conditions of freedom. 

He added, “the teachings of our Savior who inspired the Constitution  of the United States and the basic laws of many of our countries.” 

Elder Cook: In our doctrine, we believe that …the United States, the U.S. Constitution, and related documents, written by imperfect men, were inspired by God to bless all people. He went on to a scripture noting these documents were “established and should be maintained for the rights and  protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles” with the Lord declaring: “Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.”

This revelation came at a time when the Saints themselves were being driven from their homes and threatened by death.

8. Obedience to law is critical to a healthy society. But making more laws alone won’t be enough to provide greater stability, especially if we neglect supporting individuals and families.

In one of our core articles of faith, written after the early saints had suffered severe persecution from Missouri officials, Joseph Smith summarized, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” Echoing this, later prophets added:

We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected …and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest …and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror.

President Oaks elaborated, “Though Jesus’s teachings were revolutionary, He did not teach revolution or law-breaking. He taught a better way”—citing another revelation that states, “Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land. Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be.”

He clarified, “This does not mean that we agree with all that is done with the force of law. It means that we obey the current law and use peaceful means to change it. It also means that we peacefully accept the results of elections. We will not participate in the violence threatened by those disappointed with the outcome.  In a democratic society, we always have the opportunity and the duty to persist peacefully until the next election.” 

The importance of law leads some to focus attention on the creation of more (and more) laws in an attempt to shape human behavior. Yet Elder D. Todd Christofferson has cautioned that “At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.”

He elaborated, “The societies in which many of us live have for more than a generation failed to foster moral discipline. They have taught that truth is relative and that everyone decides for himself or herself what is right. Concepts such as sin and wrong have been condemned as “value judgments.” He cited the Lord’s teaching that “Every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god” and noted, “As a consequence, self-discipline has eroded and societies are left to try to maintain order and civility by compulsion.”

Elder Christofferson continued, “The lack of internal control by individuals breeds external control by governments” illustrated by one journalist who observed that “gentlemanly behavior protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior. …Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions, and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior.”

As another example, he pointed to the last economic recession: 

In most of the world, we have been experiencing an extended and devastating economic recession. It was brought on by multiple causes, but one of the major causes was widespread dishonest and unethical conduct, particularly in the U.S. housing and financial markets. Reactions have focused on enacting more and stronger regulation. Perhaps that may dissuade some from unprincipled conduct, but others will simply get more creative in their circumvention. 

He underscored what should perhaps be obvious: “There could never be enough rules so finely crafted as to anticipate and cover every situation, and even if there were, enforcement would be impossibly expensive and burdensome. This approach leads to diminished freedom for everyone.”

Elder Christofferson then summarized, “In the end, it is only an internal moral compass in each individual that can effectively deal with the root causes as well as the symptoms of societal decay. Societies will struggle in vain to establish the common good until sin is denounced as sin and moral discipline takes its place in the pantheon of civic virtues.”

That explains the prophetic emphasis on what happens in the home. As Elder Christofferson added, “Moral discipline is learned at home. While we cannot control what others may or may not do, the Latter-day Saints can certainly stand with those who demonstrate virtue in their own lives and inculcate virtue in the rising generation.” Elder Holland likewise noted, “no community of whatever size or definition has enough resources in time, money or will to make up for what does not happen at home.”

The consequences of a society that leaves behind all personal discipline can be terrifying. As Elder Cook noted the period in the Book of Mormon when “when iniquity and division destroyed righteousness and unity. The  depths of depravity that then occurred were subsequently so evil that ultimately the great Prophet  Mormon laments to his son, Moroni, ‘But O my son, how can a people like this, whose delight is in so much abomination—How can we expect that God will stay his hand in judgment against us?’”

9. Walking away from faith is a central, overriding (and unacknowledged) driver of our challenges as a society—and reversing that trend is critical to any deep solution.

In his remarks at Oxford, Elder Holland expressed concern with a “cultural shift of our day” that “continues to be characterized by less and less affiliation with organized or institutional religion.” On another occasion he cited Henry Martyn Field as warning powerfully:

The loss of respect for religion is the dry rot of social institutions. The idea of God as the Creator and Father of all mankind is to the moral world, what gravitation is in the natural; it holds everything else together and causes it to revolve around a common center. Take this away and any ultimate significance to life falls apart. There is then no such thing as collective humanity, but only separate molecules of men and women drifting in the universe with no more cohesion and no more meaning than so many grains of sand have meaning for the sea.

He summarized, “In the western world religion has historically been the basis of civil society as we have known it.”

If that’s true, then it calls for a reversal of these trends to get at the root of what’s happening.  That’s precisely what the prophets have proposed. After noting, “we live in a time during which things are in commotion “President Ballard said, “Many people fear the future, and many hearts have turned away from their faith in God and His Son, Jesus Christ.”

After saying to a large gathering in Boston, “I plead with you …to pray for this country, for our leaders, for our people, and for the families that live in this great nation founded by God” President Ballard shared his feeling “that America and many of the nations of the earth, as in times past, are at another critical crossroads and need our prayers.”

That was not in his prepared remarks and came spontaneously as “the Spirit prompt me to invite those present to pray for their country and their leaders.” Just this weekend, President Ballard expanded his call to “all people from every country around the world. No matter how you pray or to whom you pray, please exercise your faith—whatever your faith may be—and pray for your country and for your national leaders.”

He continued, “We stand today at a major crossroads in history, and the nations of the earth are in desperate need of divine inspiration and guidance.” It’s not in policy alone that we’ll find the resolution of our concerns, though—but only in the “peace and the healing that can come to individual souls as well as to the soul of countries—their cities, towns, and villages—through the Prince of Peace and the source of all healing, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

President Ballard continued powerfully: 

During the past few months, I have had the impression come to me that the best way to help the current world situation is for all people to rely more fully upon God and to turn their hearts to Him through sincere prayer. Humbling ourselves and seeking heaven’s inspiration to endure or conquer what is before us will be our safest and surest way to move confidently forward through these troubling times.

He continued:

I invite you to pray always. Pray for your family. Pray for the leaders of nations. Pray for the courageous people who are on the front lines in the current battles against social, environmental, political, and biological plagues that impact all people throughout the world: the rich and the poor, the young and the old.

The Savior taught us to not limit who we pray for. He said, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”

He concluded, “Brothers and sisters, I urge you to redouble your commitment to prayer. I urge you to pray in your closets, in your daily walk, in your homes, in your wards, and always in your hearts”—admitting:

The world’s current chaotic situation may seem daunting as we consider the multitude of issues and challenges. But it is my fervent testimony that if we will pray and ask Heavenly Father for needed blessings and guidance, we will come to know how we can bless our families, neighbors, communities, and even the countries in which we live. …How great is the power of prayer, and how needed are our prayers of faith in God and His Beloved Son in the world today!

10. The voices and participation of people of faith in society today are therefore crucial.

President Ballard added an important qualification, “Praying for justice, peace, the poor, and the sick is often not enough. After we kneel in prayer, we need to get up from our knees and do what we can to help—to help both ourselves and others.”

President Monson emphasized the importance of cooperation in civic endeavors: “We have a responsibility to be active in the communities where we live, all Latter-day Saints, and to work cooperatively with other churches and organizations.” The letter sent to Saints before elections states: “Citizens of the United States have the privilege and duty of electing office holders and influencing public policy. Participation in the political process affects their communities and nation today and in the future. We urge Latter-day Saints to be active citizens by registering, exercising their right to vote, and engaging in civic affairs.” 

Rather than just participating, the letter encourages work to be informed: “We also urge you to spend the time needed to become informed about the issues and candidates you will be considering.”

Instead of a liability, prophet leaders affirm that faith makes good citizens. As Elder Cook taught at Oxford, “Those who feel accountable to God have a responsibility to live upright lives of service to God and our fellowmen, to obey the law, and to be good citizens, neighbors, and friends in all we do. As we do so, ordinary citizens and governmental officials alike will be more inclined to see the value of religion and to respect the basic principles that allow us to freely live it.”

He added more recently “When people love God with all their hearts and righteously strive to become like Him, there is less strife and contention in society”—noting an example in the Book of Mormon where “there was no contention in the land, because of  the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.”

If religion can make such a difference, many no longer seem to be recognizing it. Elder Cook noted that “We live in an age where significant portions of our moral heritage are not only not appreciated, but in many cases, misunderstood or even dismissed, almost with disdain” and “some of the protections contained in various constitutions which emanate from historical moral values have been eroded or undermined.” He then emphasized, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports the religious freedom of all faiths as well as those with no faith.” 

Elder Holland taught that “people of faith should resist efforts by some that would drive them from the public square.” He continued, “To counter these trends every citizen should insist on his or her constitutional right to exercise one’s belief and to voice one’s conscience on issues not only in the privacy of the home or the sanctity of the pulpit but also in the public square, in the ballot box and in the halls of justice. These are the rights of all citizens, including people, leaders, and organizations who have religious beliefs. …They must not be disenfranchised.”

On one level, this is because all voices deserve to be heard. As Elder Christofferson summarized, “All laws and government policies are based on values—religious or otherwise. Everyone has a right to be heard—’to compete’—in the marketplaces of ideas and in influencing governmental decisions. To silence one voice potentially leads to silencing all others. Religious voices are at least as deserving of being heard as any others.” 

But it’s more than that.  Given the unique value that voices of faith provide to our public, this kind of open participation by religious voices in the public sphere is advanced as a social good. As Elder Christofferson reiterated: 

Religious participation in public life is not only part of American history and a constitutionally protected freedom, but it is also good for our nation …Churches and other religious organizations bring unique experiences and perspectives to public policy debates. They recognize corrosive social forces that threaten faith, family, and freedom. They know personally about the hardships of family breakdown, unemployment, poverty, drug abuse, and numerous other social ills. Why? Because they are on the front lines helping individuals and families work through these wrenching problems. When they speak out, they do so not for selfish reasons, like the special-interest groups that constantly lobby our public officials, but out of concern for the people they minister to, their families, and society itself. They bring a moral—often cautionary—voice to matters of social and public policy that we desperately need in this age of materialism, self-promotion, and disruptive change. The perspectives of churches and religious leaders make an irreplaceable contribution to our ongoing democratic conversation about how we should live together. Their voices are essential. And so are yours. 

He added, “If you are a person of faith, you have a critical contribution to make to our country and society. Public discussions about the common good are enriched by men and women like you …Don’t be intimidated by those who claim that you are imposing your religious beliefs on others. In a pluralistic society, promoting one’s values for the good of society is not imposing them on others—it is putting them forward for consideration along with all others. 

Elder Christofferson concluded, “Societies will choose and decide. Someone’s values will prevail in the end, and all of us have the right—and duty—to argue for what we believe will best serve the needs of the people and most benefit the common good. Without you, our political and social debates will lack the richness and insights needed to make wise decisions, and our nation and communities will suffer.”

It’s time for our society to decide. May our choice in this election and beyond be guided by wise principles, such as these prophets have been teaching for decades.  

The post Prophets on Politics: Ten Messages to an Agitated, Aggrieved America appeared first on Public Square Magazine.