But Professor Lindholm also came to research why his co-author, Professor W. Cole Durham Jr. so tirelessly promoted religious freedom. At bottom, he wanted to know the motives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the founding sponsor of BYU. 

To his delight, and perhaps surprise, he learned that The Church of Jesus Christ promotes the doctrine of religious freedom to bless everyone. In his own words, “You really believe this.”

Indeed, we do. But what is the doctrine of religious freedom, and why is it so important?

This two-part series will explore these questions. In this article, I discuss the importance of the doctrine of religious freedom in the gospel of Jesus Christ, the fundamental rights that facilitate it, the blessings it confers, and the prophetic invitations for Latter-day Saints to teach and promote it. In the next installment, I will discuss the history and constitutional protections of religious freedom and explore our responsibilities as church members to ensure the doctrine of religious freedom endures to bless all God’s children. 

Religious Freedom is Important Church Doctrine

President D. Todd Christofferson has taught that church doctrine does not come through “a statement made by one leader on a single occasion.” Rather, as Elder Neil L. Andersen explained, Church “doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.”

By that definition, religious freedom is unquestionably an important doctrine of the Church.  Indeed, members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have frequently taught the principles of religious freedom. 

In particular, President Dallin H. Oaks, president of the Church, has defended religious freedom throughout his apostolic ministry. This is significant because, as President Christofferson has noted, the President of the Church has a “preeminent role” in promulgating church doctrine.

To make that ultimate choice, religious freedom is required. Without religious freedom, we cannot choose “to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience” nor, as stated in the eleventh article of faith, can others choose to worship “how, where, or what they may.”

As a Church, we celebrate the Constitution of the United States that the Lord “suffered to be established” for the “rights and protection of all flesh” precisely because it sets forth “just and holy principles” allowing “every man” to “act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I [the Lord] have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.” Thus, the Church champions the universal doctrine of religious freedom not merely for its own benefit, but because it is key to accomplishing God’s purpose in allowing everyone to exercise their moral agency.

The importance of this doctrine of religious freedom is now on full display as we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the United States of America. Earlier this year, the First Presidency issued a letter instructing all church wards and branches to hold a fifth Sunday discussion on May 31, 2026, on how the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution “support religious freedom and our God-given agency.” In addition, for the Church’s scheduled fast on July 5, 2026, the First Presidency invited all “to participate in a unified fast to express gratitude for religious liberty and to pray that it be strengthened throughout the world.” 

In support of these worldwide initiatives, the Church has created a specialized curriculum on religious freedom available on Gospel Library. This curriculum emphasizes the doctrine of religious freedom as taught by the Lord and His servants.

In addition to these resources, church members can find a repository of addresses given by Church leaders available at the Religious Freedom Library. 

Rights of Religious Freedom

Given the importance of the doctrine of religious freedom, it is appropriate to ask which legal rights are most important for enabling the moral agency it aims to protect. President Oaks and Elder Wickman, a former general counsel of the Church and General Authority Seventy, suggested an answer by identifying the following rights as necessary protections for individuals and religious organizations:

1.   The right of freedom of conscience
2.   The right of worship
3.   The right to assembly
4.   The right to self-government
5.   The right to communicate with church members
6.   The right to legal entity status and action for religious organizations
7.   The right to declare religious beliefs publicly
8.   The right to travel freely
9.   The right to full participation in society
10.   The right to freedom from retaliation.

These protections are examples of what Elder Wickman terms the “innermost core” of rights that should be available under our doctrine of religious liberty. Because there is little room for compromise on this core, they form the highest priority in our hierarchy of religious rights. 

Elder Wickman also explained that near this core is “the right not to be punished, retaliated against, or excluded from one’s employment based solely on one’s faith.” In addition, “freedoms related to religiously important nonprofit functions carried on by religious organizations and religious schools, colleges, and universities” are near the core rights that should be protected. These rights include “the freedom to hire based on religious criteria” and to “establish honor codes that reflect religious teachings.” These “near core” rights have occasionally been threatened in recent years. Examples includfe repercussions to religious believers for morally objecting to same-sex marriage and threats to BYU because its Honor Code requires traditional chastity and virtue.

Beyond this core are rights in commercial settings in which “our expectations of unfettered religious freedom must be tempered.” In such settings, we “must be willing to make prudential compromises.” This is an area of churning dispute. The Supreme Court has recently supported a variety of religious freedom claims in commercial settings, exempting cake makers and website owners from having to provide artistic services to same-sex weddings, and permitting counselors to provide counseling consistent with a patient’s biological sex in accordance with their religious convictions. On the other hand, many other courts have denied religious claims in commercial settings. For example, many courts have upheld employers’ COVID-19 vaccination requirements even though employees have sought exemptions for religious reasons. Additionally, a public school teacher was recently required to remove a private crucifix from her classroom when a student objected. 

The lowest level in this hierarchy consists of religious rights that conflict with others’ rights, including those of government. “In these areas, religious beliefs should be reasonably accommodated, but other governmental interests may significantly limit the degree of accommodation.” As an illustration, Elder Wickman suggested that if your government job is to issue marriage licenses, your freedom to refuse to issue “licenses for marriage that are contrary to your religious beliefs may be very limited.”

Thus, while religious liberty is ultimately intended to protect our rights, properly understood the doctrine of religious freedom recognizes that not all rights have equal weight. We acknowledge that we must be willing to temper our expectations based on the circumstances, according to the hierarchy of the religious rights involved. 

Blessings of Religious Freedom

President Christofferson began his argument by acknowledging:

It is becoming increasingly common for people to think that religion and religious freedom are some kind of burden on society. That is simply not true. Religion is fundamental to societal well-being, and freedom of religion benefits not only believers but all of society, whether they know it or not. Therefore, all have an interest in protecting this freedom, whether they are believers or not.

President Christofferson then noted that some of the many universal benefits that religion and religious freedom provide include protection for other fundamental rights and increased societal goods. He noted that “rich scholarship” suggests that “[c]ountries with strong religious freedom tend to be more stable and prosperous,” have increased moral virtues and habits of good citizenship, have less crime and violence, have increased civic involvement, give more time and resources to humanitarian causes, have increased marital stability, and have healthier children with lower rates of depression and suicide and less “anxiety, loneliness, low self-esteem, sadness, delinquent or illegal behavior, pornography, drug and alcohol abuse, and other addictive behaviors.”

At a subsequent international conference, President Christofferson enumerated additional social benefits derived from the doctrine of religious freedom. He noted:

1.  “Religious liberty is the oldest and most deeply rooted freedom in international human rights law and is essential to the entire structure of human rights.”
2.  “Religious liberty is essential for protecting human dignity.”
3.  “Religious liberty promotes pluralism and peace.”
4.  “Religious liberty facilitates a proper separation of church and state that avoids any justification for secular hostility toward religion.”
5.  “Religious liberty allows diverse faith communities to continue providing critical services to society and its most disadvantaged members.”
6.  “Religious liberty enables all of us—whether religious or not—freely to pursue truth and the meaning of life, and to live accordingly.”

This impressive list of benefits accrues because those who enjoy religious freedom can freely choose to follow their faith, allowing them to be “blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual.”

To secure such blessings for ourselves and others, the Lord has encouraged the Church and its members to “befriend[] that law which is the constitutional law of the land.” In doing so, the Church and its members increasingly engage with others in “supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges.”

Examples of this engagement include BYU’s International Center for Law and Religion Studies (ICLRS), which hosts the Annual International Law and Religion Symposium. Now in its 33rd year, the Symposium has hosted over 1,500 government, academic, and religious leaders from 138 countries to learn more about religious freedom principles applicable in all countries. Additionally, ICLRS and the Wheatley Institute at BYU co-host the Religious Freedom Annual Review, in which academic and government leaders from many faith traditions, as well as members of the public, gather to learn about religious freedom within the United States. Similarly, the Church acts with others in supporting the G20 Interfaith Forum, which brings together scholars, faith leaders, and government officials to ensure public policy appropriately supports religious freedom principles.

All these efforts, and many more, are intended to bless mankind. As Joseph Smith emphatically stated in 1843:

If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a ‘Mormon,’ I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves. It is a love of liberty which inspires my soul—civil and religious liberty to the whole of the human race.

Invitation to Teach and Promote the Doctrine of Religious Freedom

The living prophets and apostles have abundantly taught us the doctrine of religious freedom, the rights needed to facilitate it, and the great blessings it bestows. President Oaks has invited us to learn this doctrine and promote its principles. Speaking to an audience at BYU–Idaho, he said:

I invite you to march with me as I speak about religious freedom under the United States Constitution. There is a battle over the meaning of that freedom. The contest is of eternal importance, and it is your generation that must understand the issues and make the efforts to prevail.

Fortunately, we have a unique capacity to promote religious freedom. Years ago, when I began working on religious freedom issues, I invited a former professor not of our faith to visit the International Center for Law and Religion Studies at BYU. After spending several hours learning about the Center’s work, he looked at me and said, to the best of my recollection, “What your church is doing to protect religious freedom is amazing. You must continue because your people are in the best position to carry forward the message of religious freedom to the world. Because of your history of religious persecution and because you sincerely advocate religious freedom for everyone, you speak from a position of tremendous credibility and authority.” His encouragement to me applies to all Latter-day Saints because we share a common heritage and responsibility to promote the doctrine of religious freedom.

As part of our country’s 250th anniversary celebration, I hope we all feel renewed motivation to learn and promote the doctrine of religious freedom as we heed the First Presidency’s invitation to unitedly fast and pray that religious freedom “be strengthened throughout the world.”

The post The Importance of Religious Freedom appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

These bright young students were highly engaged. We had fruitful discussions about the concept of equal justice in the abstract, as well as its potential applications to modern issues in law. In those discussions, a recurring problem arose: What, if anything, does equal justice demand once rights protections are in place? Is it enough that government refrain from infringing rights, or does the pursuit of equal justice call for citizens to defend and facilitate the rights of others as well?  

These questions lie at the intersection of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. What follows is a brief exploration of these questions. Considering the Constitution in light of the Declaration of Independence, these documents suggest that equal justice might involve more than formal legal equality. It requires not only the protection of rights through the rule of law, but also a continuing commitment to the conditions that make liberty genuinely available to all.

A Divinely Inspired Constitution 

In his April 2021 general conference address, Oaks identified at least five “divinely inspired principles” in the Constitution. Two of these principles are strongly tied to equal justice. One is the “vital guarantees of individual rights and specific limits on government authority in the Bill of Rights.” Another is that “We are to be governed by law and not by individuals, and our loyalty is to the Constitution and its principles and processes, not to any office holder. In this way, all persons are to be equal before the law.” This principle can be summarized as the rule of law.

A few months later, Oaks published an article in the Deseret News in which he noted that “America has been blessed by an inspired Constitution that aims at equal justice and the advancement of all on the basis of merit.” He then followed this statement with a reiteration of the five divinely inspired principles from his talk, including the two previously mentioned (protection of individual rights and the rule of law). 

Oaks’s Deseret News article suggests that the Constitution contains additional divinely inspired principles beyond those he expressly identified. It also confirms that justice is a central theme in the Constitution’s divinely inspired nature. This might be deduced from careful consideration of equal justice’s relation to the earlier stated principles of protection of individual rights and the rule of law. The protection of each person’s rights and the equal application of the law are at the forefront of the Constitution’s aims. Together, these principles aspire to justice for all.

The Connection Between the Constitution and the Declaration

Oaks’s article also brings into consideration the Declaration of Independence. He mentions the Declaration and the “lofty principles” it espoused before expounding on equal justice.

Suppose the Constitution rests on a theory of justice grounded in natural rights. Although contested, this view is at least plausible given the context of the Constitution’s adoption. 

We are now coming up on the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. As I have argued elsewhere, the Declaration defends the legitimacy of the colonists’ separation from the Crown based on a claim to natural rights and human equality. The claim, at its most essential, is that all human beings are created equal in that they have certain inalienable natural rights, among them being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government, the Declaration argues, is not legitimate unless it acknowledges and preserves these basic truths and protects these rights. 

The Declaration connects to the Constitution on this point. The Constitution was drafted, at least in part, to secure liberty and establish institutions capable of protecting natural rights. This is evident in its Preamble, which states that its aims are to, among other things,  “establish Justice . . . promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” 

Bringing these claims full circle to Oaks’s divinely inspired principles, it would make sense that they include “vital guarantees of individual rights” and governance by the rule of law such that “all persons are to be equal before the law.” The core of the Declaration’s bold claim of human equality and inalienable rights is central to what animates the inspired aspects of the Constitution.

Seeking Equal Justice

If we consider equal justice as an inspired principle, what does this add to Oaks’s previously established list of principles? It reinforces the notion that the Constitution protects the rights of all persons on an equal basis, thereby guaranteeing human equality. Equal justice, then, can be understood as the union of rights protection and the rule of law.

Notably, the combined words “equal justice” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. In one sense, this is of little concern. There are ample rights-protecting provisions enumerated in the document. And with the adoption of the Reconstruction Amendments, which “completed” the Constitution’s commitment to equal justice, it is clear that, at least as a matter of law, all are to be protected equally before the law and all citizens are guaranteed protection in their rights.

In another sense, there remains a deep, ongoing ambiguity in the law. Though discernible in the text, equal justice remains notoriously difficult to apply in the broader scheme of American governance. 

Take this example from Oaks’s article. He recounted a story of his law firm declining to hire a young lawyer merely because the lawyer was Jewish. After Oaks and his colleague protested, the young attorney was hired and went on to become a managing partner. From this example, it is clear that Oaks had in mind, at a minimum, the idea that equal justice allows all to participate equally in civil life and proceed—whether they rise or fall—based on merit alone. (As noted below, equal justice was not compelled by law in this instance, yet the principle was operative nonetheless.)

In theory, equal justice seems straightforward. Whoever performs best ought to receive the best rewards. (For the moment we will bracket the question of who decides and by what metric.) The idea is that those who are naturally more talented or who work harder will simply rise to the top. After all, the Declaration’s—and, by extension, the Constitution’s—promise is that all will receive the blessings of liberty so long as they are governed by law and their rights are protected. 

But practical reality very soon gets in the way. Often in this nation’s past, those promises went not only unfulfilled but were actively frustrated, particularly for this nation’s black population. From slavery to Jim Crow, rights were perpetually violated and equal justice was a sham. The sort of rights deprivation that took place was certainly more than enough to justify revolution, at least by the Declaration’s standards.

Eventually, these wrongs were removed through the Reconstruction Amendments and later civil rights legislation. But were the wrongs ever fully remedied? Was there proper restitution? There remained the practical reality that a certain segment of the population had been deprived of every right imaginable and now had to find their way in America. The ever-present question, then, is whether the Constitution’s conception of justice would be sufficient to guarantee basic human equality.

The Reconstruction Amendments guaranteed equal protection of rights. They did not necessarily guarantee equal access to the conditions required to exercise those rights. If generations of injustice deprived some citizens of property, education, or opportunity, would the mere cessation of discrimination be sufficient to secure the Constitution’s promise of equal justice? Or does equal justice require more than noninterference? Or, alternatively, does the Constitution merely settle for the idea that, moving forward, rights would not be infringed? Is that equal justice?

Perhaps the answer lies in some other divinely inspired principle, as Oaks left open the possibility that there were others not listed. And, of course, even the ones identified are not self-executing. Are mercy, grace, or restitution divinely inspired principles conceivably within the bounds of the Constitution?

Oaks and his colleague did not need to stand up for the young Jewish lawyer; nothing in the Constitution required it. After all, equal justice does not demand that an individual be able to force another to employ him or her. But this shows the gravity of Oaks’s actions. He acted even though the law imposed no obligation to do so. He saw that justice required the firm to adhere to a higher principle in its hiring practices. This might suggest that maintaining equal justice is more than simply refraining from violating the rights of others. It might include actively ensuring that fellow citizens are treated with equal dignity and respect, as Oaks did in his example.

It is beyond the scope of this essay to delineate a carefully orchestrated political program to achieve equal justice in our political moment. But if equal justice means the protection of natural rights through the rule of law for the end of securing the blessings of liberty, there is much more that must be done than apathetically standing on the sidelines. Oaks provided one vision of that end as “the advancement of all on the basis of merit.” 

Whatever it might look like, it will require active assessment of our moment and whether equal justice demands more. It will take careful analysis and prudent action to determine whether prior rights deprivations have been remedied or whether current rights deprivations appear as the same old snake but in new skin. This nation has come a long way in seeking equal justice for all, and there is surely more that can and ought to be done. But the pursuit is just as critical as the end. If we diligently seek to realize the Constitution’s promise of equal justice, the Declaration can continue to serve as a standard for American self-government for the next 250 years.

The post Equal Justice and the Blessings of Liberty appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

They talk as though “Mormonism” were an ethnicity. As though there were something in the blood. As though having the right grandparents, the right zip code, the right memories of casseroles and church basketball and trek and EFY and green Jell-O and dirty sodas and ward culture means you retain some inherited authority to define what the Church is, what it should preserve, and what it owes the world.

The Church of Jesus Christ is not an aesthetic, it’s not an ethnicity, it’s not a regional brand, it’s not even a culture. It is a church.

It has doctrine, commandments, ordinances, priesthood keys, and covenants. It has admission requirements, and it has boundaries.

“Mormon” Isn’t a Culture

Beginning in the early- to mid-2010s, there was a tendency among online Latter-day Saint malcontents to claim they had a special say over what happened in the Church by listing their Latter-day Saint bona fides before they launched into whatever complaint they had.

It started to become an embarrassing cliche, but these critics would usually talk about callings in which they served, people they knew, and their heritage in the Church, as though this gave them some special authority to critique.

Perhaps the most groan-worthy example of this was when The Washington Post described James Huntsman, who at that point was no longer a member of The Church of Jesus Christ, as “Mormon royalty” because of who his family was. 

At the time, these complaints were usually focused on tensions between the critics’ progressive American beliefs and the positions of a worldwide church. And the attitude was imported from Reddit, a social media site that is designed to encourage groupthink, and condescension against those outside its own orthodoxy. 

At the same time, a trend began of conceptualizing a Latter-day Saint culture that was severable from the doctrine and practice of the Church, led by many of the mommy bloggers and eventual influencers. They showed their lives online, but often with the religious portions omitted or left on the edges to make the lifestyle content more broadly accessible. 

Increasingly, those who were in the space, but not faithful Latter-day Saints themselves, would use the word “Mormon” to describe themselves, their spaces, or their movement. In fact, on Reddit, they called the “subreddit” dedicated to criticizing The Church of Jesus Christ and its members “r/mormon.” 

This trend has continued as the Church’s actual membership increasingly lives outside Utah and the United States, among people who would be quite confused by carrots in Jell-O.

Why Would They Still Want the Name?

I understand why so many people want to associate themselves with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the “Mormon” name. 

For the purposes of marketing, “Mormon” clearly interests people. Latter-day Saints have incredible reputations worldwide. I can understand why those who don’t choose to support The Church of Jesus Christ or live by its covenants and doctrines still want to participate in the sense of community and identity it provided. I would also love it if I could keep getting paychecks from my employer without doing any of the work. 

But just because their desire to stay associated with the Church makes sense doesn’t mean that reasonable people need to abide by it. 

John Dehlin, for example, criticized the Church with false information for so long and so consistently that he was excommunicated over a decade ago. His podcast, “Mormon Stories,” is not about “Mormon stories,” nor has it been for a very long time. The podcast is, by all rights, about “Ex-Mormon Stories” or “Anti-Mormon Stories.”

So when he recently described himself in a podcast as “Mormon,” it makes sense, it’s just not true, not in any meaningful way. 

And we would do well to look at such claims the same way Europeans do when Americans claim European identity—with cringe. 

“You’re not Irish. Maybe your great grandparents were Irish, but then they left, and you’ve been in America for a very long time.” 

Names have incredible power, which is why they are protected under trademark law. I understand faith transitions can be difficult, and they implicate identity in difficult ways. But if you apostasize from your faith, you don’t get to keep claiming it. Or at least people should ignore you when you try to. 

The process of leaving a faith fundamentally changes the way you think about it, the way you talk about it, and the way you remember it. This is why the Washington Post’s reporting on James Huntsman was so harmful. If he were in fact a “Mormon” who chose to sue the Church, that would communicate something very different about what was happening than the fact that he was an ex-Mormon and chose to sue the Church. 

And that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of his point. But for someone on the inside to make certain kinds of claims is just different than when someone on the outside does the same. People understand this instinctively. 

So when someone uses “Mormon” to describe themselves or their community after they’ve actually left, they are trying to appropriate credibility they haven’t earned. 

I understand that many people desire to discuss their experience growing up within The Church of Jesus Christ even if they’ve left the Church. There is a simple, easy-to-understand way to describe this: “Ex-Latter-day Saint” or “Ex-Mormon.”

Didn’t You Give Up on the Name “Mormon”?

Let’s talk about the word “Mormon” for a minute. Latter-day Saints no longer choose to describe themselves this way. We choose to find every opportunity we can to refer to Jesus Christ and our membership in His Church. 

Some have attempted to argue that because Latter-day Saints no longer use the description “Mormon” for themselves, it is free for others to use. 

It’s not. 

Kentucky Fried Chicken has recently decided to no longer use that name for its restaurants; it is now called just KFC. 

When The Church of Jesus Christ announced a reprioritization of its name, there were several simple short plugins for existing nomenclature. For example:

• “Mormons” could be replaced with “Latter-day Saints”
• “Mormon Church” could be replaced with “The Church of Jesus Christ”
• “Mormon Tabernacle Choir” could be replaced with the “Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square”

But there was one common phrase that did not have an easy replacement: “Mormonism.” And as a writer who has had to deal with this limitation, the more I’ve worked through it, the more obvious it has become to me that this was not an oversight. 

In today’s Church, there is no single “Mormonism”; there are hundreds of cultures around the world as people live the gospel in their own countries and settings.

That thing we call “Mormonism” doesn’t actually do a good job of explaining the culture of all the people who believe in The Book of Mormon. There are lots of smaller cultures within it, and being left without an obvious word I’ve had to think more carefully about what I actually mean. Do I mean Word of Wisdom culture, or do I simply mean Utah culture. 

There is a culture, and it’s probably the culture you think of when I say “Mormonism,” but it is increasingly niche, and we need to find ways to describe it that do not implicate nearly 18 million people worldwide. It is a contemporary Utah-descended lifestyle culture that is downstream from an older pioneer world. It’s an evolved pioneer culture. It could be called “Utah culture” or “Intermountain West culture.” But it’s not “Mormon” culture, it’s not the culture of The Church of Jesus Christ, it’s one of many cultures within a worldwide gathering.

There’s nothing wrong with this evolved pioneer culture. I love funeral potatoes. But to suggest that Taylor Frankie Paul, the star of “Secret Lives of Mormon Wives,” is part of “Mormonism” because she drinks dirty sodas, even after she chose to leave, is offensive. 

So I, for one, greeted the news that The Church of Jesus Christ was suing “Mormon Stories” for trademark infringement with gratitude. 

Why Do You Care Who Calls Themselves “Mormon”?

I should be clear: the Church isn’t suing John Dehlin simply because he’s using the word “Mormon” to describe his podcast. The Church is suing him because he uses the word in conjunction with visual imagery specifically to trick people into listening to his podcast, and he refuses to include a disclaimer. 

The fact that most people will quickly be able to tell, after clicking on his podcast, that he is a malcontent doesn’t change the underlying lie. I still couldn’t start a restaurant called “Kentucky Fried Chicken” even if it sold hamburgers to prevent confusion. Trading on that company’s identity to get people in the front door is a problem in itself.

But just because The Church of Jesus Christ is not going after Dehlin solely for using the word “Mormon” doesn’t mean that people of good faith shouldn’t.

This is especially important because it causes incredulous media to turn to these folks as experts on The Church of Jesus Christ, and it can impact members and investigators who are not frequently online. 

Mormon may not be the name we call ourselves, but it is still an important part of who we are. The nickname comes from a record of Jesus Christ visiting people on another continent. That matters to us. Imagine an ex-Muslim starting a podcast about “Quran Stories” and saying that this isn’t a problem because they don’t call themselves “Qurans,” they call themselves “Muslims.”

But that’s not what has happened. Those who have left the faith have not joined these other churches in good faith to continue describing themselves as “Mormon.” This also isn’t about well-meaning Latter-day Saints who may be struggling with a testimony or with standards but who still see themselves as within the community. This is about those who leave, and who, in many cases, are actively seeking to tear down the work done by people who actually love The Book of Mormon, continuing to use the word because it helps them generate more web traffic than an honest name would. 

The Subtle Racism of “Cultural Mormonism”

For a church community that is increasingly populated and run by people from Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the idea that people get special say over what happens within the community because of who their grandparents were brings up unfortunate racial problems.

You gain membership through baptism, and you maintain that membership through covenant keeping. 

If you don’t do those two things, then you don’t have a seat at the table; you’ve decided to leave the table. That spot is for new converts learning to leave their own culture for the gospel way, who are trying every day to live in faith and honesty. Trying to freeze Mormon identity to a past time based on what our ancestors were doing dismisses the real work of those all over the world who don’t have that background, but who are doing the work. 

It is their voices that need to be heard, not the person whose grandfather worked with a Romney, or who was a district leader on a foreign language-speaking mission, or who served as second counselor in a bishopric but then decided to leave because the Church’s position on some social issue just wasn’t popular enough for him and his Instagram followers. That person isn’t “Mormon Royalty,” that person isn’t “Culturally Mormon,” that person doesn’t have “Mormon stories,” that person isn’t Mormon. He left. And I wish him the best. But we’re busy trying to build Zion, and you can’t steal our name to help tear it down. 

The post Who is a Mormon? appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

The Supreme Court recently ruled that a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy” for minors is unconstitutional to the extent that it prohibits talk therapy. Commentators from across the political spectrum immediately began using the case, Chiles v. Salazar, as fodder for one political narrative or another, often without context or discussion of how the justices came to their conclusion. 

But interpreting the case as “mere politics” misses crucial details and ignores what the opinion actually said. The fact that eight members of the Court (including two Democrat-appointed justices) signed on to the decision suggests that this case might be more interesting than ordinary politics—it might teach us something about the Constitution. 

But first, what happened? 

Kaley Chiles is a licensed mental health counselor in Colorado. She is also a Christian. Some of her clients are minors who experience same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria.

When these clients come to Ms. Chiles, she lets them dictate the kind of help they want. Some want to acknowledge their experiences with sexuality without making it the focus of their identity. Others don’t. For example, some of her clients who experience gender dysphoria want Ms. Chiles’ help to feel more comfortable with their biological sex. Others prefer to focus on affirming their gender identity. She adapts to the client’s goal.

Crucially for this case, Ms. Chiles employs only talk therapy in her practice. The counselor and client speak—that’s it. No medications, procedures, or other treatments involved.

Did the Supreme Court Just Reinstate Conversion Therapy?

In conducting her practice, Ms. Chiles ran into a law that Colorado passed in 2019. The law is aimed at banning conversion therapy for minors. Conversion therapy is therapy that attempts to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of the patient. Historically, it has included horrifying aversive techniques—including electric shock therapy—that have caused great suffering. Ms. Chiles does not use these methods, and no one in the case defends them.

In defense of the Colorado legislature, drafting laws is hard. Legislators try to define acceptable behavior as precisely as they can, but it’s easy for laws to miss the mark. They are often drafted broadly to ensure they fully encompass their aim—but the scope of the law often extends far beyond the bullseye. Activities that were never intended to be affected sometimes are. 

Broad laws lead to startling headlines like “Supreme Court Allows Licensed Mental Health Practitioners to Traumatize Children.” It gives the sense that the Supreme Court is saying full-steam ahead for shock therapy for people who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. None of us want that!

And thankfully, that’s not what happened here. The way Colorado operationalized “conversion therapy” was very broad, encompassing far more than the typical definition of “conversion therapy.” What Ms. Chiles was discussing in her practice, always at the request of the client, was on the outer edges of the law’s potential reach. 

As one survivor of conversion therapy put it when defending the kind of therapy in this case: “Those are not the coercive practices of my youth. They are value-congruent goals that even secular clinicians may support.” 

For people with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, particularly faithful Christians, this ruling is welcome relief. It means they can talk with their counselors freely and choose their own paths, not being coerced by the state to pursue only one path. For Christians seeking to find peace with their sexual identity and discipleship, this ruling actually preserves their ability to have fully frank conversations with their counselors, to grapple with all of the hard questions and the complexity of their experience. How painful would it be to have counselors who had to shut down those conversations?

The ruling can be seen as preserving choice for everyone, no matter your approach to LGBT+ issues. As Justices Kagan and Sotomayor point out in their concurrence, a hypothetical law that is the mirror image of Colorado’s—in other words, one that bars therapy affirming a minor’s sexual orientation and gender identity—would also be unconstitutional under this ruling. To ban one perspective but not the other is viewpoint discrimination, and that is almost always disallowed under the Constitution.

This ruling preserves the right of mental health counselors to speak with their clients, whatever path their clients decide to take. This is good news in a highly contested and very sensitive area. 

The Future of Speech and Conduct 

This case does not resolve all issues related to “conversion therapy”—not by a long shot. The ruling relied heavily on the fact that Ms. Chiles was only using speech in her practice. If she had offered medication or medical procedures, the whole analysis could change. That’s because it would then raise the question of whether the speech was “incidental to conduct,” a fancy legal way of acknowledging that speech and action are often connected to each other. For example, doctors are often required to provide informed consent to a patient before prescribing a medication or performing a surgery. The government can compel the doctor to provide this factual information because it is related to the treatment. But just how far the government can compel speech incidental to conduct is tricky to say. 

Justice Jackson, the lone dissenter, said that a counseling session should be treated as conduct that a state can regulate as part of its police powers. In her eyes, if you are experiencing gender dysphoria, there are a number of treatments you might pursue: medication, surgery, and counseling. Since she views counseling as just another form of treatment, and because the other treatments constitute conduct that the state can regulate, she thinks counseling should also be regulated as conduct, notwithstanding the fact (which she admits) that the conduct itself is pure speech. 

On its face, the argument seems plausible. But we think she misses how talk therapy is different from other kinds of treatment. Various treatments exist because people want different outcomes in a given situation. Counseling as a treatment allows the patient to explore the patient’s own goals. It has greater flexibility than other treatments, allowing the patient to drive the direction. 

Talk therapy is often chosen by people who, for faith or other reasons, prefer to form their sense of self around something other than the sexual feelings they experience. For some, the experience of same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria is a prominent part of their lives, yet the focal point is being a disciple of Christ, including living the law of chastity. Some may say this is a denial of who they “really are,” but this presupposes that the person is constituted fundamentally by their sexual desires—an assumption that many people reject. Talk therapy provides an opportunity for people to decide for themselves how they will take a stand on their identity. 

The Culture Wars, Still Unresolved 

Again, though it’s easy to cheer or boo at this case based on your political leanings, it’s important to take a step back and see what this case actually changed—or didn’t change. Therapists can still talk to clients about the clients’ preferred approach to their sexual desires or feelings about gender. States can still ban harmful conversion therapy that involves medications or treatments that go beyond mere speech. What this case did not do is provide any kind of “resolution” to the ongoing cultural battles over sex, gender, and identity that have been going on for decades. Perhaps the work of finding “resolution” is not the Court’s job but is instead reserved for all of us.

The post Clarifying the Supreme Court’s Conversion Therapy Ruling appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Approximately one hundred people in California are alleging sexual abuse or misconduct linked to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in California courts. If these claims all turn out to be true, that would represent one hundred individual tragedies—one hundred instances of innocence lost and one hundred relationships with God potentially complicated by the grievous actions (or inactions) of leaders. It would reflect one hundred stories of emotional and psychological pain.

Even if some of the cases do not hold up in court or are found to be inaccurate, it is heartbreaking to think that someone might feel so angry or disaffected as to make a false or exaggerated claim against the Church. Whether a claim is true or false, it indicates deep pain for those individuals and potentially serious consequences for the faith community they are accusing.

Responding with Care

As Latter-day Saints who have covenanted to mourn with those who mourn, we have an obligation to respond as best we can to these developments. Responding effectively to disclosures of sexual abuse requires empathy, active listening, and clear, survivor-centered steps. First and foremost, start by believing the survivor—thank them for trusting you and reaffirm that what happened was not their fault. As emphasized by RAINN and the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, a supportive response prevents secondary victimization, where a survivor is retraumatized by disbelief or judgment.

There is a role for recognizing that false accusations exist. But that role is in broader policy conversations and in specific accusations where the legal system is equipped to provide the accused with the presumption of innocence.

Next, listen without pressing for details the survivor is not ready to share. Calmly acknowledge their pain: “I’m so sorry this happened to you. You’re not alone, and I’m here to help.” Validate their feelings of anger, sorrow, or confusion. According to the Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs, avoiding “why” questions and blame is crucial for building trust.

Above all, do not underestimate the healing power of compassion and genuine support. A caring, nonjudgmental environment helps survivors feel safe enough to begin rebuilding their lives. As followers of Jesus Christ this may be our best way to help as the Savior’s hands in moving healing forward. By following these best practices—believing, validating, providing options, and ensuring accountability—you can be a steady source of hope and healing for those who have experienced sexual abuse.

What the Church Already Does

There are established mechanisms within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to handle and prevent abuse. 

Their processes start with following best practices in training and policies that prevent abuse. The Church was a leader in abuse prevention, starting regular public sermons on the subject in the 1970s.

The Church’s sexual abuse prevention training is required for everyone who works with youth. Outside groups such as The National Children’s Alliance have recognized the Church’s efforts in this area. 

The Church’s policies, including its geographical boundaries and its calling system, also have the effect of dissuading predators. 

When abuse has occurred, the Church utilizes a helpline staffed by mental health and legal professionals. These are the kinds of professionals that the best research suggests are in the best position to report abuse and result in lower abuse rates. When it is legal, the Church then passes on reports to local authorities. Regardless of the legal situation, the Church then begins to help the victims. 

Statements from the Church indicate that their first priority is providing healing for victims. This often starts with professional mental health counseling. Bishops across the United States have access to networks of therapists that they can utilize, including trauma-informed therapy for abuse survivors. 

Records leaked from church offices several years ago showed that the most frequent first step when victims were identified was to connect them with therapists.

Additionally, the Church has stated that where it or its representatives are directly at fault, it has provided substantial funds for victims’ medical and mental health care. Bishops have access to resources for professional counseling for members who need it, including specialized therapy for survivors. In cases where church leaders are at fault, the Church will work to compensate the victims to the best of their abilities. 

In addition to directed funds, for which the Church’s leaders are responsible, the Church provides financial compensation to help the healing process. Financial payouts can never really repair the damage, but they can help by providing time and resources to help recover. By all accounts, the Church’s offers are generous and well above what would normally be expected.

The Church often utilizes non-disclosure agreements in cases like this. This part of their procedure is controversial. Some see the NDAs as following the Savior’s example of asking those He healed not to broadcast it. Others see these NDAs as cynical attempts to protect the Church’s PR. 

Does the Church Make Abuse Worse?

While the Church’s policies certainly are intended to prevent abuse, do they work, or are there cultural or implementation factors that result in higher rates of abuse among Latter-day Saints?

To the contrary, the best evidence suggests that Latter-day Saints commit sexual abuse at lower rates than the population in general. 

For example, Latter-day Saint troops within the Boy Scouts of America historically had lower rates of documented abuse compared to national Boy Scout averages. While no reliable system can ever guarantee zero incidents of wrongdoing, a review of Boy Scouts’ so-called “perversion files” showed that LDS-sponsored troops constituted roughly 20–30% of overall Scout membership but only around 5% of documented historical abuse cases in that organization. This discrepancy suggests that whatever measures were put in place—such as two-deep leadership or vigilant local oversight—may have contributed to a statistically lower rate of reported abuse.

Recent research suggests that these trends may begin in adolescence when Latter-day Saint teens are less likely to participate in violent behaviors. 

Overall, the best evidence seems to suggest that while Latter-day Saints are certainly not immune from violent or abusive behaviors among their number, there is something about our culture, norms, and policies that make Latter-day Saints an outlier in preventing abuse.

Does This New Lawsuit Mean We Must Reevaluate Our Effectiveness?

While past evidence might suggest that Latter-day Saints are doing well in this space, this newest lawsuit in California might suggest that we need to reevaluate these beliefs. One hundred is an awful lot of sexual abuse cases and may suggest that the problem is considerably more prevalent than previously believed.

And to the extent these revelations prompt self-reflection on how to continue to improve, that would be a welcome result.  

To understand the extent this should revise our understanding, we must understand the context.

The most important context here is that California passed a law allowing victims to file lawsuits within three years, which would otherwise have been too late. So, we would expect a bunch of lawsuits to come forward. 

For example, the Los Angeles Diocese of the Catholic Church faced a similar lawsuit. There, approximately 1900 victims filed suit, at a rate of approximately 43/100,000 Catholics within the diocese.

While cases against school districts are still accumulating, there are some rough numbers. Reports suggest there are a few thousand lawsuits; if that ends up being about 3,000 victims, it would equate to a rate of 50/100,000 students. Many districts are concerned the cases could bankrupt them. 

The 91 suits across California for Latter-day Saints represented 12/100,000 Latter-day Saints within the state—a little less than a third as often. This is about the same comparative rate as seen in the BSA case. 

Essentially, no institution has been spared. Sexual abuse, as disgusting as it is, exists. The fact that it exists among Latter-day Saints should certainly humble us and cause us to continue to seek the best ways to eradicate it. But the fact is that even in this case, the numbers suggest that Latter-day Saints are effective in reducing sexual abuse numbers.

The sad truth is that approximately 1 in 10 adults in the US have experienced sexual abuse in their lifetime. Even if Latter-day Saints were successful in eradicating 99% of abuse compared to other groups, there would still be thousands and thousands of victims. 

What Can We Hope For?

The proper response to these allegations, first and foremost, is mourning. Even if one single Latter-day Saint was abused by someone in the Church, that is a tragedy that demands our empathy and our resolve to do better. The stark reality that an abuser could be a friend, neighbor, or even a trusted spiritual leader is painful. It reminds us that no institution is immune to predatory behavior.

We also hope that justice is served through the legal process, whether that means validating the claims of those who were truly harmed or filtering out any disingenuous lawsuits. The Church has a longstanding track record of responding responsibly in these cases.

None of these points justify complacency. What is needed is sensitivity and support for those who have gone through trauma and vigilance in preventing future abuse. As Latter-day Saints, we also understand that whenever a non-mainstream or “out-group” religion faces such allegations, the public commentary can be harsh. People who already dislike or mistrust the Church may seize upon these scandals as evidence of broader failings. It’s possible we will see sensational coverage or commentary that fails to address how the Church responds or how it compares statistically to other organizations.

In such an environment, we pray that sober, thoughtful journalism will prevail. We also recognize our responsibility as members to do all we can to protect children and vulnerable adults, ensuring no policy or practice inadvertently shelters abusers. That means continuing to refine our safeguarding measures, increasing transparency wherever possible, and emphasizing personal accountability among leaders at every level.

The post Understanding the California Sex Abuse Lawsuit: The LDS Church’s Response in Context appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

When you mention conversion therapy, most people think of antiquated, barbaric, and discredited therapeutic techniques like aversion (shock) therapy or the coercive, repressive, and shaming techniques that are still happening in some unlicensed “Christian” residential programs. If the law banned obviously harmful and dangerous practices like these, no one would object. Because today, as even proponents of conversion therapy bans admit, such practices either died out long ago or are not regulated by mental health licensing laws in the first place. Very few therapists, even Christian therapists, seek to change sexual orientation anymore. 

The problem is that the law is vague and overbroad, causing it to infringe not only on client self-determination but also on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and America’s broad tradition of religious liberty. The next sentence in the Washington law is especially problematic, which states that the definition of ‘conversion therapy’ includes “efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex” (emphasis added). The Washington law effectively states that therapists must affirm whatever behaviors or gender expressions the client currently engages in, even if the client themselves may want to stop. If the therapist helps the client stop a behavior or reduce the intensity of their conflicted feelings, they will face discipline. Twenty other states have enacted similar bans on “conversion therapy,” defined in an overbroad way.

The Bill of Rights states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” Most bans on “conversion therapy” violate the freedom of speech by defining conversion therapy so broadly. In another Supreme Court case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), a website designer did not want to be forced to design websites for gay weddings. The Supreme Court ruled that the creation of websites is “pure speech” (communication through written or spoken words), and forcing her to say something she did not believe in violated the core of freedom of speech. Because almost all therapy is done through verbal dialogue, not allowing a therapist to speak with a client about homosexuality in a non-affirming way is also a direct violation of free speech.

The opposing argument was that the bans do not violate free speech because they prohibit “conduct,” and the kind of speech therapists engage in is a form of conduct that can be regulated by the state. However, in NIFLA v. Becerra, decided in 2018, the Supreme Court said that “this Court has not recognized ‘professional speech’ as a separate category of speech. Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by ‘professionals.’” And as Justice Thomas stated, quoting a similar case out of Florida, “If speaking to clients is not speech, the world is truly upside down.”

The Tingley case also undermines our country’s history of protecting freedom of conscience and religious pluralism. Though America has often fallen short of our ideals, our history includes a robust tradition of accommodating religious differences. During the Revolutionary War, the Quakers, for religious reasons, did not want to fight, and they were granted religious exemptions in many colonies. This exception survives today under the rubric of “conscientious objectors.” Our tradition of allowing religious liberty for all permits a variety of beliefs to coexist without requiring conformity to any specific religious belief. Courts and legislators should protect religiously motivated counselors and their beliefs from being trampled under the excuse of ridding the country of homophobia.

Washington argued that the government has a compelling interest in protecting homosexual minors from harm by clearly dangerous practices. If this was their real motivation, they could easily have defined conversion therapy more narrowly and more specifically. By upholding such a broad definition, the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court are penalizing religious beliefs held by professional therapists who do not want to affirm homosexual behavior. This is the opposite of religious freedom in which such differences are allowed, and matters of belief and conscience may not be compelled.

The fundamental disagreement is over what constitutes “harm” in this context. It is argued that therapists occupy a position of power relative to their clients, many of whom are in an emotionally vulnerable state. Many therapists believe that anything less than full acceptance of LGBT+ identities and behaviors is harmful, even if the clients themselves do not want affirmation. Within this perspective, the person is defined (in significant part) by their experienced sexual desires and gender identity. Any accommodation of traditional views about sexuality or gender is harmful because it could prevent people from living authentically according to their “true selves.” 

But as Carl Trueman and others have shown, this understanding of the “true self” is a relatively recent invention. It is not obviously true, as many of its supporters suggest. Reasonable people of good will can disagree about the extent to which certain desires or experiences should inform our understanding of who we are and how we should live.

Even recent legislation and court decisions by Democrats and Democratic-appointed judges clearly show that traditional views about sexuality and marriage need not be based in ignorance or bigotry. In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the case that required all states to recognize same-sex marriages, the Court stated that “many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here.” Further, Congress recently passed the Respect for Marriage Act. This law provided federal recognition of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage while also recognizing that “diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises.” This clearly includes believers in traditional marriage. Professional counselors who do not abuse their clients physically or psychologically and instead help them reconcile their religious and moral values with their sexuality should be allowed to help such individuals, even if they are minors. It should not be criminal to disagree with LGBTQ-affirming beliefs or for clients to seek therapeutic support in reconciling their faith with their attractions. LGBTQ individuals who want therapy that affirms their identity and behavior should be able to find it. 

Too often, we make this more complicated than it needs to be. LGBT+ individuals who want therapy that affirms their identity and behavior should be able to find it. LGBT+ individuals who want therapy that affirms other aspects of their identity, such as their religious faith, should also be able to find it. Instead, the course chosen by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holds, in the words of Justice Thomas, that “expressing any other message [besides LGBT+ affirmation] is forbidden—even if the counselor’s clients ask for help to accept their biological sex.” Why should individuals not be able to access the therapy they actually want?

Though the Supreme Court declined to hear Tingley v. Ferguson, the Court should take the next available opportunity to rule on this important issue. Therapists and clients should be free to discuss issues related to gender identity and sexual orientation without fearing punishment from the state. Whereas it was once the case that homosexuals were treated as sick and subjected to dubious “treatments,” the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Those who wish to live a traditional moral code have largely been abandoned by therapists, legislatures, and now even the Supreme Court of the United States. Freedom to explore these issues should not mean the empty freedom to agree with the government. For years, gay activists demanded that the government “get out of our bedroom.” Government should also get out of the therapy room.

The post Disciplined For Disagreeing appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

To this end, what I found profound when I studied the history of this great country is that few Americans understood how the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments radically changed the Constitution, augmented the need for compromise, and safeguarded the Bill of Rights. Iowa, where I have lived for 20-plus years, like the state of Utah (where I lived from 1991 – 1998), is politically conservative and are both advocates of state rights over Federal rights. Many people in Utah and Iowa believe in originalism that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as it was understood at its adoption—written in 1787 and ratified in 1788. It is a belief in the original Constitution that State rights eclipse federal rights.

In the past year, I have spent more time learning about the social context that gave birth to these three amendments by reading Eric Foner’s books The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution and Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877.  Dr. Foner is DeWitt Clinton Professor Emeritus of History affiliated with Columbia University, whose academic work specializes in the Civil War and Reconstruction, slavery, and 19th-century America.

Learning more about the historical context of these three amendments made me realize that compromise is the psychological soul of the Constitution and how vital it is for healthy interactions, including healthy disagreements, between the Federal government and State governments. As Dr. Foner explains, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments lessened state rights and gave prominence to Federal rights.

After the Civil War, the Wade-Davis Bill (1864) created a framework for Reconstruction and the re-admittance of the Confederate States to the Union, and most Confederate leaders were able to return home. Lincoln, his cabinet, and Congress knew that if states still held greater power than the federal government, Confederate states would go back to having black slaves. The creation of these three amendments allowed black people to have rights and allowed the Bill of Rights to flourish, thus making democracy genuinely blossom. Dr. Forner, in The Second Founding, states 

. . . the application of the Bill of Rights to the States has come via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause . . . Thanks to incorporation, the states are now required to act in accordance with the fundamental liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights, tremendously expanding the ability for all Americans to protect their civil liberties against abridgment by state and local authorities. 

Akhil Amar, one of the most cited constitutional scholars from Yale Law School, clearly pinpoints in his 2021 book The Words That Made Us, and perhaps more so in his 1998 book The Bill of Rights, that the federal government became more trustworthy guardians of the first amendment freedoms than state government during the reconstruction period in American history. As Dr. Amar adds, immediately after ratifying the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the federal government initiated civil rights legislation banning segregation in public places, including within state governments, that still perpetuated the beliefs that African Americans were less-than-human slaves.

While there are many examples of the federal government doing harm, the creation of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments exemplify some of the good work it has done in protecting civil liberties. Certainly, in preventing Confederate states from continuing slavery, the federal government protected fundamental rights much better than certain States. 

What makes the U.S. Constitution so amazing is that it permits freedom of viewpoint, negotiation, and cognitive elasticity, which gives breath to creativity. This includes the interplay between state and federal governments, and good public policy can emerge when a middle ground is found. Our mentality judging between state and federal governments does not have to be an “us” versus “them” mentality. Just as there can be harm in both, there can also be good in both the federal and state governments, and good things can happen when they set aside differences and work together.

The post States’ Rights, Federal Powers, and The Struggle for Liberty appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

But these policies cause more harm to the vulnerable children they are designed to protect because they decrease the effectiveness of governmental bodies in identifying children who are actually at risk. As Dr. Mical Riaz has stated:

… we should be extremely cautious that our outrage is not translated into advocacy for policies that not only don’t adequately protect children but may ultimately be harmful. This is the case, I argue, for calls to expand mandated reporting. Increased reporting sweeps up large swaths of the population in a network of coercive investigations and interventions but doesn’t help keep kids safer. 

As a professional, I’m aware that getting authorities involved can backfire. In one survey, 50% of children whose families had been reported for abuse said the intervention of authorities made the situation “much worse,” while only 3% said it made it “much better.” I am also aware of cases where intervention is needed. However, professionals are legally required to make reports in situations regardless of the individual circumstances.

The current mandated reporting system has led to the over-surveillance of families experiencing poverty and families of color. This has contributed to distrust in the child welfare system and may add to families’ reluctance to reach out for help when facing a lack of resources or difficulties (e.g., unemployment, housing instability) that are risk factors for child abuse and neglect. 

Indeed, if all-encompassing mandated reporting is considered the golden standard, many families and children will be left behind because their fear of governmental bodies overrides their need for help and resources. They would rather be a hungry, houseless, or overworked family than a separated one. With this understanding, advocates for policy change have shifted from “mandated reporting” to “mandated supporting.” JMAC for Families, an organization promoting this shift, states, “This mandated supporting framework seeks to center families through equitable, harm reductionist, and anti-racist practices, while divesting from systems of surveillance and punishment.” In essence, mandated supporting allows professionals to morally and ethically consider the context. 

Utah’s Proposed Bill 

Recent legislation in Utah is taking one step forward on this path. This bill ensures that clergy are in a position where they can have the freedom to report in appropriate cases without state coercion in either direction. In understanding the importance of this new legislation, we need to explore not only mandated reporting but also clergy-penitent privilege. This privilege was established with the idea that “the trust surrounding a confession produces good results for society [and that] states want to ensure those confessions are private.” To this end, many states have made legal adjustments to ensure that clergy are legally obligated to keep confessions private and are only allowed to report at the behest of the penitent (very similar to attorney-client privilege). With these laws, though, clergy confronted with clear abuse find themselves legally bound not to report. 

This law puts Utah firmly in the realm of best practices on this matter. It allows people of conscience to seek help for children as needed without legal risk but does not endorse the mandatory reporting policies that ultimately harm children.

The current proposed bill “amend[s] the state’s child abuse reporting requirements to include legal protections for members of the clergy who report cases of ongoing abuse or neglect learned through a religious confession.” In summary, clergy still maintain the right to confidential confessions while also receiving protections when they morally and ethically report cases of abuse.

While it would be natural to be concerned that this law leaves leeway for bad actors not to report abuse that should be reported, there is no silver bullet here. This approach should help the most children possible.

How the Church Supports Reporting

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provides a good example for addressing concerns of abuse reporting within these clergy positions. Church leadership is already provided with training for working with children and youth. This educational training was created to help leaders “recognize and prevent physical, sexual, verbal and other types of abuse. [This] resource … can also help [leaders] to recognize and prevent abuse. The training provides scenarios to help you better understand and apply key principles and policies.” Additionally, the church leadership consistently speaks out against abuse to the members. In a recent conference address, President Nelson publicly condemned it once again, saying: 

For decades now, the Church has taken extensive measures to protect—in particular—children from abuse. There are many aids on the Church website. I invite you to study them. These guidelines are in place to protect the innocent. I urge each of us to be alert to anyone who might be in danger of being abused and to act promptly to protect them. The Savior will not tolerate abuse, and as His disciples, neither can we.

Additional counsel around reporting abuse would be a relatively easy and welcome addition to an already detailed training. 

Perhaps most importantly, the Church employs a hotline staffed by lawyers and therapists, precisely the kinds of professionals who have been shown to make the best decisions about when to report abuse. Utah’s new law should allow the professionals employed by the Church of Jesus Christ to make decisions that will help save the most possible children.

Looking Toward a Better Solution

A vocal advocate for victims of sexual abuse, Jennifer Roach, said, “Any abuse is too much.” And I echo that statement. However, evidence is showing that increasingly strict mandated reporting laws are not an effective solution to the problem of abuse. The proposed Utah bill strikes a delicate balance that will allow for moral and ethical judgment in reporting while also protecting those reporting abuse. This could be a productive model that other states could adopt and may have wider applications for professionals beyond clergy. 

The post Utah’s Legislative Leap: From Reporting to Supporting Child Welfare appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

While the new story shouldn’t come as much surprise to anyone—there are, after all, nearly 18 million Latter-day Saints, and many such cases are part of the public record—its authors clearly hope the anecdote shared will influence public policy and perception.

As evidenced by the swift excommunication of the perpetrator in this case, similar to the excommunication of the perpetrator in the Bisbee case, it is clear that the Church of Jesus Christ does not condone abuse.

So the question becomes how can society at large, and Latter-day Saints in particular, help reduce this kind of abuse. 

In addition to lingering on the heart-wrenching details of this new case of abuse, the article fixates on the fact that church leaders were aware of the abuse but did not report it to the police. And it further reports many of the details of mandatory reporting laws for clergy. 

While the article is a news piece and not an editorial, it is clear the authors want their readers to believe that the solution to preventing cases like this is increasing mandatory reporting laws. 

There is just one problem. Mandatory reporting laws don’t work.

Mandatory reporting laws don’t work

It’s actually fairly uncontroversial among researchers that mandatory reporting laws don’t work. Mical Raz, a physician and public health and policy professor, explained, “We should be extremely cautious that our outrage is not translated into advocacy for policies that not only don’t adequately protect children but may ultimately be harmful.” She goes on to write, “This is the case, I argue, for calls to expand mandated reporting.”

In one study, researchers looked at both reports and confirmed reports of abuse in states with mandated reporting laws and without. While states with mandatory reporting laws had many more reports of abuse, there was no increase in confirmed reports of abuse. 

In other words, no more abuse was actually caught, but there were lots more false reports that wasted the time of state social workers who could have been instead spending their time helping those children who were actually in danger. Another similar study found that while mandatory reporting laws increased reports, less abuse was actually caught.

These resource-wasting reports came much less often from professionals like doctors, therapists, and lawyers. 

As one researcher wrote, “The goal of mandatory reporting is to identify children at risk and intervene to prevent further harm. It is not to create more reports.” 

A 1998 report commissioned by several agencies in the field of pediatric medicine and behavioral health wrote that at that time, there was no evidence for the success or lack of success of mandatory reporting requirements, in part because of the difficulty in constructing a controlled experiment. COVID-19 may have answered that need with a natural experiment. With children not exposed to mandated reporters as frequently, would hospitalizations or deaths from abuse increase? When children returned to schools, would there be a large backlog of cases, reflecting months of unreported abuse? 

One researcher pursued this question in New York City. The data showed that there was no increase in the harm to children. In fact, abuse dropped. And while the author acknowledges this data could be the result of fewer reports, child deaths—a type of abuse nearly impossible to avoid scrutiny of even during a pandemic—also went down 25% in line with other types of abuse. And when schools restarted, there was no increase in reporting rates or substantiation rates—what you would expect if actual abuse had increased or remained steady in the interim. 

Pennsylvania serves as another useful case study. After the sexual assault scandal at Penn State, a sweeping new mandatory reporting law was passed in the state in 2014. But since that time, the number of children who have died from abuse has increased every year. ProPublica summarized researchers’ conclusions: “The surge of unfounded reports has overburdened the system, making it harder to identify and protect children who are truly in danger.” Today almost one hundred more Pennsylvania children are killed or nearly killed by abuse each year than before the mandatory reporting laws went into place. 

And while Pennsylvania dealt with a 42% increase in reports of childhood sexual assault than before the new laws, there was no increase in the number of substantiated allegations. None. 

But what of those abused children who are identified by mandatory reports? Does the intervention make their situations better? Another study asked this question. 

Of abuse survivors, only 18% said reporting made things better, while 62% said it made things worse. That includes 3% who said it made things much better and 50% who said it made things much worse.

So even when mandatory reporting laws work exactly the way they are supposed to, the abused child is 3.5X more likely to say it made things worse than it made things better.

The book Abusive Policies: How the American Child Welfare System Lost Its Way summarizes the state of research on mandatory reporting policies saying evidence has never shown that mandatory reporting laws prevent child abuse or improve outcomes for children.

But while it doesn’t help save children from abuse, it often makes things worse by preventing parents from seeking out the help they need. 1 in 3 people reported that they didn’t seek help because they were worried about a mandatory reporter, which says nothing of the many who wouldn’t report such a thing on a survey. These laws even discourage mothers from seeking medical treatment for their children, worried about the effect of an inaccurate report from a mandated report. And, while most reports are not able to be substantiated, the process can often negatively impact the family life and employment of those involved—especially poor families. Many researchers suggest black and Latino families are those most harmed by mandatory reporting laws. 

Why Don’t Mandatory Reporting Laws Work?

Mandatory reporting laws don’t work because they push the families most in need of help into hiding. A 2019 study found that more than half of people changed what they shared with mandated reporters when they learned about the mandatory reporting requirements. 

In an environment where mandatory reporting laws are universal, abusers simply don’t seek help from therapists, doctors, and spiritual advisors at the same rates they would otherwise. And with the influx of new reports, actual social workers’ time is spent having to dismiss reports rather than helping the children in the worst situations.

As seen in Pennsylvania and New York, this comes at the expense of children’s lives.

Jeremy Bentham, the father of modern utilitarianism, made an argument for clergy-penitent privilege—the right of clergy not to be a mandated reporter, basically—based solely on its benefit to society. He wrote, “The advantage gained by the coercion [of clergy-penitent testimony], gained in the shape of assistance to justice, would be casual and even rare.” Modern data collection has shown evidence of this intuition. On the other hand, he goes on to explain, “Repentance, and consequent abstinence from further misdeeds of the like nature; … are the well-known consequences of [clergy-penitent communication.]”

Getting spiritual help produces fewer “further misdeeds.” Rules that would discourage offenders from confessing to clergy cut off the social value of the self-improvement their confessions aided.

It may seem counterintuitive that having more people required to report abuse actually increases the number of children killed by abuse, and yet that’s what the data shows. That these rules push abusers underground where they can’t be reported, or get help, is the most likely explanation for why. 

Why Doesn’t The Church Mandate Abuse Reporting?

Why doesn’t the Church of Jesus Christ mandate that bishops report any child abuse they learn of? Well, first and primarily, as we’ve learned, that policy harms children.

But there’s also a complicated set of laws around reporting abuse. In cases such as these, two different kinds of laws come into place: mandatory reporting laws and clergy-penitent privilege laws.

Mandatory reporting laws often leave exceptions for clergy, saying that they are not required to report abuse. This is true in Idaho, where this most recent case took place.

Some church critics inaccurately claimed after the abuse in Arizona that this means that while clergy aren’t required to report abuse, they can legally report abuse if they choose to, and argued that for moral reasons, the Church of Jesus Christ should choose to always report abuse. 

While this is accurate if you look only at the mandatory reporting laws, these claims ignore laws around clergy-penitent privilege. In layman’s terms, privilege means that when you tell something in confidence to certain trusted professionals like doctors, therapists, or clergy, they are not allowed to share that information with the police or talk about it in court unless you give them permission.

In most states, including Idaho, clergy can’t decide to tell police what someone told them in a confession without that person’s permission. The person who confessed to them has the right to have that conversation be private—regardless of whether the clergy wants to keep it private after the fact. 

States created these laws for the utilitarian reasons Bentham identifies. Because the trust surrounding a confession produces good results for society, states want to ensure those confessions are private. 

So while some may argue that such laws should be changed—though the research suggests that would be a mistake—bishops would be breaking the law, for now, if they shared privileged information they received during a confession, as this article implies they should have. 

So What Does Reduce Abuse?

If mandatory reporting doesn’t reduce abuse, increases the worst kinds of abuse, and is often illegal for clergy, what can be done to reduce abuse? 

We are far from helpless. Studies have shown that when professionals such as doctors, therapists, and lawyers can make a judgment about when to report, it can have a positive effect on reducing abuse.

Other studies have suggested that increased funds directed to families of children can help reduce abuse.  

Jenn Roach is a survivor of ecclesiastical abuse in an evangelical church. She later became a therapist and has become an outspoken advocate for sexual abuse victims. She suggests six ways that churches can reduce abuse:

1. Talk about the importance of reducing abuse

2. Organize congregations geographically

3. Announce to congregations who will be working with children and youth

4. Assign leaders to children and youth rather than relying on volunteers

5. Emphasize the importance of living in a home with both parents

6.Have female leaders responsible for girls and young women

The Church of Jesus Christ excels in many of these criteria. The Church’s abuse hotline allows volunteer local leaders to contact lawyers and therapists who can help them decide when to report. Church welfare services help provide financial security. The Church’s structure and calling system accomplish many of the items on Roach’s list.

As a result, in the only study comparing abuse rates in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to those in other faiths, the Church’s abuse rates are 75% lower. While church abuse rates, in general, are much lower than rates in schools. 

While there are certainly cases where abuse continues to occur among Latter-day Saints, the policies of the organization should act as a case study on how to lower abuse rates, contrary to the implications of this most recent article.

Why Focus on the Church?

If The Church of Jesus Christ excels on matters of abuse, it’s natural to wonder why there has been so much reporting painting a different picture.

All of the recent reporting about isolated incidents of abuse among members of the Church has originated from one journalist, Michael Rezendes. I don’t want to cast aspersions on his motivations. He is a respected journalist who has previously uncovered systemic abuse in other churches. But his reporting on abuse in the Church of Jesus Christ, which has now spanned well over a year, has not revealed a systemic problem but rather has been focused on individual tragic cases. In fact, The Church of Jesus Christ was recently cleared of wrongdoing in the case Rezendes brought to national attention in Arizona. And it is likely, based on Idaho law, that the bishops were prevented from breaking privilege in the case highlighted in this recent article as well.

While it is certainly tempting to say we could prevent those at the abuse hotline from ever making the wrong decision about whether or not to report by simply mandating the call be made every time, the evidence is more than ample that this makes the problem worse, not better.

But Rezendes’ work is not without consequence. In May, I wrote:

A stark discrepancy exists in how media treats controversies within various religious groups. Consider the sexual abuse scandals within the Southern Baptist Convention—systemic issues that receive comparable media attention to isolated incidents involving Latter-day Saints outside leadership.

And despite the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention just endured a sexual abuse scandal where it was discovered that clergy of the church were moved and protected after accusations of abuse, a recent YouGov survey showed that Americans consider The Church of Jesus Christ its equal when it comes to handling abuse—despite there being no allegations of any similar or pervasive wrong doing. 

The bad reporting I identified in May, has led to bad perceptions in December. 

And while there’s no way I can identify the motivations of a single journalist, I’ve previously suggested that the news media’s desire to find hypocrisy, scandal, and culture war may lead to targeting the Church and its “squeaky clean” persona. 

So while it would be inappropriate to accuse Rezendes of being an opportunist, the bottom line is his desired solution isn’t effective in reducing abuse, and the Church’s solution is. Continuing to shine a spotlight on the places where the Church’s systems have failed can certainly provide some value as we work to find every way we can improve, but ultimately may lead people away from the effective solutions the Church is utilizing and toward methods that don’t work. 

I understand that it is hard to accept a system in which the best outcome is one that still involves morally unacceptable outcomes such as child sexual abuse. And it can be tempting to conclude that we have a moral obligation to change any system that produces anything more than zero incidents of abuse. But we can’t let our moral outrage create policy that will ultimately hurt, and even kill, more children. 

So while this most recent story should lead us to reflect on how we can continue to improve, the answer is not to throw out a system that is one of the most effective at reducing abuse.

The post A Misguided Crusade: How Mandatory Reporting Fails Our Children appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Our history books, our politicians, and other forces have combined to teach us what we think we know about the poor. Although negative myths about poverty and poor people (especially poor people of color) have persisted despite repeated research demonstrating the contrary, those negative myths still drive public policy and often our individual attitudes and actions toward those in need. Here are some of the most prevalent poverty myths:

Myth 1: “The poor could lift themselves out of poverty by working harder.” This is similar to your parents telling you that you can be anything you want if you just work hard enough, a suggestion that most of us outgrow when we realize that our stint on Broadway, in the White House, or in the ranks of professional athletes is unlikely to materialize no matter how hard we work—too much depends on luck, timing, and talent in addition to hard work. Most poor people are working just as hard or harder than the affluent, connected, and advantaged, but our society has organized employment, the economy, and getting ahead in ways that benefit those who have resources and penalize those who don’t. 

In her excellent autobiography, There Is Nothing for You Here: Finding Opportunity in the Twenty-First Century (Mariner Books, 2021), Fiona Hill, a Russia expert who served on the staff of the National Security Council and is now at the Brookings Institution, details how she grew up in the North East of England—an impoverished area deserted by industry and bereft of social programs to help displaced coal miners under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s austerity budget. While Fiona was always good in school, the opportunities for a good education were not available to children in that place and time. By luck and some fortuitous contacts, she managed to get into St. Andrew’s University in Scotland and, from there, to capitalize on her own hard work and intelligence. But things were against her—she knew nothing about applying to college and nothing about going to college; her accent marked her as lower class in Britain’s hierarchy. There were few-to-no resources to help her, resulting in things like getting an interview for a scholarship or similar advantage but being unable to pay for the transportation and lodging needed to apply for the chance. Hill managed to claw her way up to achievement and economic security in the face of class discrimination and sexism. She draws parallels between the situation in her home area and the Rust Belt–type problems in the United States, pointing out correctly that systemic racism in the United States makes the upward struggle even more difficult for black Americans. She skillfully explains the importance of one’s place of origin in determining the benefits and barriers to success.

Myth 2: “People who accept government benefits become dependent and don’t want to work.” There are two categories of government assistance in the United States: “welfare” for the poor and “tax breaks” for the more affluent. 

“Welfare” includes food stamps, housing vouchers, subsidized daycare and housing, WIC supplemental nutrition, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid, SSI and SSDI payments, and unemployment benefits, all of which are available in limited quantities, are hard to qualify for, and are easy to lose. “Tax breaks” include the Child Tax Credit (which in 2020 benefited parents with incomes up to $150,000 before the benefit was phased out for those with higher incomes), the mortgage interest deduction for first and second homes, government-subsidized retirement benefits, government-guaranteed student loans for higher education, 529 college savings plans, the tax exemption for the value of one’s employer-sponsored health plan, low tax rates on capital gains, and the nonexistent estate and gift taxes, all of which accrue mostly to middle-class and wealthy families and are relatively easy to get and difficult to lose so long as your income and wealth continue. According to poverty researcher Matthew Desmond, these “tax breaks” cost the government $1.8 trillion in 2021—more than twice what we spent on the military and national defense, and far more than was spent on “welfare”—and about half of these “tax breaks” went to families in the top 20 percent of the income distribution. 

Yet we who get these breaks probably feel entitled to them; we certainly don’t believe that they are causing us to become dependent on government handouts. By their nature, they continue to be available if we keep working into retirement, so we are not tempted to quit.

Similarly, the poor are not becoming dependent on government handouts, nor are they tempted to stop working even when they are technically eligible for retirement. The idea that the poor are lazy is a long-promulgated slander. Since the Industrial Revolution required business owners to find ways to lure “the masses into their mills and slaughterhouses to work for as little pay as the law and market allow,” the word has gone out that the poor are “idle and unmotivated.” But researchers who studied cash welfare payments to young single mothers in the 1980s and 1990s discovered that most recipients gave up the payments within two years, sometimes receiving benefits again “for limited periods of time when between jobs or after a divorce.” The researchers concluded, “The welfare system does not foster reliance on welfare so much as it acts as insurance against temporary misfortune.” Temporary misfortunes are much more undermining for the poor than for the better-off, who often are able to turn to savings, helpful family members, banks willing to loan them money, and other resources that often are not available to the needy.

Further, the cash payments that were available under the welfare system of the 1980s and 1990s (Aid to Families with Dependent Children, or AFDC) have disappeared in the name of welfare reform. Only under very limited—almost nonexistent—circumstances are any governments in the United States now making cash payments to the poor under the current system of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF. TANF monies are supplied by the federal government to the states as “block grants,” and they are used to fund everything from relationship education to juvenile justice administration, but seldom are they aimed at reducing poverty. Desmond notes, “Nationwide, for every dollar budgeted for TANF in 2020, poor families directly received just 22 cents.”

The poor definitely are not milking the system for every available dime. Hundreds of billions of dollars annually are left unclaimed by people who qualify for assistance—food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and unemployment insurance. These forms of assistance are so difficult to get and keep that many poor families are unable to face the form-filling, line-standing, investigations into their meager finances and need to repeatedly guard their eligibility. For example, a worker can lose food stamps because she was scheduled for a few more hours on the job in one week or month (even though her hours were cut back again after that), resulting in the need to apply all over again for the lost benefit.  

The idea that benefits make recipients “lazy,” a variation on the theme that government assistance leads to dependency, conceals other possible reasons why people may not be working: disability, lack of childcare or eldercare, lack of transportation, lack of medical or dental care that would make them attractive job prospects, lack of expected clothing, lack of literacy or language skills (whether they are native English speakers or not), or lack of computer or other skills needed to search for jobs. 

During the pandemic, the increased unemployment and other benefits for those who struggled economically (such as emergency rental assistance and moratoriums on evictions) cut the level of poverty for all Americans—all racial and ethnic groups, rural and urban dwellers, all ages—by 16 million people in 2021 as compared to 2018. The poverty rate for children was cut in half. The poor had their lot improved temporarily during the pandemic and perhaps got a glimpse of what life could be like when not scraping by with an exploitative job, but as soon as politically possible, governments withdrew the increased unemployment benefits, the back rent was due on pain of eviction, the food stamp benefits decreased, Medicaid eligibility had to be proven again, and new or continuing problems—lack of reliable childcare, increasing food, gas, and rent prices, children with increasing rates of depression and anxiety—cropped up.  

Better-off Americans also got government benefits during the pandemic in the form of stimulus payments, the more generous Child Tax Credit, and the same increased unemployment benefits. Small business owners were eligible for tax credits, paid leave credits, emergency capital investments, and the Paycheck Protection Program, while businesses of all sizes were eligible for employee retention credits and payroll tax deferral. Airlines, cargo air carriers, aviation contractors, and national security businesses received billions in payroll support. State, local, and tribal governments also received federal grants to support their residents and prevent economic hardship and position them for economic recovery. These programs involved billions in government spending. Even though some people took advantage of their availability to acquire benefits to which they or their businesses were not entitled, they seemed justified to prevent economic and humanitarian crises as a result of the pandemic. But only the direct benefits to the poor were later labeled as dependency-creating handouts that needed to be withdrawn as soon as possible to get low-income recipients back to work. 

Here’s the bottom line: The most recent data compiling spending on social insurance, means-tested programs, tax benefits, and financial aid for higher education show that the average household in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution receives roughly $23,733 in government benefits a year, while the average household in the top 20 percent receives about $35,363. Every year the richest American families receive almost 40 percent more in government subsidies than the poorest American families.

Government assistance does not make people lazy, dependent, or unwilling to work; if it did, then we could all claim those adjectives to describe ourselves because we are all receiving government assistance. The question becomes why the help available to the poor is not improving their lives more than it is and why so many people remain in poverty.

Myth 3: “The poor who want to live better lives, and even get ahead, can do so if they just take advantage of the benefits available to them.”  

Government attempts to lift people out of poverty, while far better than nothing, have not succeeded—government spending on antipoverty programs, driven mostly by healthcare spending, increased 237 percent between the beginnings of the presidential administrations of Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, but as Desmond notes, “when it comes to poverty reduction, we’ve had fifty years of nothing.” And despite all the money spent when it comes to improving healthcare access for the poor, we still have the most expensive healthcare system in the world while lacking universal health coverage.

One wonders why so many dollars result in such dismal outcomes and why Americans continue to allow suffering on the massive scale that is poverty in our incredibly wealthy country. While government programs are alleviating much suffering, the overall picture remains one of millions of people wearing out their lives as they try to put together food, shelter, healthcare, and other necessities, often without getting ahead, no matter how hard they work, and sometimes giving up in despair. Below the circumstances of the working poor are the plights of the mentally ill and the otherwise disabled or chronically unhoused who are living reminders on the streets of our cities of the failures of anti-poverty programs.

Government financial assistance for the poor may be inefficient, inadequate, and insensitive to philosophical differences regarding how best to help those who are struggling, but it is nevertheless a means to reach the most people in need with more consistency than individual and non-governmental organizational efforts. Nevertheless, even if a family qualifies for every one of the anti-poverty programs the government provides, they do not have enough money to make ends meet, much less enjoy the prosperity that would come with a full-time job with a living wage and benefits.

Other government benefit programs are similarly difficult to navigate and require a commitment to make repeated attempts to satisfy what seems like an arbitrary, bloated bureaucracy of unfeeling and unhelpful gatekeepers, with a slim hope of success—and then to reapply or pass a renewed eligibility test for those hard-won benefits repeatedly or have them stripped away.

Consider that people applying for the various government benefit programs may be what the Victorians genteelly referred to as “in reduced circumstances”—having lost a home, a job, a relationship, family members, and other societal supports that keep the rest of us afloat financially and emotionally. Or, worse, and perhaps more often, those who need assistance may never have known the security of those supports; they may have experienced or are experiencing substandard education, pollution in their homes and neighborhoods, a lack of medical care, or exposure to crime, violence, trauma, or abuse. They may have an emotionally supportive family or community that is not able to help them financially, or they may have a dysfunctional family or deteriorating community, or no family or community at all. 

These are the people whose flimsy but desperately necessary help from “welfare” is being chipped away by politicians who consistently target these programs as a way to cut government spending or decrease levels of seldom-proved fraud, waste, and abuse. And yet we could abolish poverty entirely in the United States without new programs, Matthew Desmond writes, by empowering the IRS to collect the more than $1 trillion per year lost to tax cheats—multinational corporations and wealthy families who are avoiding taxes that they owe under current laws. There are other things we could and should do to improve the current system of welfare benefits so that it would be more efficient, effective, and compassionate, but just holding the cheaters to account would be enough to lift the entire poor population of the United States out of the poverty that creates a different world, with different rules, and with so much unnecessary suffering and despair, for those trapped in poverty.

The post From Handouts to Handups: Unmasking the True Face of American Welfare appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Many have already expressed concern about the ramifications of the Court’s decision. Does this mean any business owner could turn away a same-sex couple? Can they also turn away customers based on race, national origin, religion, or other protected characteristics? Importantly, the Supreme Court did not need to address these questions because the decision was circumscribed in several important ways. First, 303 Creative is a case about free speech rather than freedom of religion. Therefore, the reach of the decision only covers “expressive” commercial activity. Second, the Court’s decision does not authorize Smith to turn away same-sex couples or any other group covered under CADA’s protections. It only allows her to decline to create a website that would convey a message contrary to her beliefs. Some may see this as a distinction without a difference—there is a very high correlation between those that request messages celebrating same-sex marriage and those that identify as LGBT+. However, even the state of Colorado agreed that Smith was willing to “work with all people . . . regardless of sexual orientation” and therefore only sought to compel Smith’s speech rather than her conduct.

Of course, even with the limited nature of the Court’s opinion, there are lingering difficult questions that remain. Lower courts must now figure out the precise contours of “expressive activity” under the Free Speech Clause. For example, do businesses selling custom cakes, flower arrangements, photography, or stationery also qualify for the same free speech protections? If not, would other First Amendment provisions lead to a similar outcome?

Leaving this decision up to the courts creates significant uncertainty. But we don’t have to wait for courts to define these lines for us. As the Respect for Marriage Act demonstrates, judicial decisions can spur legislative action and find fixes to problems less-amendable to resolution through court opinions. In the debate over religious wedding vendors and same-sex marriage, this is also the case. So far, more than 20 local governments have passed ordinances that protect LGBT+ rights in public accommodations as well as individuals and organizations that hold to a traditional view of marriage. These laws foster unity without demanding conformity. For example, in Chandler, Arizona, the city enacted nondiscrimination protections in public accommodations based on sexual orientation—protections that were previously unavailable and celebrated by the LGBT+ community. At the same time, the ordinance also makes space for those with traditional views of marriage to act in accordance with their beliefs. The ordinance provides an exemption for “bona fide religious organizations or persons who hold bona fide religious views” but only for objections relating to “marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity” and not other protected classifications such as race, national origin, or religion. Other places strike a different balance, such as Morgantown, West Virginia, where the local nondiscrimination ordinance provides an exemption for primarily religious organizations but not commercial businesses. Perhaps most importantly, passing ordinances like those in Chandler and Morgantown required many different people—religious leaders, LGBT+ advocates, and others—to work together to secure more freedoms that were previously uncertain for either group.

Even with these successful legislative efforts, there will still be hard questions. For instance, Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion in 303 Creative emphasized the vitality of “equal access to publicly available goods and services” made possible through public accommodations laws. Her opinion suggests that if discrimination is “widespread,” meaningful public accommodations laws may be undercut by even carefully crafted religious exemptions. This is a real concern for many and one that creates uncertainty for same-sex couples when frequenting the marketplace. 

One possible solution is to allow the state to intervene in such cases. Another is to encourage businesses in the wedding industry to publicize their willingness to celebrate same-sex weddings. For example, Pride Source has started publishing an online directory of LGBT-friendly businesses in Michigan that includes advertising wedding services. Some of my own research uses data to map the wedding services market so laws may better optimize protections for both wedding vendors and same-sex couples.

Finally, there are some questions that market and regulatory solutions cannot address. Much of the distress over these conflicts is not simply about the economic transaction between businesses and customers. More than losing money or going to another business, both sides seem to be most worried about their core identity being condemned in public life. It is the harm to one’s dignity of being labeled as an outcast that both groups can relate to.

When dealing with concerns of stigma or dignitary harm, it is helpful to remember that both religious freedom and LGBT+ rights are founded on the common core of human dignity. Beyond the truly rare cases like 303 Creative that make their way through the courts and receive disproportionate attention, there is common agreement that both LGBT+ rights and religious freedom deserve protection under the law. When conflicts do arise, there are almost always more solutions than simply picking one side or the other. The key is being able to listen, engage, and account for all interests at stake. This can be challenging in many ways. But people of faith are among the best situated to “build bridges of understanding” and find “inspired solutions” to these difficult issues.

The post The Future of Anti-Discrimination appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Hunter’s story is not unique. It is an example of how recreational marijuana is more problematic than many realize. Those who support legalization argue that it is a harmless way to relax and unwind, as well as a potential source of tax revenue. But we are only starting to appreciate the harms associated with this drug. There are many reasons why recreational marijuana use should remain illegal. As a former soldier and a convert to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I believe that recreational marijuana use is harmful to individuals and society at large.

This issue involves not only moral and religious values but also public health concerns. Too often, we assume that religious arguments have no other support. But that is not true for this issue. 

Marijuana Harms the User

Perhaps the main reason you should support recreational marijuana being illegal is out of pure self-interest. Marijuana is harmful. According to a report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), “Marijuana use is likely to increase the risk of developing schizophrenia and other psychoses; the higher the use, the greater the risk.” The report also notes that marijuana use can impair memory, attention, learning, and other cognitive functioning. These negative effects on the brain are particularly concerning, as they can have long-lasting and detrimental effects on an individual’s health. Furthermore, it can have negative effects on the respiratory system, increasing the risk of lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, and other respiratory diseases. Marijuana use has also been linked to an increased risk of heart attack and stroke.

Marijuana Harms Society

If the religious are concerned about caring for their own bodies, they are even more concerned for others. “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” Jesus famously said. And the negative effects of marijuana are particularly acute for society as a whole. 

The fact that recreational marijuana is illegal in many states and countries is not simply a matter of arbitrary legislation; rather, it is based on scientific evidence that marijuana is a harmful drug with significant negative effects on individuals and society. 

Marijuana use negatively affects broader society in many ways. Most obvious are its negative effects on public health. The same NASEM study also showed that marijuana use causes impaired driving and increases the risk of accidents—which, of course, has serious consequences for not only the individual but also for innocent bystanders. Additionally, marijuana use during pregnancy can have negative effects on fetal development and increase the risk of stillbirth and low birth weight. In addition to the medical costs for other marijuana-related health issues, the legalization of marijuana leads to an increase in healthcare costs.

But the social harms extend beyond the obvious. The legalization of recreational marijuana also counterintuitively increases crime rates, as increased use of marijuana creates a higher demand for harder and still illegal drugs. Even the black market for marijuana has remained the same size in spite of legalization. Altogether, studies have found that law enforcement costs actually go up in jurisdictions where recreational marijuana use is decriminalized or legalized. 

Marijuana use also harms our society’s bottom line. Marijuana impairs job performance, reduces motivation and productivity, and increases absenteeism. These negative effects can have a ripple effect on society, affecting not only the individual but also their family, friends, and coworkers. And if those aren’t enough, Marijuana legalization is harming the environment. 

While some have argued that legalizing recreational marijuana will improve state budgets by increasing tax income, the accumulation of all these negative effects actually costs more overall than the tax upside. 

Marijuana Harms Children

Among the greatest concerns for people of faith is how we treat our little children. And legalized recreational marijuana harms children. 

One of the biggest risks is accidental ingestion. This happens especially when they are exposed to edible products that look like candy or snacks. According to the Washington Post, there has been a surge in calls to poison control centers and hospital visits involving children who consumed marijuana edibles in states where it is legal. And when children do ingest marijuana, it can cause trouble breathing, loss of coordination, drowsiness, and seizures.

The story is worse for adolescents who use it regularly. When teenagers use marijuana, it can impair brain function, memory, learning, and attention. It can also increase the risk of mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety, and psychosis. The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes the legalization of recreational marijuana because of these potential harms.

But legalizing marijuana harms not only the children who take it but the children whose parents take it. And when recreational marijuana is legalized, parents take it twice as often as in other states. And when they do, those children are more susceptible to accidental ingestion, as well as secondhand smoke. Not to mention that you become a worse parent when you’re high, not providing the supervision and guidance that children need. 

Marijuana Harms the Marginalized

Perhaps most worryingly for people of faith, the legalization of recreational marijuana harms the most vulnerable among us. According to Matthew 25:40, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” We should bear one another’s burdens and comfort those who stand in need of comfort, as taught in Mosiah 18:9. Recreational marijuana legalization use is contrary to compassion for those who suffer from addiction or mental illness.

Marijuana use can exacerbate existing mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety. And it can be a risk factor for addiction. According to a report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, “Marijuana use can lead to the development of problem use, known as a marijuana use disorder, which takes the form of addiction.” And this effect takes place most often for those in poverty and other vulnerable populations.

And while marijuana legalization increases these risks for the vulnerable, they are kept out of participating in the financial upside due to barriers such as licensing fees, taxes, and costly regulations. 

Legalization Does Make it Worse

A myth persists that often use and availability of recreational marijuana will remain consistent regardless of whether or not it is legal—as though legalization will have no effect other than not to criminalize those who would have been using marijuana in any case. This argument has the benefit of being able to dismiss all other arguments about the negative aspects of marijuana because, they argue, marijuana use actually won’t change.

The trouble is that this isn’t true.

The legalization of marijuana leads to decreased perceptions of risk. People who live where marijuana is legalized conclude that if it is legal, it can’t be that bad for you. They also are more likely to partake because there is no legal risk to doing so. The research on this issue concludes that legalizing recreational marijuana leads to an increase in recreational marijuana use. So arguments in favor of legalization must grapple with the harms of marijuana because those harms will increase.

It is important to note that the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes is a separate issue and should be evaluated based on the available evidence and medical consensus. My argument focuses on the fact that recreational marijuana use and legalization pose significant risks to public health, safety, and well-being.

As individuals, we have a responsibility to make informed decisions about our health and the health of our communities. We can choose to avoid harmful substances and behaviors and promote healthy and compassionate alternatives. We can also support policies and initiatives that prioritize public health and safety.

Therefore, it is important for individuals and policymakers to carefully consider the potential negative consequences of recreational marijuana use and legalization. I believe that we should strive to create a society that promotes health, safety, and compassion for all individuals in accordance with God’s plan for us. This includes taking a stand against harmful substances and behaviors that can negatively impact our physical, mental, and social health. Recreational marijuana use should remain illegal because it is harmful to individuals and society at large. The potential negative effects on physical, mental, and social health, as well as the potential negative impact on vulnerable populations, outweigh any potential benefits. The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach us to care for the health and well-being of our fellow human beings. I urge my fellow citizens to reject the legalization of recreational marijuana and to work together to build a healthier, safer, and more compassionate society.

The post We Toke the Wrong Turn: Against Marijuana Legalization appeared first on Public Square Magazine.