Download Print-Friendly Version

When did parenthood become just one lifestyle option among many—and what gets lost when it’s framed that way?

Such a shift certainly has its positives—allowing people to choose is not in itself a bad thing—but current narratives discourage having and raising children. Media and public discussions often emphasize the burdens of parenthood. For just one prominent example, in 2024, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued a warning that parenting can present a “public health concern” because of the stress and mental health challenges associated with it. 

Other commentators have pointed out that a generation learned to “dread motherhood.” These trials are very real. We bear broad responsibilities in our communities to help reduce the loneliness and stressors of parenting. 

But if we discuss only the problems, we are not creating a more accurate picture than if we only rhapsodize sentimentally about the pitter-patter of little feet. We shouldn’t ignore the deeper reality: parenting is both struggle and joy, and part of our covenantal relationship with God. Couples who are trying to decide whether or not to have children need an honest, balanced look at parenting that examines both its challenges and its abundant blessings, as well as God’s wishes for His children about their children. 

Parenthood as Burden vs. Parenthood as Commandment

The Family: A Proclamation to the World is unambiguous: God commands us to choose to bring children into the world in the proper order. The Proclamation affirms that the commandment “to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.” If we are tempted to consider such teachings outdated or superseded by new conditions, recent prophetic teachings have also reinforced the doctrine. In October, President Dallin H. Oaks, then the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, taught, “The national declines in marriage and childbearing are understandable for historic reasons, but Latter-day Saint values and practices should improve—not follow—those trends.” The commandment remains relevant, and seeing the obligation to bear children as a commandment represents a fundamental reframing. 

A commandment is different from a social mandate or a biological imperative since commandments include personal accountability before God. Scripture teaches us that when God gives us commandments, He also makes it possible for us to obey them (see 1 Nephi 3:7). Therefore, parents do not face the challenges of bearing and rearing children alone. They are promised the assistance of the Almighty. Furthermore, commandments require honest effort rather than absolute success (see, for instance, Doctrine and Covenants 124:49). Those who for one reason or another are unable to have children in this life but who have tried can be comforted that they are under no condemnation. 

Choosing to have children is only the first step. Parents then have responsibilities throughout their children’s lives. These responsibilities can seem daunting, and some potential parents may feel reluctant to assume such a level of responsibility. However, The Proclamation, even while impressing on readers the seriousness of these responsibilities, also presents them as manageable tasks. A fascinating passage lays out basic parental responsibilities:”Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.”

The word “entitled” is typically used negatively. This is particularly the case in the public language of the Church. For example, Oaks has taught, “Entitlement is generally selfish. It demands much, and it gives little or nothing. Its very concept causes us to seek to elevate ourselves above those around us.”

The Family: A Proclamation to the World is an unusual case in which “entitled” is used not to criticize an attitude, but to instill one. While we should not generally feel a right to special privileges, an exception is made for children. They have a divinely appointed right to be born into a family welded together through mutual commitment between husband and wife. 

The stance on marital fidelity in The Family: A Proclamation to the World represents another important reframing of our perspectives. Marital fidelity is actually as much about children as it is about husband and wife. Therefore, personal fulfillment is not the foundation for a happy family. Rather, the foundation is the teachings of Jesus Christ. 

Such a view of the family implies the sacrifice of some personal desires, perhaps even needs. But the message of Christ’s Gospel is that sacrifice proves eternally more satisfying than seeking our own fulfillment, as Jesus taught:

“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross⁠, and follow me⁠. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.” (Matthew 16:24–25). 

Choosing Parenthood with an Eternal Lens

While the demands of parenting can seem daunting and even all-consuming, the Proclamation helps us to see them as manageable. Its call for community support and individual adaptation provides the practical tools necessary for implementing its teachings in the life of every family. 

It presents mutual fidelity as the baseline for creating a happy family. We can start there knowing that God will help us accomplish the other responsibilities He has given us and that He will be merciful to us as we give our honest effort. Such a view of parenting can help us to see that it is not only possible, but also rewarding.

The post Choosing Parenthood, the Hard Joy appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

On a recent trip to Cuenca, Ecuador, volunteering with the Orphanage Support Services Organization, I spent a lot of time at an “hogar infantil” (children’s home) with some particularly adorable and naughty kids. For each shift, we packed a bag full of games, art projects, and activities to do with the children. Most of the time, the kids were well behaved, but at this specific orphanage, we had to keep a tight hold on zippers to prevent little fingers from stealing. We spent a lot of time playing, but we also unfortunately spent a lot of time breaking up fights. 

I was confused by the difference between this orphanage and the others where I had served. The tías (“aunts” or caretakers) were just as outnumbered, the nutrition was comparable, and they had better resources for play than many of the places I had visited. The homes that these children came from were not significantly different from those of other children.

I was able to identify a clear and increasingly obvious differentiation, along with some solutions supported by emerging research.

Screens Shape Behavior More Than We Think

The connection between behavior and screen exposure is an emerging field of research in family science, especially with the emergence of a generation in a media-saturated environment. Today’s parents are better equipped to prepare for and handle these additional challenges than any of the past generations, due to our life experiences growing up in the digital age. This, however, is dependent on our willingness to take responsibility for our children’s development—a responsibility affirmed in The Family: A Proclamation to the World. 

Studies have shown that there is a vital connection between disruptive behavior and screen exposure. A recent analysis of kindergarten students indicated that children who were given more than two hours of screen time daily experienced a lower ability to see things through to the end and an increase in atypical behaviors, such as being depressed or unhappy. Even aside from technology, it is no secret that attention span is on the decline. Additionally, I am sure we are all aware of today’s mental health crisis, in which approximately 18.5% and 19.1% of Americans have symptoms of depression and anxiety.

I have witnessed these trends among my peers and even in my own life. Ever since making my first social media account in high school, I have found it harder to concentrate and have struggled more with symptoms of anxiety. Many of my close friends and associates battle low self-esteem, pornography use, and mental health disorders. Although these concerns cannot be solely blamed on the influence of technology, we cannot deny that it has had major negative effects on the way we think, speak, and behave.

Strategy 1: Collaborative Restrictions

Unfortunately, it seems that the negative effects of social media and other forms of technology are unavoidable. As early as elementary school, many assignments have been converted to online platforms, and even the strongest parental protection filters cannot prevent negative influences from surfacing in online searches. So, what can we, as current or future parents of young children, do to protect, prepare, and enable our children to succeed? How can we use technology as a developmental tool rather than merely accept it as a necessary evil? I propose an interactive approach to digital parenting involving active mediation strategies, specifically restrictive methods and co-use mediation.

Restrictive methods include tools such as filters, time limits, electronic tracking software, or even limitations on where in the house devices are permitted (for example, bedrooms and bathrooms). Although the idea often brings up feelings of constraint or authoritarianism, parental restrictions can actually be effective when executed correctly. One recommended strategy is to hold age-appropriate discussions between parents and children concerning the purposes and dangers of technology and the personality and developmental status of the child, allowing the child a certain level of autonomy over what restrictions are appropriate.

For example, a conversation might look like this:

Parent: *Explains that technology is necessary for the child’s schoolwork and might be used to communicate with friends, but that it can also become a distraction in both academic and social progress. Also chooses to explain or review the dangers and prevalence of pornography.*

Child: *May ask clarifying questions or add observations about their needs and uses for technology as guided by the parent.*

Parent: *Gives suggestions of what restrictive methods may be used and explains their benefits and pitfalls. Asks the child what he/she thinks is appropriate for his/her circumstances*

Child: *Adds his/her input and comes to a conclusion which can either be approved by or further discussed with the parent.*

Research shows an associated improvement in parent-child relationship satisfaction, an increase in socioemotional orientation, higher-quality parent-child communication, and even a decrease in time spent watching TV or using electronic devices with the application of this approach when addressing technology use and other issues facing youth and children.

From personal experience, I suggest a word of caution when using restrictive methods. Adolescents are brilliant detectors of hypocrisy. If parents choose to apply generalized restrictions to the family, they should also be willing to follow these restrictions. Failing to do so could create resentment on the part of the children or adolescents, who may perceive such an action as unjust and refuse to comply.

Strategy 2: Co-Use Mediation

Another research-supported suggestion for encouraging child development through technology is sometimes called co-use mediation or guidance. Some studies even suggest that parental co-use is the most effective protective measure to avoid or minimize the negative effects of media. Co-use mediation, as the name suggests, involves the use of technology alongside children or adolescents.

I experienced this method first-hand as a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The standards we were invited to follow included Safeguards for Using Technology, found in Preach My Gospel chapter 2, which discusses being accountable to each other as a companionship and only using devices when the screen is visible to both companions (with the exception of personal matters such as communicating with family). Although extreme, I learned from experience the benefits of this program, which changed my habits for the better.

The application of active co-use mediation is associated with lower levels of aggression, risky sexual behavior, and substance use, as well as increases in parent-child relationship quality and social-emotional connections. Evidently, parental mediation strategies have the potential to benefit both children and parents.

Co-use is also a doorway to redemptive uses of media. Digital tools can amplify positive messages. 

Parental co-use admittedly requires much more work and time commitment on the part of parents. I acknowledge that for some families, applying this approach may be infeasible due to the demands of careers and other activities. As a result, these principles may be adapted to fit the needs and circumstances of individual families.

As previously discussed, technology is associated with many negative outcomes, including poor behavior, mental health challenges, and a lower attention span. When considering parenthood, these obstacles can feel overwhelming and impossible to prevent or overcome. However, as we engage proactively with the rapidly developing research on the subject and practice improving our own habits, I believe we have the potential to positively shape child development and create better outcomes, strengthening our families and communities.

The post Parenting in the Glow: Reckoning with “Screen Time” Childhood appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

One of the most significant aspects of parenting, and most daunting, is the role we take in shaping who our children grow up to be. We model beliefs and behavior. The associations they build from what they observe and what they experience alongside their parents necessarily leave a lasting impact. In a culture where religious identity is in decline, it’s important, then, for parents to understand that the faith story they live is the one their children will one day tell. Our faith tradition offers rich opportunities for parents to transmit religious identity regardless of what our own faith journey has been.

As the son of a convert, my father’s faith journey has often been something I’ve considered while I reflect on my own. This has been especially true as I recently entered fatherhood myself.

My father attended church when he was a child, until his parents divorced. No reason was given for their sudden non-attendance; it was just another outcome of their shifting lives. When he started dating my mother in college, and observed her family ending the day together with scripture study and prayer, it stood out to him as a “good practice.” 

By the time I came along, the third of five children, the gospel as taught by our church had saturated my father so completely that even today I cannot imagine one without the other. 

Growing up, I knew the gospel because I knew my parents. This mirrored relationship between my parents and the gospel they raised me in extended into my teenage years. I wrestled with my faith like any adolescent wrestles with their parents. Was I too sheltered? Was I confined by circumstance into being religious? Was my devotion to the Church just about finding comfort in familiarity? Like any teenager, what I really longed for was personal identity.

It’s been a decade since I returned from my mission. Today, my faith is deeply personal. It has evolved in ways I could not have expected. Because of this, I’m sensitive about respecting others in their own expressions and observances. If I’m being honest, the personal nature of my own testimony has made it hard for me to know how to teach the gospel as a matter of principle, the way I had as a missionary.

While my son will be a third-generation member on my side, his mother is “pioneer stock.” He will have more cultural and generational support than anyone in my family. Neither of my parents served missions. Both of his did. He has two sets of grandparents who have entire lifetimes marked by gospel living. While I’ve always reflected on the way my father’s conversion inevitably led to my own, I wonder what about my conversion will impact him. 

I worry how, within the context of my shortcomings, I will raise him to understand the gospel, so that he can truly choose it for himself. I don’t want him to merely grow up grounded in a denomination or steeped in a theology of my making. I want him to grow into a relationship with his Savior, trusting everything else will flow from there. I know that is the only way it will become something that is truly his. Just as my father’s faith is his, and mine my own.

But more important than that is the living testimony that believing parents pass on to their children on where they can turn to grow a relationship with Christ.

When we read of Lehi’s own account of his dream, we read that the first thing that happens to him after being filled with joy by the fruit of the Savior’s love is that he “began to be desirous that [his] family should partake of it also; for [he] knew that it was desirable above all other fruit.” I don’t know how successful I will be as a parent. But I am grateful to have examples, in the scriptures and in life, who show me that the measure of a successful parent is the Savior’s love we reflect back to our children. If we show them, and invite them, then as Lehi’s son Jacob later taught—they too can be free to choose.

The post The Faith of Our Fathers: More Than Tradition appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

 Meeting David’s needs has become a challenging priority for us as his parents. There are two types of challenges associated with David’s special needs. The first is logistical and deals with the “what” and the “how” of taking care of him. He has a number of appointments to arrange and attend; he has sensory aversions and desires that are as difficult to understand and predict as they are to satisfy. These challenges bring secondary ones: while there is no end to the resources and tools that professionals recommend, our budget is not similarly infinite.

The second type of challenge is existential and deals with the “why” of our experiences. We have felt a sense of loss during the process of discovering David’s disabilities. It stems partly from the fact that he used to be more verbal and interactive with us. As he retreated into himself, we felt like we had lost the son we originally had. Extensive behavioral and occupational therapy have helped him to be more present and interactive, but still not to the degree that we remember from the first two years of his life, let alone that of a neurotypical child of his age. The loss that we feel is also related to our own expectations. There are many stages of life and experiences that he will simply not have. That is a difficult prospect for parents to face. 

We want our son to have a full life and, more selfishly, we want to be able to go through it with him. While the future is unpredictable—especially where David is concerned—it is not out of the question that his care will occupy us for the rest of our lives. Even now, his care shapes all of our plans, determining what jobs we can take and where we can live. It will probably also influence our retirement plans and even factor into our estate planning. In addition to the daunting logistical problems of how to make all of this happen, there are gnawing questions of “why” in all of this. Why can’t we communicate with our son? Why does it have to be this way? 

In both our logistical and existential challenges, we have been helped by caring professionals, loving family and friends, and not the least by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Church attendance presents logistical problems of its own, but the Church has helped make it possible and worthwhile. David’s regression and diagnosis coincided with the 2020 pandemic. Therefore, we were learning how to care for him at a time when church attendance was impossible. When we returned to church after pandemic restrictions were eased, it became clear that we wouldn’t be able to just drop him off with teachers as before. During Primary class on his first day back, David became visibly upset and one of his teachers attempted to comfort him. David responded by biting her on the cheek. We were embarrassed and felt bad for the teacher, but she not only handled the situation with dignity and compassion but also met with us to discuss methods of how to care for David. We spoke with his therapists for additional advice. Once we made sure to send David with the right supplies, such as toys that meet his sensory needs, it became much easier for him to sit through class. His teacher continued to take good care of him, and was not (to my knowledge) bitten again.

Members of the Church have also helped David without being formally assigned to do so. Outside of Sundays, church members have volunteered to watch our children so my wife and I could take care of important responsibilities or go on hard-to-arrange dates. They have also been vigilant during times David has gotten away from us. David has a tendency to elope or run away, and he has a talent for finding the right moment to do so, even when we think we are watching him closely. On one such occasion, he escaped from us during Sunday church services. Word spread quickly that David was missing, and members of the Church mobilized to find him. I left the church building to see if he had tried to walk home, and immediately over the hill came a man from the congregation carrying David. 

There are many more such examples of logistical help, but perhaps most importantly, church members have been loving and accepting of our boy. I can’t count the number of times David has gotten away from us and run to the front of the chapel during a song, sermon, or prayer. It is embarrassing to chase after him through the pews, but the congregation has responded to this and other such behaviors only with encouragement, support, and understanding. 

Beyond the acceptance and love of ward members, the specific teachings of the Church have helped us with the existential aspects of our challenges. There is a natural and irrational tendency for parents to blame themselves for their children’s challenges. As David was withdrawing into himself, my wife worried that he was doing so because of resentment for the attention she was giving to his younger brother. Having a formal diagnosis provided clarity in this matter, but we have found true comfort in Jesus’ words to his disciples about the man born blind: 

His disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

We are watching the works of God be made manifest in our son as we receive answers to our prayers for him.

Some of our prayers have been answered differently than we hoped they would be. We feel blessed that David is receiving the best available treatment, and we have been helped by many people. Even with these interventions, however, the challenges remain. While David’s ability to communicate has somewhat improved, we still celebrate if he says a complete sentence. He spends most of his time withdrawn and he still likes to run away. Unlike the man born blind, David has not been healed miraculously. The teachings of the Church help us, however, to put those challenges in perspective. 

A prophet in the Book of Mormon shared words that I often think about in terms of David: “I am like as yourselves, subject to all manner of infirmities in body and mind.” This prophet, a king, was trying to show his people rhetorically that he wasn’t better than them, that they were all on the same level. In doing so he defined human experience as partly consisting of all manner of infirmities in body and mind. Therefore, while specific details of David’s situation are unique, they also reflect the universal lot of humankind. We have found comfort in the fact that we are not alone in our challenges.

Most importantly, the teachings of the Church provide a framework for understanding who our son is. We believe that every human being is eternal, that we all have spirits that existed before we were born and will continue to exist after death. We believe that everyone born on earth chose previously to follow the plan of God in spite of obstacles. Our David’s challenges, therefore, are not merely the result of a genetic accident but are part of the design of our all-wise and loving Heavenly Father. One of the leaders of the Church, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, highlighted this principle in a touchstone sermon on mental health entitled, “Like a Broken Vessel.” 

It is crucial to remember that we are living—and chose to live —in a fallen world where for divine purposes, our pursuit of godliness will be tested and tried again and again. Of greatest assurance in God’s plan is that a Savior was promised, a Redeemer, who through our faith in Him would lift us triumphantly over those tests and trials, even though the cost to do so would be unfathomable for both the Father who sent Him and the Son who came. It is only an appreciation of this divine love that will make our own lesser suffering first bearable, then understandable, and finally redemptive.

We don’t understand everything about the designs of God, including those related to David. But we trust in Him because we know He is our loving Heavenly Father. And we take comfort in the knowledge that David’s disabilities are not part of his eternal essence, only part of one stage of his eternal progression.

I bear witness of that day when loved ones whom we knew to have disabilities in mortality will stand before us glorified and grand, breathtakingly perfect in body and mind. What a thrilling moment that will be! I do not know whether we will be happier for ourselves that we have witnessed such a miracle or happier for them that they are fully perfect and finally ‘free at last.’

This promise makes parenthood not only possible but also ennobling for us. 

One day I took David out of the house because he felt overwhelmed by the number of relatives visiting our house. The place we usually go on Saturdays for horseback riding (his favorite form of therapy) was closed due to the weather, so I took him to the aquarium.   While there, I chased him to keep him from running away, helped him to stand in line at one of the exhibits, stood and appreciated the penguins with him, and tried (unsuccessfully) to stop him from biting himself when he was upset. After I finish writing this, I will sweep up the Goldfish crackers he threw on the floor and, by trial and error, find something more substantial for him to eat. The logistical and existential challenges continue. However, because of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, threads of meaning and faith run through all of the challenges, and we have both human and Divine sources to turn to for help. Tomorrow I’ll sit next to David in church. If he gets upset, I’ll probably leave the chapel and take him for a walk through the halls. When I see other parents with children doing the same thing, if they have a free hand, I think I’ll give them a high-five.

The post The Struggles and Grace of Raising a Special Needs Child with the Help of Faith appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

The Eternal Covenant Family 

“The family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” Home-centered, Church-supported gospel ministry is not a latter-day vision or recent initiative but a determined re-invigoration of family centrality. A long litany of scripture and prophetic teaching centers the covenant responsibilities of the family. “Children are an heritage of the Lord,” and parents have always held responsibility for both teaching their children and counseling them for repentance (D&C 68:25-27, 93:40; 1 Nephi 1:1, 8:37; Mosiah 4:15; Alma 39:11-13). Adam and Eve taught their children all things God had made known unto them. Anciently, the Lord commanded the children of Israel to teach their children the Lord’s laws and covenants (Deuteronomy 6:5-7, 11:19, 32:46; Psalms 78:5-7; Proverbs 22:6, 23:13; Isaiah 54:13). In the New Testament, parents are primarily tasked to bring up their children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” The Book of Mormon is replete with examples of parents—e.g., Lehi (1 Nephi 2), Jacob (Enos 1:1), Alma the Younger (Alma 36-42)—counseling and teaching their children for repentance. The Family Proclamation states that “parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness … and teach them to … observe the commandments of God” and that mothers and fathers “will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.” 

Thus, we are not charting new ground here but rather illuminating and elaborating a doctrinal reality that has always existed and been respected by the Lord’s prophets and apostles, but which parents may need to more fully shoulder again in these last days if our aspirations for eternal family are to survive.

Some thus abdicate to the Church the fullness of their covenant responsibility and opportunity. Perhaps a few local leaders have reluctantly or willingly been complicit in this, taking over or stepping in for parents when they really needed to help parents to step up, not step aside. 

Shoring Family Ministry

Parents can be strengthened tremendously as they unite with bishops or other church leaders and work together to ‘learn the ropes.’ Bishops can center the family in their ecclesiastical ministry, inviting, enlisting, mentoring, and supporting parents in more fully rising to their covenant role, which has been central to the Church of Jesus Christ from the beginning. Bishops can view their ministry and every interview through the broader, encompassing lens of the family with the question, how can the family be a part of this, and how can I support the family through this? Centering the family in the Church can include using ecclesiastical interviews and ministry to re-envision and reinvigorate the family as the central and fundamental unit of the Church (as well as of society)—through an ecclesiastical–family council orientation to ministry.

For bishops and other church leaders, centering the family begins with a spiritual conviction and testimony concerning family that flows into a determined mindset, putting the family in the foreground of every thought, process, and action—not de-centering the Church in its sphere, but seeing ecclesiastical ministry as a profoundly supportive adjunct to the family while priesthood leaders remain primary in terms of their priesthood keys. Centering also includes valuing and honoring parents’ place in counseling, supporting, and assisting their children, including in repentance.

Parents have long been encouraged to be fully engaged in their children’s and teens’ goal-setting and goal-striving, from Primary on through Young Men’s and Young Women’s activity. An informal bishop–youth–parents council is another logical component of family-centered, Church-supported ministry for repentance and spiritual growth. We seek to envision simple steps to put into practical action the doctrinal centering of the family in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Centering the family finds expression in as simple a thing as bishops and other ecclesiastical leaders consistently encouraging and facilitating youth in being open with their parents about their struggles, striving, and successes.

Only a few priesthood holders will be called as bishops. For all, the family is our primary tutorial for the love that God has and the life that God lives. Our covenant relationships are our stretching and exalting opportunity, given by God. Our conclusion? We can perhaps do a better job of centering the family in ecclesiastical ministry. 

An Informal Bishop–Youth–Parents Council

The late Elder M. Russell Ballard urged priesthood leaders to seek “strength in counsel,” calling upon them to continuously invite and prayerfully consider the counsel of their councils. He expressed his confidence that more inspired leadership would result. He related an occasion where a leading church council was wrestling with a problem: “President Elaine Jack (then-General President of the Relief Society) said, ‘You know, Elder Ballard, the sisters of the Church may have some good suggestions on how to better prepare the youth for missions if they were just asked. After all, you know, we are their mothers!’”

Surely, one potential yet underutilized “council” per se in the Church is a Bishop–Youth–Parents council. Though not formally mentioned, it is a natural council. Surely bishops’ inspired leadership could be magnified as they invite mothers and fathers to offer their insight concerning their children. Parental insight includes developmental awareness, understanding regarding how their teens will likely respond to counsel and consequences, and the kind of support that can best encourage and sustain their youth. An informal bishop–youth–parent council is challenging and daunting—and boundaries of stewardship must be carefully delineated, understood, and honored—yet we believe the benefits can make the mutually prayerful effort worthwhile. As parents offer insight that only they may have—from their enduring relationship and intimate knowledge of their sons and daughters—they can also respect and sustain their bishop in his calling and stewardship. It is also important and valuable to listen to our youth, who also have valuable insights into the problems they are facing and approaches that might more effectively help them. We believe youth, parents, and bishops can be blessed, inspired, and magnified as they counsel together. Such an informal council can invite the perfect love and inspiration of our Heavenly Father and Savior, Jesus Christ. 

Shared, collaborative ministry holds forth the promise of both magnifying and refining each respective ministry as bishops, parents, and youth counsel together, benefiting from their combined wealth of knowledge and experience with their youth. Recent changes acknowledging parents’ right to be present in bishop–youth interviews and respecting parental involvement further nudge toward a bishop–youth–parents collaborative approach.

Still, it sounds like a lot of work! Yet, while the time investment of such collaboration is undoubtedly heavily front-loaded, in the long run, bishops may find that their load is lightened as parents are enabled more and more to take up their charge and successfully help and counsel their children and youth. Thus, while it is certainly understandable for the bishop or parents to feel that the time demands are simply too great and instead opt to fly solo, there are risks there, too. Further, opportunities may be forfeited to strengthen an entire family and their church ties as well. Rather than neglect or ignore both the challenge and the opportunity, we invite an experiment upon the possibilities.

Along the way, roles and boundaries may need to be clarified. Yet ultimately, a unity of purpose and action can develop that magnifies ministry all around. Telephone-game experiences leading to misunderstanding, confusion, hurt, and sometimes loss of unity can also be better avoided through an informal bishop–youth–parents collaborative council. To spark imagination and inspiration, we present several stories about some of our dear youth and invite everyone to consider how bishops, youth, and parents can work together without crossing authority lines while also giving our youth all the support that can be mustered by both parents and priesthood leaders. These vignettes are amalgamations of real-life experiences but unattached to any individual bishop–youth–parent relationships, and names and specific dialog have been altered. We have no intention of being exhaustive in the stories we present, only representative of a few possibilities.

Similarly, and importantly, our intent is not to be prescriptive toward church leaders, parents, or youth but to highlight possibilities of action. We are following the brethren, not getting out ahead of the brethren. We are not innovating but rather illuminating a doctrinal and covenant reality of God’s eternal plan and family responsibility, which has always been central to the teaching of the apostles and prophets and which has received renewed and invigorated emphasis and urgency by President Russell M. Nelson.

Bishops, youth, and their parents working together can decide what will be best for each child. None should (nor do we) seek to “steady the ark” of the covenant stewardship and calling held by another. Our aim is simply to invite us all to create and capitalize on opportunities for leaders to support and sustain parents, youth, and families and for youth and parents to support and sustain those who preside over them in the Church.

A Little Bit on the Context of Youth Counseling

As we contemplate an informal bishop–youth–parents council, it is important to symbolically prefigure those relationships. As depicted in this picture taken at the Orem Temple, bishops and parents are both needed to provide essential support to youth during their developmental years. 

A significant literature on neurobiological development suggests that teenagers’ brains will not be fully developed until around the age of 25. Additionally, teens are encountering powerful temptations for the first time, often right alongside intense personal spiritual awakening—which for quite a few includes a very real burden of toxic perfectionism and shame, a characteristic feature of the teen brain. Because of this, teenagers are often susceptible to hiding their shame in secrecy, and they may feel unworthy of help from outside sources, which can lead to isolating themselves spiritually. Teens’ emotional reasoning leads them to see their spiritual struggles out of all proportion. What may not seem like a cause for emotional upheaval or a spiritual crisis for parents, leaders, and mentors may, in fact, be so for our youth and can become a spiritually catastrophic spiral of toxic shame. 

The emotional and spiritual support of everyday-available parents and bishops is vital to our youth’s will and ability to stay on the covenant path. The opportunity for unified, mutual support on all sides of a bishop–youth–parents triangle begins with negotiating, establishing, and sustaining open lines of communication. We discuss these efforts in Part 2 of this series.

The post When Bishops and Parents Unite: A Family Church and Ministry appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Maternal leadership is critical for reducing maternal and neonatal mortality rates, promoting maternal and child health, and empowering mothers and families. According to the World Health Organization, approximately 300,000 women die from pregnancy-related causes each year. Many of these deaths could have been prevented through better access to vaccines, health education, and skilled birth attendants. Latter-day Saints understand deeply just how important motherhood is, so we are in a unique position to lead out in maternal activism. 

Many Latter-day Saint mothers have heeded this call. Catherine, a mother of six from Chad, became a volunteer vaccinator to protect mothers and babies from maternal and neonatal tetanus (MNT), a deadly disease that kills thousands of newborns every year. She was motivated by her faith and her love for her children to join the MNT elimination movement led by UNICEF and the World Health Organization. She helped vaccinate more than 3,000 women in her community and inspired other mothers to join her cause.

The Relief Society sisters in Nepal received training on how to prevent and treat common pregnancy complications and emergencies. They learned skills such as measuring blood pressure, checking fetal heart rate, identifying signs of infection, managing bleeding, and more. They also shared their knowledge with other women in their communities. Their training helped save lives when people in their community needed timely care.

Latter-day Saint Charities, the humanitarian arm of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has played a significant role in promoting maternal advocacy and activism around the world. Since its founding in 1985, Latter-day Saint Charities has provided aid and support to people in more than 195 countries, with a focus on helping those in need regardless of their religion, race, or nationality.

One recent example of Latter-day Saint Charities’ maternal advocacy is their partnership with UNICEF to improve maternal and neonatal health in South Sudan. The project aims to train more than 1,000 midwives and health workers on life-saving maternal and neonatal care practices, provide essential medicines and equipment, and support the establishment of community-based sustainable health care programs.

These examples illustrate the diversity and impact of Latter-day Saint women’s maternal activism and advocacy. They demonstrate their courage, compassion, wisdom, faith, and leadership in serving others and fulfilling their divine roles as mothers and disciples of Christ. Maternal advocacy and activism are essential for promoting the health, education, and well-being of mothers and children around the world and reversing the trend of fewer and fewer individuals choosing motherhood.

The success of the women of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in this area serves as a valuable model for how to create lasting improvement on these issues worldwide. 

Perhaps most notably, Latter-day Saint women are empowered and lead out on these issues. While the popular perception is often that Latter-day Saint women are disempowered, these examples (and hundreds of others) suggest that the reality on the ground is substantially different. The three most recent General Presidents of the Relief Society have all included emphases on maternal health. President Linda K. Burton advocated for assembling newborn kits.  President Jean B. Bingham led the Church’s collaboration with UNICEF. Current General Relief Society President Camille Johnson has continued this work while focusing on disadvantaged groups who are disproportionately affected by poor maternal care. Today Latter-day Saint Charities has a woman as its director, Sharon Eubanks.

The experience of Latter-day Saint women benefitting from the organization and collective action of the Relief Society has inspired many of them to start their own advocacy and relief groups. Many of those organizations focus on maternal advocacy. Big Ocean Women, for example, describes itself as an organization focused on “maternal feminism” and was founded by a member of the Church of Jesus Christ. Similarly, Jennifer Brinkerhoff Platt founded Maternal Instincts Consulting to help address postpartum depression while advocating for improved water sanitation around the world because of its benefit to maternal and newborn health. 

Both the Church and these other organizations explicitly work with other groups rather than try and reinvent models. They find the groups that know how to make a difference and then put resources, both financial and labor, into those groups.

Latter-day Saints also have a long history of advocating for the education of women. Not only does this empower Latter-day Saint women to help solve any problem they set their eyes on, but there is a long history of research showing that education for girls and women results in reduced child and maternal deaths. The Church’s teachings were incredibly progressive on this issue, encouraging education at a time when it was not only counter-cultural but in a time and place where they were significantly exposed to maternal health risks—despite very little being known at the time about the connection. Today, Dr. Eva Witesman, a mother of four and a professor at Brigham Young University, is a leading advocate for women’s education and empowerment in various forums and publications.

This is a model that Kathy Headlee, another Latter-day Saint woman, followed in the organization she founded called Mothers Without Borders. Their organization, which focuses its work in Zambia, explains in its mission that it “empowers women and youth through education … to enable them to be change agents for themselves and their communities.”

But perhaps more than any other lesson, these Latter-day Saint women can teach the world the power of faith. With religion on the decline through much of the western world, their examples demonstrate that faith in Jesus Christ can motivate us to build Zion and improve the lives of many of those around us. 

The rise of maternal activism and advocacy by Latter-day Saint women in politics and society is making a positive impact on the world. The Church and culture they come from can model how to develop this strength and service in a way that can work over the long term. These women are using their voices, knowledge, skills, and faith to promote the health, education, and empowerment of mothers and their children, as well as to contribute to society and humanitarian efforts. They are inspiring others to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and to serve others with love, compassion, and generosity. As we recognize and support the efforts of these women, we can work together to create a brighter future for all.

The post Changing the World One Birth at a Time appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Religious people are less likely to support abortion—but not because religions directly teach that abortion is wrong. Rather, abortion is connected to the sexual “liberation” ethic that arose during the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Traditionalist believers reject abortion because they reject sexual promiscuity. Conversely, acceptance of the sexual revolution drives support for abortion inasmuch as abortion, along with reliable contraception, renders sexual promiscuity “safe.” Conservatives must recognize that pro-life arguments will have limited effectiveness if they avoid addressing the central issue: the desirability of the sexual revolution.

*********

Many Americans see abortion as a religious issue. One can buy shirts that read: “Keep your religion out of my uterus” or “keep your rosaries off my ovaries.” Joshua Greene argues that opposition to abortion requires a belief that fetuses have “souls,” which he considers to be an unprovable theological dogma. Mona Eltahawy even described the pro-life movement as “a white supremacist Christian movement driven by white supremacist, Christian zealots who are patriarchal to the core.” On this view, pro-lifers believe life begins at conception because God told them so. 

If so, it follows, as many secular Americans argue, that abortion restrictions constitute an (unconstitutional) attempt to impose one’s religious views on the country. Progressives routinely liken the post-Roe world to the theocratic state depicted in the novel The Handmaid’s Tale, where a patriarchal ruling class uses women as breeding machines.

The question of religion in the abortion debate is thus a sensitive one. Yet even for pro-life Christians, the alignment between Christian teaching and anti-abortion arguments does not imply that the latter depends exclusively on the former—despite insistence to the contrary. 

So, who is right? Is abortion primarily just a religious issue? 

Views on Abortion are Correlated with Religiosity

Clearly, there is a religious divide over abortion in America. If you’re not religious, you’re simply more likely to be okay with abortion—with people of faith largely being opposed. Pew Research summarizes the statistics as follows: “An overwhelming share of religiously unaffiliated adults (83%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do six in ten Catholics. Protestants are divided in their views: 48% say it should be legal in all or most cases, while 50% say it should be illegal in all or most cases. Majorities of Black Protestants (71%) and White non-evangelical Protestants (61%) take the position that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while about three-quarters of White evangelicals (73%) say it should be illegal in all (20%) or most cases (53%).” 56% of U.S. Muslims endorsed the right to abortion in all or most cases, versus 42% opposed. (Separate polling shows that 70% of Latter-day Saints believe that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, compared to 27% who thought it should be legal in all or most cases.)

Similar gaps exist regarding the moral status of the fetus:

Religiosity thus correlates positively with opposition to abortion. The same survey reports that Catholics who attend mass regularly are more likely to oppose abortion than other Catholics. Moreover, religious groups have led the fight against abortion. Tim Carney observed that the “March for Life is technically a secular event. But everywhere you look, religion is there.” A common sign reads: “Pray to end abortion.” No wonder many people consider abortion largely a religious issue.

Theology Cannot Explain Why Religious People Oppose Abortion

While religion clearly impacts opinions on abortion, abortion is not a religious issue for the reason most people assume. On a theological level, the Bible never explicitly mentions abortion and does not definitively claim that life begins at conception. This is not to deny that different solid biblical cases can be made against abortion. In addition to the prohibitions against murder, for instance, people could hint at many references to God’s involvement in creation: “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. … My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth” (Psalm 139:13-15). Or hints at a pre-birth identity, where God tells the prophet Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” The Apostle Paul also claims that God “set me apart before I was born.”

The problem is that this evidence is not definitive. The Psalms are poems filled with metaphor and non-literal imagery. And perhaps Jeremiah’s calling was based on God’s foreknowledge of what he would become when he grew up. 

Mosaic law in Exodus 21:22-25 also does not settle the issue. This passage concerns a situation in which men are fighting and “hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out.” If “no mischief follow,” then the offender is punished “as the judges determine,” but “if any mischief follow,” then he must be executed. Conservatives interpret this passage to mean that if the child is born alive (though prematurely), the man receives a lesser penalty than if the child miscarries and dies. However, others interpret the phrase “her children come out” as “she has a miscarriage,” implying the death of the child, and think the “mischief” refers to the death of the woman, not the baby. On this view, the passage implies that the fetus is less valuable than a person because only the death of the mother, and not the fetus, triggers the (death) penalty for murder. 

Furthermore, opinions on abortion in the Abrahamic religions have varied over time. Orthodox Judaism permits abortion in some circumstances and does not consider the fetus to have the same status as a born person. Christians have tended historically to be opposed to abortion, but there is some nuance. Believers have disagreed over whether there were “formed” and “unformed” fetuses, with the latter being less human. Some Christians believed that “ensoulment” happens only at “quickening”—i.e., the moment when the mother first feels the baby move—although most theologians held that abortion was wrong at any stage of pregnancy. Islamic legal scholars are all over the place, and most Muslim countries permit abortion to varying degrees. 

Thus we can see that theology alone does not explain why abortion is a “religious issue.” The biblical evidence is too weak to bind people who want to accept abortion. And even if the Bible spoke more plainly, fidelity to scripture is obviously waning even among the faithful. Recently, many evangelicals who claim to accept biblical authority have rejected the longstanding Christian consensus against premarital sex and gay sex. There is no reason to believe abortion is any different. 

Abortion is Related to the Sexual Revolution

My thesis is that the abortion-religion correlation can be best explained by reasons that are not related to abortion directly—but rather reflect one’s views on sexuality. Pregnancy results from sex, after all, and abortion terminates a pregnancy. Abortion is thus implicated in the conflict over the sexual revolution. Let me explain. 

The contours of the modern debate over abortion have historically been clear. The English common law did not consider abortion prior to “quickening” to be homicide. During the nineteenth century, however, scientific advances led to an abandonment of untenable positions regarding fetal development. As it became scientifically clear that “quickening” did not represent a distinct phase in the fetus’s development, doctors increasingly spearheaded opposition to abortion. In 1869, the Catholic Church eliminated its longstanding distinction between an “animated” and “unanimated” fetus and began applying the same penalty (excommunication) to all abortions at any stage. States began passing restrictions on abortion at any stage in the 1820s, a process that accelerated after the Civil War and was complete by 1900. 

This status quo of heightened restrictions lasted until the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Since that time, many of the main proponents of abortion in the twentieth century have simultaneously advocated “liberation” from traditional sexual ethics. True, the connection between abortion rights and casual sex is rarely mentioned aloud. Abortion is hidden behind vague terms such as “reproductive health care,” “control of one’s body,” or “bodily autonomy and self-determination.” But the fact remains that unwanted pregnancies are an obstacle to free sex. Since many people do not use contraception correctly or consistently, abortion is needed to block the allegedly “life-destroying” pregnancies that predictably result. This is why, in the wake of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, many women proclaimed the “end of hookup culture,” warning men that they will stop having random sex with almost-strangers. Many women freely admit that they got an abortion so that they could continue having casual sex.

Feminists sometimes say that abortion has something to do with “equality” or “nondiscrimination” for women. At first blush, this claim is bizarre. Men cannot have the “right” to get an abortion because they cannot become pregnant, so giving the right to abortion to women does not correct discrimination or asymmetrical legal privileges. Moreover, abortion proponents universally hold that only the mother can decide whether to abort the fetus. This means it’s a man—more than a woman—who is more likely to become a parent unwillingly. Women can avoid motherhood by opting for abortion, but to avoid fatherhood, a man must resort to hectoring his pregnant lover to get an abortion—as many sadly do. 

Some feminists have spoken of the problems with “forced fatherhood” and conceded that no man should be forced to assume parental responsibility for his offspring unwillingly. But the idea of either parent being allowed to demand an abortion is clearly untenable. Among other things, fathers in these situations end up grappling with the psychological pain of knowing that one’s child is “out there.” Thus, far from correcting a pro-male bias, an abortion right introduces a new legal inequality that favors women.

The “inequality” abortion claims to rectify is not legal but sexual. Men can have sex without getting pregnant, whereas fertile women cannot. A sexually active fertile woman exposes herself to greater risks than a sexually active man. If she gets pregnant and abortion isn’t available, at a minimum, she faces months of discomfort followed by a painful birth that will alter her body permanently. Even if she gives up the baby for adoption or the father is made to contribute equally to the child’s upbringing, she has suffered far more tangible consequences for the sexual act than he has. The “equality” feminists arguably seek, then, is the equal ability of men and women to have sex without consequences. 

Comparing the various religious sects further supports the hypothesis that opposition to abortion derives from sexual ethics and not religious dogma. Virtually every sect that adopts a permissive view of premarital sex also endorses abortion. Virtually every sect that adopts a restrictive view of premarital sex also opposes abortion. The conservative Southern Baptist Convention, for instance, opposes premarital sex and abortion, while the Presbyterian Church (USA) accepts both. If the Bible is the sole cause of opposition to abortion, then we would expect all Christians to oppose it.

It is the defense of sexual liberation that distinguishes modern defenders of abortion from their earlier counterparts. Even when some abortions were legal and theologians debated the difference between “formed,” and “unformed” fetuses, Christians, Jews, and Muslims all rejected the idea that abortion should be a means of sexual liberation or used to cover up promiscuous sex. Kristin Luker observes that early Christian “church councils … outlined penalties only for those women who committed abortion after a sexual crime such as adultery or prostitution,” although most Christians still held that abortion was always wrong. In Islam, a woman must have a legitimate reason to obtain an abortion. Color me skeptical that medieval Muslim clerics regarded the need to “find oneself” as legitimate. And Orthodox Judaism has generally disallowed abortion for “trivial” reasons, including economic insecurity, allowing it primarily when the life of the mother is endangered.

The Sexual Revolution Distorts Rational Deliberation about Abortion

The connection between abortion and sexual license makes the job of the pro-life movement harder. Certainly, some liberationists can be convinced to oppose abortion through philosophical arguments about the origin of life. Fetal ultrasounds also appear to change some minds on abortion and cause a small number of women seeking abortion to carry the baby to term, an effect that is larger in ultrasounds of more developed fetuses. 

But, since humans are not perfectly rational, there are limits to philosophical argumentation. Jonathan Haidt asserts that moral beliefs are based on intuitions and that it is often only after adopting a deeper conviction that one constructs a “rational” justification to present in public (Haidt 2012, chap. 2). Moreover, one’s self-interest affects one’s moral opinions, as numerous philosophers attest. Alexis de Tocqueville recalls meeting a French immigrant who, in France, had been a “great leveler and ardent demagogue,” but in America, having become a wealthy landowner, now spoke eloquently about the value of “property rights” and social “hierarchy” (Democracy in America, 329-330). Tocqueville “marveled” at “the imbecility of human reason” in light of “the power that material well-being exerts over political actions and even opinions” (329-330). James Madison concurs: “As long as the connection subsists between [a person’s] reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves” (The Federalist, #10). David Hume even referred to reason as the “slave” of the “passions” (A Treatise of Human Nature, p. 415). In short, humans tend to believe whatever we want to believe.

As an adherent of the tradition of natural law, I am reluctant to accept this verdict fully. Yet one’s material self-interest undoubtedly affects one’s opinions on disputed moral topics. Even the foremost natural law thinker, Thomas Aquinas, held that while “general principles” of the natural law cannot “be blotted out from the hearts of men,” a person’s “reason may be hindered from applying the general principle to a specific act by lust or some other passion” (Political Writings, p. 125). It is no surprise that the only passion Thomas mentions by name is “lust,” since elsewhere he writes that the “vehemence of this passion is more difficult to overcome” than that of any other “sensual pleasure.” Unfortunately, this happens to be the very passion boosting support for abortion.

If support for abortion is predicated on a visceral, fleshy desire for sexual “liberation,” then rational arguments against abortion face severe limits. We should expect to encounter enormous resistance from people whose personal lives are shaped by the easy availability of casual sex. Simply put, if people have to choose between giving up promiscuous sex or believing that a fetus is merely another body part, most will choose the latter. 

The Progressive Backlash against the Sexual Revolution is Ineffectual

If my analysis is correct, it follows that the pro-life cause will not fully triumph until a shift away from sexual license has occurred. 

There is some good news on this front. Feminists increasingly realize that the modern sexual ethic is not working—especially for women. Consider two recent books: The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, by Louise Perry; and Rethinking Sex: A Provocation, by the progressive Catholic convert Christine Emba. Both authors praise marriage, criticize hook-up culture, accept some innate sex differences, and think that sex is “special.” If more widespread resistance to sexual liberation is to be found anywhere, here are some positive percolations.

The cheapening of sex, Regnerus concludes, enhances men’s power in the dating market. Women find themselves feeling more and more powerless to “hold out” and demand commitment from men in exchange for sex. They often feel used and devalued. As one woman writes about her college pseudo-boyfriends, [“a]fter I began having sex with these guys, the power balance always tipped.” These structural factors explain why hookup culture is so resilient despite widespread disappointment with how it works. A woman who resolves to withhold sex until she gets commitment very likely ends up with neither. 

This analysis highlights the weakness and limitations of the feminist case against the sexual revolution. Perry and Emba’s arguments are half-hearted. Neither seeks to roll back the sexual revolution entirely. They want couples to wait longer—but not until marriage. And their prescriptions are intended to be optional personal advice, not socially enforceable norms. They seek to convince men and women that it is desirable to wait longer and be more committed, not that casual sex is “wrong.”

Unsurprisingly, this new brand of “sex-negative” feminism is not an ally of the pro-life movement. Perry is pro-choice, while Emba wants to avoid “extremism” on either side—which probably means she favors allowing abortion until the point at which most women will have already gotten one. They cannot bring themselves to roll back women’s ability to fully control their fertility. Yet by my analysis, this very right is the driving force sustaining the regime of casual sex they seek to displace. 

For this reason, very likely the feminist backlash against casual sex will amount to lecturing men about the need to respect women’s desire for emotional intimacy, to little effect. A cultural shift towards waiting longer might make a difference on the margins, but an ethic of “you do you” will not change the deeper structural dynamics of the sexual marketplace.

Only Religion Can Counteract the Sexual Revolution

We are finally prepared to explain why abortion is a religious issue. Arguably, only traditional religious beliefs can sustain the old-fashioned sexual ethic that is necessary to remove the psychological barriers to rational consideration of the pro-life position. Only religions can make sexual restraint a universal normative standard rather than mere “advice.” 

Why?

First, religions ground sex in a holistic, transcendent view of humans and their place in the cosmos. The Bible, for instance, opposes promiscuity and prostitution by arguing that a person’s body is a “temple of the Holy Spirit,” likens the husband-wife relationship to the relationship between Jesus Christ and the church, and opposes divorce because “God has joined [the couple] together.” When sex is viewed as an important component in an overarching divine plan for the cosmos, it is seen as sacred and meaningful. 

Other worldviews lack the metaphysical resources to accomplish this hallowing of committed intimacy. Atheistic evolutionary rationalism, which I have described elsewhere, views libido as an animalistic urge governed by primal Darwinian forces. If “nature” teaches anything, it counsels men to “spread their genes” with lots of sexual partners since, after all, this behavior is common in the animal kingdom, and many human cultures have had polygamy. Evolutionary psychologists vigorously deny this implication, but only because they deny that evolution can provide any guidance at all on how we use our innate desires. 

Progressivism likewise cannot see anything special about sex. It doubts the existence of a stable human nature, denies any connection between morality and nature, and considers allegedly “transcendent” values to be culturally constructed artifacts (which are probably implicated in racism, sexism, or homophobia). Moreover, progressives generally adopt a radically individualist worldview that treats one’s autonomous personal choices (especially regarding sex) as sacrosanct, eroding the ability to make long-term commitments. 

Second, religions portray marital and sexual norms as divine commands, giving them a priority and clarity that is unavailable otherwise. The natural law tradition holds that, while everyone can, in principle, understand moral principles through reason alone, “divine law” or revelation is useful because it clearly and forcefully articulates important moral principles. The Anglican theologian Richard Hooker, for instance, argues that scripture “restates the natural law” in order to “prove” the “more obscure” moral principles that require complicated reasoning to discover (The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity). Moreover, while the “first principles of the Law of Nature are easy,” determining “particular applications of this law” is trickier inasmuch as “we are inclined to flatter ourselves and to learn as little about our defects as possible.” In fact, he notes, “so far has our natural understanding been darkened that at times whole nations have been unable to recognize gross iniquity as sin.” Religious texts reinforce moral truths that are difficult for people to accept. 

Sexual ethics particularly benefit from the educative function of revelation. Unlike “hard” crimes, consensual sex doesn’t appear to “harm” anyone. This may even be true in the short run. The wisdom of sexual restraint mainly becomes apparent only after the global consequences of sexual liberation have permeated and transformed society. Even then, a crude tool like abortion, in which the victim is literally hidden from sight and then tossed aside, can be used selfishly to mitigate harm to oneself and the people one knows. 

The ambiguity of sexual ethics explains why, when average Americans discuss the principles by which they regulate their own sexual lives, they portray these principles as unique to themselves and nonobligatory—often accompanied by heated denials of any intent to “judge” others’ choices. Many people feel deeply that hookup culture is illegitimate because sex is somehow sacred, but they struggle to find the language to articulate this sentiment. This reticence is unsurprising. Whenever sexual ethics are framed as personal choices rather than society-level norms rooted in universal moral laws, people inevitably refrain from imposing their choices on others. 

Conclusion

This argument has implications for pro-life conservatives. 

First, conservatives must supplement traditional pro-life arguments with a comprehensive attack on the regime of sexual promiscuity. Fighting the battle on the sexual front is just as important as insisting on the humanity of the fetus. Rationalist arguments will fail to persuade people’s minds if their bodies demand access to abortion. On a practical level, we should not only promote traditional marriage but also seek to mitigate the temptations of hookup culture by helping young singles find a mate and get married young.

Second, conservatism must recover a recognition that personal choices regarding sex both affect and are affected by society. Perhaps the greatest failure of classical liberalism is that it cabined off entire areas of life—particularly in the sexual realm—as “private” realms shielded from moral scrutiny. We must cultivate a society where people integrate their individual choices into a holistic philosophy of human flourishing. Such an approach would constrain personal autonomy but would foster social harmony and, ultimately, individual happiness. 

Finally, conservatives should temper their hopes of “winning” the debate on abortion quickly or easily. The Dobbs decision is welcome, but only a wholesale change in sexual ethics can create a society in which abortion is no longer seen as necessary for personal fulfillment. Every effort must be made to build on the work of feminist critics of casual sex. But such critiques, which largely amount to optional personal advice, stand little chance of dethroning hookup culture, which has become increasingly omnipresent in the larger culture young singles swim in. Only religion stands a real chance of checking promiscuity by inculcating a higher view of human sexuality—yet there is little evidence of a religious revival on the horizon. Debates over abortion, it seems, will remain endemic to modern liberal democracies for the foreseeable future. Buckle up.

The post Abortion As a Proxy Battle Over the Sexual Revolution appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Those are all names I’ve been called, thanks to a narrative being promoted about parents like me.  I am the creator of “Laverna in the Library,” a Facebook page that I started with the purpose of showing parents excerpts of sexually explicit passages from books in public school libraries.  I rarely read the vitriol, and when I do, my reaction is one of amusement, fascination, and curiosity about a charlatan’s trick I’m mildly interested in dismantling. 

We’re used to being portrayed unfairly in national, secular media. But when the same narrative shows up in journalists working for Church-owned media, it feels important to make direct clarification.    

A tale of two surveys. On October 3rd, 2022, Rasmussen Reports published a nationwide poll with the commentary, “Voters overwhelmingly oppose sexually explicit books in public school libraries. … Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters believe books containing explicit sexual depictions of sex acts. … should not be present in public high school libraries.”

One day later, on October 4th, Deseret News published a poll that they had conducted with a social media post declaring that “just 12% of Americans agree that books should be removed from libraries if a parent objects.”

The Deseret News poll asked respondents if they agree with the following statement: “If any parent objects to a book in the public school library, that book should be removed, even if other parents like the book.” Some may consider that question leading or possibly neglectful of the issue of sexually explicit materials, but I’ll be gracious and just call it vague.  

 Given the unspecific nature of their question, it’s hard to understand how anyone taking the survey answered: “agree.”  What book are we talking about?  Is it “Clifford, the Big Red Dog”? Is it “Catch 22”? Is it “The Great Gatsby”? What if it’s a book that I like?! If I took this poll, I would be forced to answer this question in line with the majority of respondents—“strongly disagree.” (Otherwise, the implication is that any book could be removed if anyone merely asks for it. We must have standards for book challenges. If we remove anything and everything, the library will be empty within the year!)

 In contrast, the Rasmussen poll is very specific. It does not ask about just any parent or any book. The survey asks, “Should books containing explicit sexual depictions of sex acts be present in public high school libraries?” It makes perfect sense that respondents would respond to this question much differently than the broader query. Once again, I would personally come down on the side of the majority because I do not think minors should be offered obscene or explicit material at a public school.

 An honest conversation about what is happening. Can you see why the difference in question matters?  When it comes to this issue, the specific details about books being discussed mean everything. Most Americans don’t want to remove Dr. Seuss from schools, but they do believe that books in schools should be age appropriate in regards to content and not just reading level.

 Instead of drawing these logical conclusions from the data, it was disappointing to see a journalist at the Deseret News proceed to tie their poll result directly to the efforts of Utah Parents United and others that are focused on removing sexually explicit books from schools. 

Jeremy C. Pope, co-investigator for the survey, likewise draws this overly broad conclusion about these efforts: “The public really doesn’t like book banning.” Perhaps unwittingly, this professor’s statement unfairly conflates book banning with removing sexually explicit books from schools. Yet to be very clear, the polls have shown that most people disapprove of book banning while they approve of removing sexually explicit books. These are two distinct efforts.

 The Deseret News poll is not a fair representation of public opinion on sexually explicit books in school libraries simply because that’s not the question they asked. Nevertheless, Marjorie Cortez’s article on the topic was written as if they asked that question.  Furthermore, a centerpiece of the commentary is the claim that most of the challenged books have LGBT+ themes. Yet, when one reviews the books being challenged, it is obvious that this is simply false.

Look at the numbers. You can uncover the ratio of explicit homosexual and explicit heterosexual books by looking at the rated reviews yourself.  Ratedbooks.org lists many books that have been rated on a scale from 0 through 5 based largely on the MPAA rating system for movies.

Books rated 4 and 5 should be thought of earning an NC-17 rating or above. The website lists 90 reviewed books with a 4/5 rating, but only 13 of those books (14%) have LGBT+ characters and themes. Parents that are concerned about explicit books are not “silencing minority voices.” The facts show that the public is against any sexually explicit content being served up to children, regardless of orientation. We can maintain school libraries reflective of diverse viewpoints, including LGBT+ authors and stories, without stories involving explicit sex. 

Let’s not pretend there aren’t consequences. One woman we know has a daughter whose pornography struggles started from what she read in her own school library. Another family paid upwards of 12k per month for residential treatment for their child due to a pornography addiction that included books found in public school libraries. There are many other stories like these. 

This is where we need journalists to help shine a light on what’s happening. Yet when news media like the Deseret News emphasize language such as “book banning” in a discussion this important, they invite the public to conjure up fascist history and provoke an emotional response to something that simply doesn’t exist in America. After all, even the most controversial books are widely available in public libraries and from booksellers.

While there is no comprehensive list of every book that has been challenged in Utah thus far, I will offer here a sample of code violations from 10 books challenged within the Alpine School District.  (Warning.  This content is sexually explicit) According to the law, these books are indecent and do not belong in schools.  But it’s best to look at the material and decide for yourself.  

Thankfully, we have seen other voices featured in the Deseret News—albeit less prominently—pushing back on these claims and setting the record straight, including a helpful commentary from Representative Ken Ivory (“It’s not discrimination—we are protecting children from pornography”) and Suzanne Bates, (“Parents are right to be concerned about what kids read”; see also “Stop Calling Concerned Parents Haters” in this magazine). 

Yet a host of questions remain. If activists (and activist journalists) really believe that children should have no warnings or limits on what they access, then why aren’t they protesting ratings in movie theaters, music, video games, and TV? 

And if they truly believe in the First Amendment, then why are parents publicly shamed for exercising the freedom of speech to say that sexually explicit and, ofttimes, pornographic books are even more harmful to children than controlled, addictive stimulants like alcohol and drugs? 

Instead of addressing the real issue, which is giving unlabeled sexually explicit books to children, we continue to witness a popular yet misleading narrative that turns our attention away from a unifying issue (protecting kids from sexually explicit material) to one that is deeply divisive (these people are just racists! And bigots!).  

For a topic of such importance, and about which parents could unite to work together, it’s disappointing to see journalists confusing the matter. The lack of clarity in that leading Deseret News article seems to intentionally undermine the reasonable efforts of citizens to protect children from obscene content that violates the existing standards of decency under the law.

The post Protecting Kids From Explicit Material Shouldn’t Be Controversial appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

If you aren’t up to speed, the AP news broke a story just over ten days ago detailing the horrific sexual abuse of two Arizona girls at the hands of their father, all members of the Church until the father’s excommunication. Over a period of seven years, Paul Adams repeatedly raped his young daughters, often filming it. His youngest daughter was only a few weeks old when he first assaulted her. The extent of the abuse is too horrific to detail here, but the crux of the matter for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—and many members—is that the family’s bishops were aware to some extent of the abuse and never reported it, despite an ongoing association with the family.

When we learn about events where someone has been hurt so profoundly, it sometimes feels like the best way to honor their pain is by refusing efforts that don’t match their tragedy in swiftness or intensity. In the face of such inconceivable injustice, anything less than full and immediate resolution feels like another failure—where the first failure was already too much to contemplate. This could well be the correct instinct if it drives us to take action—however difficult—on behalf of the victim and to protect others.

But if we are not careful, we can prioritize our own need for resolution above the needs of the vulnerable. When confronted with incomprehensible and senseless evil, we yearn for tidy moral takeaways that give us a sense of control (“nothing like this could ever happen to me because I understand x”) and which will allow us to put our feelings into immediate action. But oversimplifying events necessarily involves omitting or de-emphasizing parts of the story that might significantly impact our ability to prevent similar tragedies going forward. That’s a risk none of us should want to take.

Additionally, as the Washington Post itself admits, church leaders have, in fact, reported hundreds of cases of abuse to authorities. The Post caveats this concession by pointing out that we don’t know how many cases the Church has not reported, an implied accusation of the widespread hiding of abuse without commensurate evidence. But if the Post is wrong, and there are fewer abusers on the loose because of church efforts, then stories that sow distrust in the Church as a bastion of hidden sex abuse are hindering its ability to remove children from abusive situations.

Even where abuse is not reported to officials and only confessed to a bishop or other leader, it does not follow that vulnerable children are better off either without the Church or where the Church has no discretion about reporting. As Christopher Cunningham has already pointed out, mandatory reporting without exemptions does not make abuse go away—it might simply make it harder to discover. No doubt Church leaders are weighing that complicated and very serious tension when contemplating when and how to report abuse. Those wanting to help victims must weigh the ability to discover abuse against the need to hold the abuser accountable before the law immediately.

A friend recently shared that in her own congregation, the bishop accidentally learned about abuse taking place within one family and reported it. The victims denied the abuse, and authorities were ultimately unable to take any further action. From that time forward, the family was no longer permitted to attend Church by the perpetrator, making it impossible for ward members to help—some of whom had experience with domestic abuse and could have served as valuable resources in efforts toward moving this family toward treatment and healing.

All of this is to say that if the AP story is actually one about human error(s) rather than institutional evil, and we jeopardize the work of institutions that, overall, do more good than harm, we are not helping children in the aggregate. We are endangering them.

For example, neglect is by far the most common reason for state child welfare services to remove a child from the home. While it’s difficult to estimate the rates of abuse in foster and group home settings, when it does occur, it is likely to involve serious forms of harm, such as physical and sexual abuse. The universal helpfulness of state interventions in dysfunctional family settings is far from settled, and some child advocacy groups are concerned that state services inappropriately fixate on child removal at the expense of more beneficial strategies for proactively supporting family healing, growth, and reconciliation in a way that keeps children in their own homes.

This isn’t to say that involving authorities isn’t sometimes exactly what needs to happen, as the Bisbee case illustrates, but to pontificate as though this is some simple affair in which those who hesitate or seek help before resorting to extreme measures are always acting from nefarious motives betrays a dangerous ignorance.

The fact remains that in the specific case in Arizona, horrific abuse was taking place, and it should have been handled by authorities long, long before it actually was. But the systems, laws, and policies that many seem eager to condemn or overhaul deal with a wide variety of situations that are not so clear cut—and children in these more complex circumstances also need to be considered. Churches and other forms of community-level support may be far better suited to help in these situations than the heavy, overburdened hand of state-level interventions.

As I’ve already written, the Church and my interactions specifically with priesthood leaders have been indispensable in helping me find healing from the traumas and dysfunction of my own childhood. No institution composed of humans, however, can eliminate all human error nor vouchsafe that there will never be perpetrators counted among us. Has any institution or organization ever done so? I believe that whatever failures or lapses currently exist with respect to supporting victims of abuse, the Church will happily seek to remedy them. In the meantime, I hope that we can proceed cautiously in our judgments and take careful stock of what’s at stake. The most vulnerable are counting on us to consider all the angles—not just the heated headlines. 

The post Some Thoughts on Helping Vulnerable Children appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

The abortion question is, among other things, a parenting question. The relationship that exists between the one who solicits abortion and the one killed by the procedure is that of parent and child, mother and daughter, mother and son. The unborn child who grows in the womb is the living human offspring of his or her parents. This is a fact often denied by those who characterize abortion as part of “planning” parenthood that already exists. But this is also a fact that is easy for pro-lifers to forget in their reflections on the meaning and ethics of human abortion.

The philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson made a famous pro-choice argument, popularly known as the “violinist analogy.” You wake up in a hospital bed connected to a renowned violinist, who is dependent on your body to remain alive. She will need to be connected to you for nine months, at which point she will be able to live normally, or she will die. Are you obligated to stay connected? Your moral intuition probably tells you no, you’re not—you can disconnect, even though the violinist will die. This is the situation a pregnant woman finds herself in, says Thomson, and she can justifiably “disconnect” by seeking an abortion.

But this rebuttal of Thomson is incomplete. Even if abortion could be performed without violence—without directly inflicting trauma on the unborn child—we would probably still find it objectionable. This distinction between “disconnection” and violence is worth considering, if only because a growing number of early abortions are done non-surgically. When medical abortion (contrasted with surgical abortion) is used in early pregnancy, “fetal demise” is induced not by directly inflicting trauma, but by administration of mifepristone to the mother. Mifepristone, which in combination with misoprostol can be used in the first 8-10 weeks of gestation, is arguably more like “disconnection” than violence: it blocks the hormones that would otherwise keep the unborn child alive.

Many pro-lifers would argue this is a distinction without a difference. Whether a particular method of abortion is technically violence or not, they might argue, it is still killing and thus still impermissible. Yet in many other contexts, we scrupulously observe the difference between actively and passively killing someone. There is an important ethical difference between withdrawing active life support, on the one hand, and euthanasia on the other. We also recognize that withdrawing a decision to donate an organ that would have saved another person’s life is not violence, even if such a donation would have been praiseworthy.

But your intuition may still insist that organ donation and the violinist analogy don’t quite capture the reality of pregnancy. Something is missing. An important dimension of the problem not examined in Thomson’s analogy is the relationship between you and the “violinist.” Suppose, that is, you were the violinist’s mother or father. Suppose the violinist was not really a violinist but your little daughter, peacefully growing in the adjacent bed, or in your arms, unaware of the predicament you face, and not yet able to live on her own. Should you be expected not to disconnect?

The pro-life argument that gets closer to the core of the abortion issue than one that deals with abortion as merely a particular type of violence goes something like this: Parents have an inherent positive duty, moral and legal, to care for their offspring to the extent reasonably possible. This positive duty includes the duty to provide food, shelter, and affection to one’s children. It also includes, in the early stages, the obligation on the part of a mother to continue caring for her child through pregnancy, and the obligation on the part of the father to provide, protect, and care for the pregnant mother and child. Parents are not required merely, this argument goes, to refrain from violence against their children, but to care for them. Which is to say: Even if you think abortion is more like “disconnecting” than it is violence, at least in some cases, it is still a violation of the parental duty—it is neglect.

Framing the abortion question this way helps draw out exactly what offends us about abortion, but it is also helpful for understanding and sympathizing with certain pro-choice arguments. Parents have authority in their children’s lives—not merely duties toward them. Proponents of legal elective abortion often make an argument that should have a familiar ring to conservatives. Mothers should, proponents say, be able to make intimate family decisions without the interference of government or anyone else. This is an argument for parental rights. But parental rights, or parental authority, exist for the child’s sake above all else—parents have authority over their children precisely so they can raise them to be adults. Latitude must be given to parents to raise their children in the way they see fit, but this latitude simply cannot reasonably include the authority to bring about a child’s death by violence or neglect.

If we are concerned with holding men to the responsibilities of fatherhood, we might reconsider our norms and laws. Why should it be socially acceptable for an unmarried man to have sex if he is not prepared to accept the parental responsibilities that may foreseeably follow from it? Why should a man not be expected to marry a woman he has fathered a child with if she will have him? We should also rethink no-fault divorce: Since the 1970s, laws have been passed in most jurisdictions allowing a spouse to unilaterally end a marriage without admitting or proving fault.

Roe v. Wade has now been overturned in the United States. The first Western country to explicitly license elective abortion will be the first to lead the way toward a post-abortion world. The end of Roe v. Wade is an answer to prayer and it had to happen, but it will present difficulties. The world of 2022 is different from the world of 1973. Marriage rates have collapsed, especially among lower-income classes. Between 1965 and 2010, the share of children born outside marriage in the US increased from roughly 10% to 40%. We must not merely ask mothers not to solicit abortion or doctors not to perform it. We must ask parents, both mothers and fathers, to fulfill their duties toward their children.

The post Abortion as a Parenting Issue appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Matthew Cowley, a mid-twentieth-century apostle for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, expanded this idea in relation to women. He said that they  “belong to the great sorority of Saviorhood. … You are born with an inherent right, an inherent authority, to be the saviors of human souls. You are the co-creators with God of his children. Therefore, it is expected of you by a right divine that you be the saviors and the regenerating force in the lives of God’s children here upon the earth.” 

The theme continues in the ministry of current Church President, Russell M. Nelson:

My dear sisters, you have special spiritual gifts and propensities … I urge you, with all the hope of my heart, to pray to understand your spiritual gifts—to cultivate, use, and expand them, even more than you ever have. You will change the world as you do so. We need your strength, your conversion, your conviction, your ability to lead, your wisdom, and your voices. We simply cannot gather Israel without you. I love you and thank you and now bless you with the ability to leave the world behind as you assist in this crucial and urgent work. Together we can do all that our Heavenly Father needs us to do to prepare the world for the Second Coming of His Beloved Son.

Today, we find much debate over the meaning of womanhood or female identity. Latter-day Saint doctrine, then, provides significant clarity to these questions.

The Lord “knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth,” beautifully intertwined a woman’s journey to exaltation in His scriptures.  He marks the path by highlighting women’s roles and purposes as she progresses from a virtuous daughter of Zion to a bride, to a mother of nations, to a mother of all living while resisting the juxtaposed roles proffered by the adversary.

The Lord invites women with or without husbands and with or without children to become covenant mothers in Zion who are “the saviors and regenerating force in the lives of God’s children” and “to prepare the world for the Second Coming of His Beloved Son.” Each woman’s path is personally tailored to her circumstance and talents and enabled by the Savior’s atonement for her to become a joint-heir with Christ.

Daughter of Zion  

“Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord.”

Like Rebekah, who met Eleazer at the well, the virtuous daughter of Zion, guided by the Lord, sees, hears, knows, observes, and serves.  Rebekah not only fulfilled the messenger’s personal request for water but offered to give life-sustaining water to his entourage. From her pitcher, they all drank until they were full. Her covenant ministering continued as she offered lodging for men and beasts. Then after hearing Eleazer recount Abraham’s commandment, his request of the Lord who provided her as a miraculous answer to that request, and a sudden proposal of marriage involving a move to an unknown land, Rebekah replied, “I will go.” 

Alternatively, scriptures warn that daughters of Zion turned vain, haughty, and proud lose the Lord’s guidance and protection. The Lord implores their repentance and looks to a future day of cleansing and reinstatement “when the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.”

The Bride

In becoming a bride, a woman receives a new name, a new family, a new identity. In a covenant relationship, she gives herself to one.  She receives one to herself. A woman is reborn from one to two as one.

Rebekah traveled to Canaan to become a bride—a woman true to her ideals and covenants, pure, strong, capable, compatible, virtuous.

“And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel. For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a veil, and covered herself … And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her.”

After a lifetime of preparation and while adorned appropriately, Rebekah received the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.

“I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.”

“And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

“And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. . . and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal.”

As he wages war, the adversary aims to make the bride forget her accouterments and her covenant name, leaving her weak and vulnerable to his attacks.

“Can a maid forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire?” The Lord asked. “Yet my people have forgotten me days without number.”

“And I give unto them a name that never shall be blotted out, except it be through transgression. Yea, and moreover I say unto you, that if this highly favored people of the Lord should fall into transgression, and become a wicked and an adulterous people, that the Lord will deliver them up, that thereby they become weak like unto their brethren; and he will no more preserve them by his matchless and marvelous power, as he has hitherto preserved our fathers.”

Mother of Nations

In becoming a mother of nations, a woman receives a new name, a new family, a new identity. In a covenant relationship, she gives herself to others.  She receives others to herself. A woman is reborn from two as one to two as creators of nations.

God told Abraham “I will bless [Sarah] and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.”

As a covenant mother of nations, a woman’s foundational impact becomes limitless. This is next-level motherhood that yearns and prays that future descendants remain steadfast in their inheritance.

“Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.” “Nurture refers to all the environmental variables that impact who we are.” The Lord speaks of making a “kingdom of priests, a holy nation.” A mother of nations calls on the powers of heaven, the priesthood, and her temple covenants as environmental variables to ensure her children say, “We do not doubt our mothers knew it.”

What role stands antithetical to a mother of nations? A mother of harlots and abominations.

“So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.”

But the Lamb shall overcome.

Mother of All Living

Motherhood ascends from mothering a nation to becoming the mother of all living. In becoming the mother of all living, a woman receives a new name, a new family, a new identity. In this covenant relationship, a woman is reborn from two as creators of nations to two as creators of all living.

“And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many.”

According to Bible Hub, the Hebrew word “ חַי”  meaning “living” referring to Eve serves many interesting purposes in the scriptures. A few defined uses of the word include “alive, living, of God—as the living one, the fountain of life, the formula of the oath is, by him who liveth for ever; of man—living, land of the living, light of the living; of animals—alive, living; vegetation—as thorns, green; above near the end—water, flowing fresh; reviving; living beings, and cherubic creatures.

The promise of following the covenant path of motherhood as Eve did is exaltation.

“Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; … and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths … and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. This is eternal lives—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent.” 

This covenant path offers every woman the opportunity to become each of these covenantal women—the virtuous daughter of Zion, the bride adorned, the mother of nations “and the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light,” and the mother of all living who “shall see His face; and His name shall be in [her] forehead.”

The post The Eternal Nature of Motherhood for All Women appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

He’s a picky eater. In his defense, textures and smells hit him far stronger than other people. Most foods outside of his favorites require sheer willpower to eat. But the world isn’t kind to picky eaters, so we felt like we needed to help him stretch himself. After enduring lots of unsolicited and bad advice (it definitely feels like everyone has an opinion about your kid’s eating), we finally settled on giving him new things to experience in very small amounts.

In this dinner of infamy fourteen years ago, he was given a chicken nugget.

Most nights he finished what we gave him, if not always quickly and cheerfully. With a lot of dinners like this, he developed strategies to eat food he doesn’t like.

But not this night. Sweeping up later, I found scattered bits of a chicken nugget littering the floor under his chair. He’d surreptitiously torn it to tiny pieces, an attempt to make them small enough to go unnoticed. I definitely noticed.

What followed was mostly unremarkable. He was punished appropriately and humanely. He still loves us and we, of course, love him. But what I reflect on still fourteen years later is the anger I felt. I’d been duped, disrespected, and dissembled with. My own son had lied to me – and not just passively. There was an actual lie in there because I remember asking him if he was done eating his chicken nugget and he told me he was. He knew he wasn’t telling me the truth and he did it anyway. It was the first, to-my-face lie by one of my children.

Honesty is hard, harder than we admit.

Immanuel Kant famously argued that our obligation to be honest is so absolute that it would even prevent you from lying to a murderer at the door while you hid his intended victim. Ethical principles are universal, so if it were alright to lie at that moment then all lies would be acceptable. To rephrase in the exact words of a past church leader of mine, “There’s no such thing as a little white lie. All lies are heinous black and will send you straight to hell.”

Yet every time I have taught this idea to my ethics students over the years, they’ve found Kant’s example not just wrong, but repulsive. Most people react that way. How could a lie be worse than exposing a person to imminent harm?

But that presents a tricky alternative. If I can lie to a murderer, then that means it’s okay to lie sometimes. This is also hard to accept because it gives us something like an escape hatch. “Sometimes” is a shifty foundation for right and wrong. Everyone agrees that honesty is right and lying is wrong. Right?

And yet we are not—in practice—consistently honest people. Repeated research shows that pretty much all of us lie at least a little bit all the time. Our lies are typically inconsequential, and we usually lie to ourselves the most. But the way we think and communicate diverges frequently from the truth.

Sloppy thinking about honesty serves us poorly. Students use it to cheat. Marketers use it to embellish. Politicians use it to lie. We paradoxically reject dishonesty, yet expect it everywhere. How do we get clearer thinking about the principle of honesty?

When I think of that moment after dinner discovering the scattered remains of my sweet son’s integrity, I have to consider that this five-year-old’s failure wasn’t just about the truth. He wasn’t fundamentally dishonest. Indeed like any kid, he was sometimes brutally honest and we’d teach him what was and wasn’t okay to say to people. (What is politeness if not often tiny, acceptable dishonesties?)

I knew then and know now that he has a good heart. So why was I hurt at being lied to? The problem that dinner wasn’t his commitment to truth, but his relationship with us, his parents. It mattered that he was my son. If I’d been babysitting a nephew, the same sneaky behavior would’ve been funny to me, not offensive. With my son it wasn’t just the truth at stake; it was our connection.

I tell this story because it illustrates why honesty is hard. Practical honesty, the kind that we intuitively use every day, is not measured by the truth alone. It can’t be, considering all the issues noted above. There’s something extra that makes honesty both harder and clearer.

If honesty could be calculated, it wouldn’t be:

Honesty = truth

Instead, the calculation is:

Honesty = Truth x Relationships.

This brings us back to Kant. He saw ethics as an obligation borne from two things: first, our capacity to reason and discern truth; and second, the inviolable dignity inherent in every person. Truth doesn’t matter without people who matter. Ethics doesn’t even make sense if people are removed from the equation. Every lie needs a listener.

How we think of others makes practical honesty so much clearer. We like to say, for example, that someone who lies has a “shaky,” “loose,” or “relaxed” relationship with the truth. But the more precise accusation is that their relationship with others needs to be stronger. They undervalue the people to whom they owe the truth.

This also makes sense of our sloppy thinking about honesty’s boundaries. It’s because relationships are hard. We often struggle to keep them healthy. They compete for our attention and loyalty, putting us in dilemmas about which to prefer. The hardest decisions you’ll ever face about honesty will certainly involve relationships that are at odds with each other.  

Relationships also explain why we frequently feel comfortable stepping away from the truth. We dissemble all the time to give loved ones confidence or comfort. We bite our tongues to keep the peace. Some families are scrupulously honest until they play a board game together where cheating is part of the fun. (This is not a universal experience, as newlyweds discover regularly.) And imagine Christmastime without the perpetual lie of Santa Claus.

Our ineptitude in relationships often leads us to dishonesty. Kids will often lie because they think it preserves good feelings with their parents. Consider how many ill-conceived lies are motivated by love. We’re lucky that same love, in turn, motivates forgiveness.

None of this says that relationships excuse us. This formula—Truth times Relationships—makes more of honesty, not an escape hatch from it. We owe people the truth. And relationships of all shapes and sizes easily come to life, even between total strangers. Anytime our words (or silence) put us in another’s orbit, the gravity of truth pulls us to be honest with them.

The heart of the matter is this: dishonesty is indignity because it discards relationships and the people who come with them. Honesty, on the other hand, is more than mere truth; it’s connection and commitment and it manifests love.

How do we become more honest people? We won’t find useful answers with Kant’s murderer at the door or other hypotheticals, as much fun as I have teaching them to my students. The answers are in our day-to-day relationships. We need to understand those better. What obligations and commitments do we owe to our family, friends, coworkers, and community?

We become more honest by building stronger relationships with those close to us, commitments to those who count on us, and respect for everyone around us. My children have lied to my wife and me many times since that fateful dinner, and with more at stake. But over the years I’ve also seen them show incredible integrity. At every point, it’s been our relationships at the center of it all, not merely the truth.

The post Honesty is Hard. Let’s Not Give Up On It. appeared first on Public Square Magazine.