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

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

A Divinely Inspired Constitution 

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

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

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

The Connection Between the Constitution and the Declaration

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

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

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

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

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

Seeking Equal Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what about ministers, archbishops, imams, rabbis, and priests? How do they feel about AI, and how is it affecting their congregations? 

Faith-based global discussions about AI have taken place over the past three years at the G20 Interfaith Forums (IF20) in India, Brazil, and South Africa, and will continue this year in the United States. These discussions have elevated important issues affecting congregations worldwide. Understanding the concerns of interfaith leaders can broaden our perspective on AI issues, and it also raises this important question: What can people of faith do to make a difference on this topic?

Background of the G20 Interfaith Forum

The G20 is an intergovernmental forum composed of 19 countries, the European Union, and the African Union. Its Interfaith Forum (IF20) is an informal engagement group that focuses on faith-based perspectives, and it involves religious leaders, civil society groups, and government officials interested in interfaith dialogue. The IF20’s AI discussions over the past three years have grown in prominence, and they offer an overview of the theological concerns about AI, including reshaping human relationships, reshaping individuals’ relationships with God, and concerns about bias against religions in AI outputs. Tracing how these issues have developed over the years can deepen our understanding and point to ways individuals might best respond to these challenges.

IF20 India 2023: General Concerns Taking Shape

At the IF20 2023 meeting in New Delhi, participants expressed general concerns about artificial intelligence. ChatGPT had only been in public use for less than half a year. Pope Francis had supported a strong statement about artificial intelligence in 2020, which became a major talking point. The Vatican emphasized accountability, impartiality, security, and the protection of individual privacy. Marco Ventura, a Vatican scholar, raised the issue of AI robots distributing the Holy Communion, rather than priests. These initial discussions included a concern about AI becoming part of sacred religious traditions.

Manisha Jain, a Hindu and former Microsoft AI engineer with prior experience at Google and Meta, emphasized that technology is advancing at an astronomical rate, making ethical use more important than ever. She compared AI to a gun: while guns can provide food, protection, and enjoyment, they can also cause harm and chaos. Similarly, AI is a necessary tool for society, deeply embedded in daily life, offering great benefits but also posing risks if misused.

IF20 Brazil 2024: Biases in AI Against Religion

The 2024 meeting in Brasilia took place under the theme “Leave No One Behind: The Well-Being of the Planet and Its People.” By this time, ChatGPT had become a major part of global digital use. One issue highlighted was the effect of anti-religious hate speech on youth. Thiago Alves Pinto of Oxford University clarified the distinction between misinformation (accidental spread of inaccurate information) and disinformation (intentional spread of false information to cause harm). He noted that large language models do not reliably distinguish between stronger and weaker information sources, which allows biases and hate speech to appear in responses to queries about faith traditions. Angela Redding of the Radiant Foundation presented research illustrating the prevalence of negative portrayals of religion in media. Specific recommendations included conducting more research on hate speech, fostering interfaith dialogue to counter intolerance, and teaching adults and youth to critically evaluate information from AI platforms.

In March 2025, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) conducted a study on the relationship between Judaism and AI. The study revealed significant anti-Jewish and anti-Israel biases in leading large language models, including GPT (OpenAI), Claude (Anthropic), Gemini (Google), and Llama (Meta). Llama exhibited the most biased answers about Judaism, while GPT scored lowest (illustrating more bias) on questions related to Israel’s role in the Israeli-Hamas conflict. The study underscored the need for safeguards and mitigation strategies within the AI industry to guard against biases that can fuel religious intolerance.

Faith leaders also advocated for legal frameworks and international standards, referencing the Rabat Plan of Action and the United Nations resolutions on combating intolerance. However, differences of opinion persisted. During the panel discussion, Khushwant Singh, a Sikh and PaRD head of Secretariat, argued that AI has nothing to do with spirituality and religion, while Professor Medlir Mema strongly contended that religions must engage in AI discussions and policy to guard against evolving issues. These two views illustrate the range of opinions on the role of religions in determining AI policy.

IF20 South Africa 2025: The Complexity of AI Concerns

The 2025 meeting in Cape Town was anchored in the African philosophy of Ubuntu—“I am because we are”—which shaped the ethical discourse around AI. A key discussion point was the technology gap between developed and developing countries. The Global South expressed concern about being left behind in AI development. Carike Noeth, Globethics’s South Africa manager, stressed that “Africa is not only vulnerable, we’re extremely visionary.” While African innovators and leaders are fully equipped to pioneer solutions to their own challenges, having access to AI resources is vital.

Debates also arose over government control of AI. Sean Cleary of FutureWorld insisted that AI can be controlled by governments, while Professor Fadi Daou of Globethics noted that AI leaders themselves admit they cannot fully control AI development, so how can we expect governments to? 

Professor Mema raised concerns about AI’s environmental impact, noting that while AI can help achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, companies such as Google, Amazon, and Meta have underreported emissions from AI data centers. He cautioned against assuming innovation alone can solve crises without addressing their root causes. 

Theological concerns also emerged, particularly the risk of AI becoming a “god” to people. A God AI app currently allows users to send prayers and receive answers, raising parallels with idol worship, such as the biblical golden calf.

By 2025, the simple, general concerns expressed by people of faith two years earlier had become more defined and complex. More questions than answers emerged around the intersection of faith and technology. AI was becoming the “higher” power people turned to for answers, rather than turning to Deity through prayer and faith.   

2026 and Beyond: What Can Be Done?

This year at the G20 USA 2026, AI and new technologies will again be a major focus of discussion in engagement groups. The IF20 is currently drafting a policy paper on faith interests and AI policy, with particular attention to using AI to enhance rather than diminish human flourishing. IF20 will also host a series of webinars to educate people about the positive opportunities and potential dangers of AI use. The forum will also continue to explore faith perspectives on a global scale. In the years ahead, IF20 will also address the push for AI regulation and foster continued understanding of the complex issues surrounding AI.

Individuals can be part of the AI and faith discussions by reading and listening to faith leaders and discussing AI with people of different faith traditions. As people of faith learn more about AI, general concerns become more refined regarding the limitations, complexities, and possibilities this technology may bring to our faith and families. Individuals can review their own relationships with others, with their own faith, and with God  to determine whether these relationships have been negatively affected by AI or other technologies. These evaluations can help individuals and families prayerfully put into practice AI ethics and boundaries that enable technology to enhance rather than replace their faith. 

The post The Global Faith Conversation on AI appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

We are almost to June, a month often known as LGBT+ Pride Month.

Pride is a loaded term. But it’s easy to understand why pride feels a lot better than shame and hiding in the closet, especially when sexual feelings can be fundamental to one’s identity. And superficially, pride seems to be not only the opposite of shame, but also superior in every way. 

Shame feels lonely and paralyzing (because it is). Pride feels liberating and connecting. If my only choice were between pride and shame, of course I would choose pride. 

But those are not our only two choices. And pride and shame are not actually opposing choices; they are just two sides of the same limiting coin. Pride does not actually liberate or connect us. It isolates us in a different way than shame does, but just as profoundly. 

The Twin Errors of Pride and Shame

As C.S. Lewis wrote, Satan “always sends errors into the world in pairs—pairs of opposites. And he relies on your extra dislike of one to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors.” 

As near as I can tell, Satan is the author of both pride and shame. He introduced pride by rebelling against Heavenly Father and launching the War in Heaven for his own glory, permanently separating him from God. Later, he introduced shame in the Garden of Eden by convincing Adam and Eve they needed to hide from Heavenly Father when they made a mistake. 

When we are stuck in this false binary, we can quickly flip back and forth between shame and pride, dysfunctionally ping-ponging between them: hating ourselves, then thinking we are justified in staying where we are because the standards are unfair.

A Better Way

The better way is where true liberation, true freedom, and true discipleship are found: in a covenant relationship with God. It is a place of consecrated living, spiritual peace, and abundant joy. Covenant relationship is not primarily about our weaknesses or strengths, but to whom they are consecrated, and how well we are connected to others. We no longer worry about hiding our flaws, but repent of them. We no longer need praise and affirmation from others to feel good about our own characteristics and accomplishments. We recognize that as to ourselves we are weak, but with God we can do all things. 

Perhaps the best scriptural term for the antidote to pride and shame is meekness, as Elder David A. Bednar of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles discussed at a 2017 BYU Devotional, and again during April 2018 General Conference. He taught that the most valuable learning comes through experience, not merely intellectually understanding something, because experience allows us to repent, which helps us grow. 

When we understand that the goal of life is gaining these experiences, we realize that opposition doesn’t mean it’s time to give up or we’re failing. Instead, it’s how we learn to place our faith in Jesus Christ, not in outcomes, as my friend Blake Fisher puts it. 

But, as Elder Bednar teaches, being meek does not mean being “weak, timid, or passive.” Rather, it is the quality of being God-fearing, righteous, teachable, patient in suffering, and willing to follow gospel teachings. Meekness is being receptive to divinely directed counsel and correction.

Neither Pride Nor Shame Leads to Change

On that theme, Elder Bednar shared a remarkable story he has never forgotten. Then-Elder Henry B. Eyring told him, “President, if you have not been rebuked lately by the Holy Ghost as you are praying, then you need to improve your prayers.”

On the other hand, those in the grasp of pride will hear this and take offense. They will discard the counsel because the tone was wrong or the message was painful. They are unwilling and unable to look at the beneficial principles that may underlie a harsh or poorly-timed delivery method.

Shame tells us that we aren’t worthy of the Savior’s Atonement. Pride tells us we don’t need it. Both alienate us from a relationship with the One who alone can offer relief, peace, and transformation. Jesus Christ and His Atoning power enable us to conquer these traps and consecrate our experiences for our good.

As we focus on making and keeping our covenants, our relationship with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ deepens, and our gaze naturally lifts upward toward the Father and His Son. This conscious ascension—choosing to look to Them instead of being consumed by our fallen nature’s tendency toward pride or shame—is what allows our behavior and life focus to follow, gradually elevating us to become more like Them.

The pride-and-shame trap is just one of several traps that can occur when a shallow understanding of the gospel is combined with secular worldviews. Rising above these false dichotomies enables us to experience the true growth and blessings that the restored gospel offers, including in approaching our sexuality. All of us—regardless of our specific challenges—can find hope, community, and the blessings of the restored gospel. I second Elder Bednar’s observation that “walking in meekness will help us to press forward through the messy middle.” In doing so, we can receive “beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness.” 

The post Pride and Shame Are Two Sides of the Same Coin appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

The post appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

I never expected a five-dollar bill to prompt an existential crisis. 

As I found Honest Abe half-buried among the fallen leaves, I wondered: do I leave it here to be raked up with the crunched leaves, turn it into a non-existent lost and found, or take it and pay it forward?

Grappling with this dilemma raised a larger question: How do we assign value?

Walking in the dark on a late autumn day, I left the heft of the fiver in my pocket. Its weight brought back a memory of teaching friends in inner-city America as a missionary. 

While I was visiting with a local church leader in his home, he taught the value of the Restored gospel with a dramatic flair. He pulled out a twenty-dollar bill, ripped it in half, and tossed it into the air, drifting in slow motion to the ground in two. The teenage children were stunned, their eyes bulging as they couldn’t comprehend the sum of money being ripped like paper.

How could we each interpret the same substance to have such different worth?

Every day, Americans clash over what must be valued, and how strongly we prioritize it: education, religious freedom, family roles, economic opportunity, national identity, public safety. Some issues demand our permanent attention; others are negotiable. Matters that are permanent to one person may be flexible for another.

The problem is not that we disagree on the relative value of issues. The danger is our assumption that our ranking of values is the only reasonable or just one, and those who rank them differently must be immoral, uninformed, or evil. 

This assumption we all make is tearing our country apart.

I find it helpful to distinguish between two categories of values:

1. Core values—those central to who we are. Faith, family, and the freedom of conscience. Values that we cannot trade away or redefine. These embody eternal truths, and moral commitments.
2. Relative values—those that necessitate balancing and compromise. Public policy, education curricula, economic tradeoffs, and development. 

Reasonable people can, and do, evaluate both of these categories differently based on their unique culture, experience, and philosophy.

When we are unwilling to compromise on our relative values, or when we insist that others compromise their core values, political conflict can become unnecessarily divisive. 

When this occurs, compromise becomes impossible, and contempt is unavoidable. Healing is found as we “draw attention away from the biases of partisan politics,” as the Dignity Index suggests.

Distinguishing between our core and relative values changes how we manage disagreement. It doesn’t mean wavering our convictions, but understanding that others may assign values differently for reasons unknown to us. 

The path to national healing begins with something as small yet profound as “[living] in a way that’s in harmony with our core values.”

Accepting this invites us to approach the public square in humility: What is the value of this issue for my fellow Americans? What are its costs? Is it symbolic for others, and just pragmatic for me?

Answering these questions—the questions of value—is at the heart of enjoying a pluralistic society. This allows for relationships with those across the political spectrum. As Bruce C. Hafen, a former general authority of The Church of Jesus Christ, explained, “value-generating and value-maintaining associations … teach and foster the greatest fullness of life.” 

Holding that five-dollar bill, I realized that value itself is a moral obligation. Our everyday actions show how we assign value in our treatment of individuals with differing priorities. To strengthen our communities, we can stand for core values and collaborate on relative ones. We can “[find] a way to disagree that moves us toward solutions rather than deepening divides.”

So, the next time you pick up a fiver or think of Honest Abe, reflect on your hierarchy of values. Which are core values? Which are negotiable? How can you offer others the same dignity you demand for yourself?

The post What a Lost Five-Dollar Bill Taught Me appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

God does not leave His children to navigate mortality without help.

This idea practically screams from the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

We are given commandments. We are given the gift of the Holy Ghost. We are given scripture. We are given prophets and covenants and ordinances. We are given bishops and other leaders. 

There are also the gifts of the Spirit. In particular helping with this task is the gift of discernment. Discernment can loom large in Latter-day Saint culture. 

Discernment is a gift that helps us perceive reality in the light of the Spirit. Jesus demonstrated it frequently when he was able to perceive the true thoughts of those he came in contact with. 

It helps those it is given to distinguish truth from error, sincerity from performance, wisdom from impulse, and spiritual influence from counterfeit. It is not simply a gift for detecting danger; it can help us minister better, helping us perceive burdens, possibilities, and hidden goodness. 

Spiritual Gifts Are for the Body of Christ

Doctrine and Covenants 46 places discernment within a broader theology of spiritual gifts. The Lord teaches that gifts come from God “for the benefit of the children of God.” It is listed broadly among the gifts that can be given.

The same section also specifically includes that this gift is given to bishops so the Saints are not misled by false claims of spiritual gifts. 

Discernment is not introduced as a private superpower. It is part of the Lord’s effort to bless, order, protect, and edify the Church.

Paul teaches a similar principle in 1 Corinthians 12. Spiritual gifts are distributed across the body of Christ. No single member possesses the whole body’s wisdom, and no single gift exhausts the Spirit’s work. That means discernment is best understood not as an isolated talent possessed by a few, but as one part of a larger divine economy in which God blesses His people through many members, many gifts, and many forms of inspired service.

Discernment is framed to be about service in building the kingdom of God. It is given so the body of Christ can be protected, guided, humbled, and healed.

Discernment Is Broader Than Detecting Evil

Elder David A. Bednar, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has offered one of the most helpful modern explanations of the gift. Drawing on earlier teachings, he describes discernment as operating in four major ways. 1) It can help us detect hidden error or evil in others. 2) More importantly, it can help us detect hidden error or evil in ourselves. 3) It can help us find concealed good in others. 4) And it can help us find concealed good in ourselves.

That four-part framework is crucial.

Many cultural conversations about discernment focus almost entirely on the first function: detecting what is wrong with someone else. But Elder Bednar’s description gives us a much richer and more Christian account.

Discernment may help a parent sense that a child’s anger is really fear. It may help a Relief Society president recognize that a sister’s distance is not indifference but exhaustion. It may help a bishop perceive that a confession needs less interrogation and more mercy. It may help a missionary see spiritual hunger beneath defensiveness. It may help a disciple recognize that his own “righteous concern” is actually pride.

The highest form of discernment may not be the ability to expose people. It may be the ability to see them truthfully enough to call forth their better selves.

That is a profoundly Christlike gift.

Christ saw hypocrisy, but He also saw faith. He saw sin, but He also saw repentance. He saw Peter’s denial, but He also saw Peter’s future. He saw Zacchaeus in a tree and called him into a transformed life. He saw the woman taken in adultery as a soul to be rescued.

Discernment, in this sense, is not merely suspicion sharpened by religion. It is perception purified by charity.

Discernment and Judgment

The classic biblical image of discernment may be Solomon’s prayer for “an understanding heart.” Solomon did not ask to become omniscient. He asked for wisdom to judge rightly between good and bad. Discernment is tied to judgment, humility, and stewardship.

The Church’s current Handbook uses similar language when speaking of bishops and stake presidents. It says that, in their role helping members repent, these leaders are blessed with the spiritual gift of discernment, which helps them “discern truth, understand a member’s heart, and identify his or her needs.”

That is a meaningful promise. Bishops and stake presidents are not merely administrators. They are called and set apart to serve as judges in Israel. In that role, they may receive spiritual help beyond their own natural insight.

A bishop who discerns well may be better able to answer the question “What does this child of God need to come closer to Christ?”

Discernment Can Grow

Discernment is a spiritual gift, but like most spiritual gifts, that does not mean it bypasses ordinary faithful effort.

Bednar connects discernment with being “quick to observe”—the capacity to notice and obey. In another teaching on revelation, he explains that some revelation comes suddenly, like light filling a dark room, while the more common pattern is gradual, like the slow increase of light at sunrise.

In my experience, that is often how discernment works in real life. 

Sometimes a bishop, parent, missionary, or friend may receive a sudden prompting. A question comes to mind. A name appears in prayer. A warning feeling interrupts an ordinary moment. These experiences of direct and sudden discernment are real, but are not universal or to be expected at every moment. 

Discernment often develops more quietly. It comes through listening over time. It comes through knowing the scriptures, asking better questions, noticing patterns, and learning from prior mistakes. For leaders, it can grow through studying the Handbook or honoring confidences.

A leader who listens carefully is not relying less on revelation than one who waits for an unexpected impression. A ward council that gathers information, counsels together, and prays over real people is not replacing revelation with process. It may be creating the conditions in which revelation, or spiritual discernment, can be recognized.

Discernment Belongs to Councils

One of the most important correctives to an overly narrow view of discernment is the doctrine of councils.

In a worldwide leadership training discussion, fellow apostle Elder M. Russell Ballard taught that no one person knows all the answers to every question and that councils allow leaders to draw on inspiration from various members. Bednar added that it is a mistaken notion that every element of ward revelation must come through the bishop. By virtue of his keys, the bishop directs and affirms, but he does not need to receive “every jot and tittle” of revelation himself. He also observed that discernment operates more effectively when a presiding officer listens rather than dominates.

The doctrine of discernment taught by these leaders is a mature and deeply grounded one. The gift of discernment works best when joined to humility, councils, and the gifts of others.

The Myth of the Magical Bishop

In some Latter-day Saint conversations, discernment has been imagined in a way that is much narrower, more automatic, and more dramatic than the scriptures require or even imply. This expectation shows up both among some believing members and among some critics of the Church.

The assumption goes like this: if bishops and other leaders have the gift of discernment, then they should be able to detect hidden sin, deception, danger, or unworthiness with perfect reliability. Under that assumption, every missed warning sign becomes evidence that the gift is not real.

There is an assumption that the only way for the Church to be true is for no bishop to ever miss anything. This is not a straw man. It is a recognizable criticism that proliferates in spaces where people have become disillusioned with the Church, perhaps in part because they expected something more like the magic of Wonder Woman’s Lasso of Truth or Professor X’s telepathy than the spiritual gifts of the New Testament. 

Similar questions arise in pastoral and abuse contexts. If God can provide discernment in some cases, why doesn’t he provide it every time it could help alleviate pain or prevent deception?

These concerns deserve empathy. They often come from pain. But they also reveal a misunderstanding of the gift.

A grounded Christian understanding of discernment does not require bishops to be miraculously perfect. It does not treat a calling as a guarantee of constant supernatural detection. It does not make revelation a substitute for confession, evidence, councils, law, policy, or the moral responsibility to speak and act.

The magical version says, “If God is involved, the bishop should just know.”

The Christian version says, “Because God is involved, the bishop should pray, listen, counsel, study, ask, follow the Handbook, protect the vulnerable, receive correction, and seek the Spirit.”

Those are very different models.

A Better Practice

A better doctrine of discernment leads to better practice.

For members, it means we should not outsource honesty to a leader’s supposed ability to detect truth. A person confessing sin should tell the truth because discipleship requires truthfulness, not because the bishop might catch him. A person who needs help should not assume, “If God wanted the bishop to know, he would know.” Sometimes the Spirit prompts a leader. Sometimes the Lord expects us to speak.

For bishops and stake presidents, it means spiritual impressions should be received humbly. The Handbook itself makes this clear. In matters involving serious sin, a bishop or stake president may receive promptings, but if a member denies an accusation, “a spiritual impression alone is not sufficient” to hold a membership council. Leaders are instructed to gather appropriate information and avoid unlawful or inappropriate methods.

That is not a lack of faith in discernment. It is disciplined faith in discernment. It is realizing that when you learned in third grade that multiplication makes numbers bigger, and then learned in fifth grade that you can multiply by fractions, no one was lying to you; the full reality is just more nuanced than you learned on the first pass. 

If there was an example where you wish the gift of discernment had been present, but it wasn’t, that does disprove a simplistic version of the gift of discernment, but it can help you move to a more mature, fuller understanding of how gifts of the Spirit work. 

Seeing as Christ Sees

The gift of discernment is one of the great gifts of the Spirit because discipleship requires more than eyesight.

We need to distinguish spiritual light from counterfeit light. We need to recognize our own self-deception. We need to see hidden goodness in people we are tempted to dismiss. We need to understand when correction is needed and when mercy is needed. We need to know when to speak, when to listen, when to wait, and when to act.

Bishops need that gift. So do parents. So do all of us. But we need discernment not because leaders are flawless, but because none of us are. Discernment is not merely the power to see what is wrong. It is the grace to see more nearly as Christ sees.

The post The Discipline of Spiritual Sight appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

I recently asked the latest version of Claude to provide statements from various religions on artificial intelligence. 

Almost immediately, I received a 300-word paper outlining what various religions thought about AI. As someone with a background in interfaith work, I quickly realized that a few of the statements were not quite right, and others were actually wrong. 

I then asked AI to give me the references for the statements it had made. Claude apologetically wrote back: 

Good question—and I owe you an honest answer here. When I made those specific statements in my original response, I was drawing on general training knowledge rather than verified, cited sources. I should not have presented them as established facts without sourcing them first.

My experience illustrates how AI can, ironically, misrepresent faith perspectives about AI. As people of faith, we need to rely on good sources to understand different faith perspectives about artificial intelligence, rather than general, unverified sources (as Claude did).

Many faith and interfaith groups have been actively promoting ethical AI use that enhances, rather than inhibits, human flourishing and spiritual connection. As I wrote in a previous article, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has played a significant role in these discussions. 

As I read and study the statements of faith groups on AI, I am impressed by how similar they are. Recurring concerns include:

1. The effects of unethical use of AI on humanity and the environment,  especially in warfare, and on the unfair advantages countries with access to AI have over countries without access to AI.
2. The effect AI use has and will continue to have on our youth, specifically in areas of relationship building, personal communication, and individual learning.
3. The effect AI will have on personal privacy and on restrictions on religious belief and practice.

I will highlight selected viewpoints on AI from a sampling of faith groups to provide a picture of the questions people of faith may want to consider as we think about how to use AI toward its highest ends. This overview is illustrative, not exhaustive, and omissions should not be read as a sign that those groups lack serious engagement with questions about AI.

Roman Catholics

In February 2020, the “Rome Call for AI Ethics” emerged from a conference hosted by the Pontifical Academy for Life and received Vatican support. It defined the ethics of AI development and use this way: “AI systems must be conceived, designed, and implemented to serve and protect human beings and the environment in which they live.” It outlined six principles to guide AI ethics at the national and international levels:

1. Transparency: AI systems must be explainable.
2. Inclusion: Everyone should benefit.
3. Responsibility: The design and deployment of AI should be done responsibly.
4. Impartiality: Bias should not be part of AI systems; fairness and human dignity should be safeguarded.
5. Reliability: AI systems should work reliably.
6. Security and privacy: AI systems should respect the privacy of the users.

Since the Rome Call in 2020, the Vatican has hosted regular summits of religious leaders and AI experts to discuss these principles in the ever-changing landscape of AI development. The purpose of these summits is to keep AI development focused on what’s good for humanity.

The document contrasts human intelligence with artificial intelligence, which does not embody spiritual or relational intelligence. The statement asks this important question: “Given these considerations, one can ask how AI can be understood within God’s plan. To answer this, it is important to recall that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character but is a human endeavor that engages the humanistic and cultural dimensions of human creativity.” 

The Antiqua et Nova ended with a specific standard for the development of AI applications:

[I]t is essential to emphasize the importance of moral responsibility grounded in the dignity and vocation of the human person. This guiding principle also applies to questions concerning AI. In this context, the ethical dimension takes on primary importance because it is people who design systems and determine the purposes for which they are used. Between a machine and a human being, only the latter is truly a moral agent—a subject of moral responsibility who exercises freedom in his or her decisions and accepts their consequences. …The commitment to ensuring that AI always supports and promotes the supreme value of the dignity of every human being and the fullness of the human vocation serves as a criterion of discernment for developers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, as well as to its users. It remains valid for every application of the technology at every level of its use.

The Vatican statement emphasizes the moral responsibility to view AI applications in the context of advancing human flourishing, rather than destroying the human, relational context of human intelligence.  

Southern Baptists

In 2019, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) issued a document titled “Artificial Intelligence: An Evangelical Statement of Principles.” It was one of the first major evangelical frameworks, asserting that AI is a tool created by human agency that must never supplant the Imago Dei (image of God) in humans. The Commission set forth 12 articles that reviewed the entire gamut of possible AI use and influence, from work to war. The basis of its principles is that “while AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.”

In June 2023, the SBC adopted its first official ethics statement on AI, “On Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technologies.” The statement reiterated the ERLC’s earlier points and called for discernment in developing and using AI. The statement also acknowledged the importance of using AI in honest, transparent, and Christlike ways, ensuring human dignity and avoiding deception and unjust gain. 

In September 2025, the ERLC released a 39‑page guide, “The Work of Our Hands: Christian Ministry in the Age of Artificial Intelligence,” advising church leaders to use AI to complement, not replace, human ministry. It warns against AI shortcuts in sermon preparation, emphasizing that preaching God’s Word is a distinct calling requiring wisdom, maturity, and prayer.

Buddhists

Buddhist leaders and scholars have also expressed concerns about the use of AI in spiritual matters. The Dalai Lama, one of the world’s most recognized Tibetan Buddhist leaders, hosted a formal dialogue on AI in October 2025, with over 120 academics, scientists, and policymakers gathering under the theme “Minds, Artificial Intelligence, and Ethics” to examine AI’s potential to alleviate suffering and its risks. In the Tibetan Review, Geshe Thupten Jinpa, chair of the Mind & Life board of directors, pointed out that His Holiness had two main objectives for this conference: (1) to bring the mind and contemplative study into AI and (2) to explore how science and compassion-driven motivation can serve humanity. Buddhist-framed AI ethics discussions often focus on how AI use must strive to decrease pain and suffering, according to the MIT Technology Review.

Sikhs

The Sikh religion, like other religions without a hierarchical structure, does not have an official living leader to provide a definitive religious statement on AI. However, Sikh scholars are also actively thinking about AI’s spiritual implications.  In February 2024, AI and Faith published an interview with Sikh scholar Jasjit Singh, who shared his thoughts on AI from his faith perspective. Singh points out that while there is no official Sikh statement about AI, he believes Sikh principles apply to individuals’ responsibility to use AI for good and positivity. He said:

Rather than talking about AI specifically, the Guru Granth Sahib talks about the importance of intention when using a tool. In the Sikh tradition, there’s this real emphasis on the oneness of humanity, of recognizing that other human beings and creation itself is one thing. If the use of the tool is leading the individual to a positive outcome and as long as that tool is leading you towards this idea of oneness, then it’s seen as being used for the right sort of reason. 

Interfaith Efforts

Several interfaith groups are banding together to focus on the importance of keeping humans in control of AI and ensuring that it promotes rather than inhibits freedom of religion or belief, known as FoRB. They believe that AI should not become the master of humanity; instead, it should be a servant to humanity. The Article 18 Alliance and the Future of Life Institute are both organizations promoting AI governance frameworks that keep human rights, religious freedom, and human control central.

Article 18 Alliance Statement: Towards a FoRB-Sensitive AI Policy

The Article 18 Alliance is a network of like-minded countries committed to promoting worldwide freedom of religion or belief (FoRB), as articulated in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thirty-eight countries have joined the Alliance, including the United States. 

The final recommendations were to protect the most vulnerable communities, to develop effective policies to prevent AI from being misused to mobilize violence, and to leverage cross-governmental collaborations to set up global frameworks for the future of AI. Of the 12 signatories, the United States was not among them. FoRB must evolve alongside AI technologies to ensure that digital innovation strengthens human dignity and rights rather than inhibits or restricts them.

Future of Life Institute: Keeping It Human

The Future of Life Institute focuses on securing a human future and promoting AI development that promotes human flourishing and benefits everyone worldwide.  In March 2026, FLI announced The Pro-Human AI Declaration which focuses on keeping humans in charge, avoiding concentration of AI power in the hands of a few, protecting human agency and liberty, and ensuring AI companies are held accountable for what they are doing. FLI also places special emphasis on world religions and works with other faiths and interfaith groups to push its declaration. 

Faith Directions with AI

Given the throughlines between different faith and interfaith groups’ approaches to AI, there are significant opportunities for people of faith to work together to promote the use of AI in a way that contributes to human flourishing. Most religions believe that, if used ethically and equitably, AI can support societal improvements and increase human flourishing.

On the other hand, people of faith need to be very aware of their private use of AI and listen to religious leaders’ teachings and warnings in order to decide how best to use AI at work and in their homes.

The post The Soul Beyond the Algorithm appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints find themselves in a most unusual position. We believe in God, the Eternal Father. We believe in Jesus Christ, accept his gospel, acknowledge him as Savior, Lord, God, and King. We look to him for forgiveness of our sins and declare that salvation comes in and through his name and in no other way (Philippians 2:9-11). We strive to live our lives according to his example and teachings and are committed to the fact that the depth of our Christianity is most evident, not in theological gymnastics, nor in a received vocabulary, but rather in the way we treat other men and women. We exercise hope in the immortality of the soul, a belief that we will live again after death, because Jesus himself rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). And yet, interestingly, many in Christendom declare that the Latter-day Saints are not Christian.

Reasons for Exclusion

Non-acceptance of the Doctrine of the Trinity

Perhaps more than any other reason, Latter-day Saints aren’t considered to be Christian because of our non-acceptance of the post-New Testament creeds and theological formulations concerning Christ and the Godhead, beginning with the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. Latter-day Saints do believe there are three members of the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that each of the members of the Godhead possesses all of the attributes of Godliness in perfection; and that the love and unity that exist among these three Persons is of such magnitude that they constitute a divine community that is often referred to in the Book of Mormon as “one eternal God” (see 2 Nephi 31:21; Alma 11:44; 3 Nephi 11:27, 36; 28:10; Mormon 7:7). 

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland stated: 

We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true …

It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief,” Elder Holland affirmed, “nor the doctrine of any religion. We extend to all the same respect to their doctrine that we are asking for ours. (That, too, is an article of our faith.) But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?

Were they not Christians?

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pray to God the Eternal Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost; we acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of our worship (John 5:19, 26; 7:16; 14:28; D&C 20:19) and confess the Son of God as our Lord and Redeemer, our one and only hope for deliverance from sin and death in this world, as well as our glorious hope for  eternal life in the world to come. We teach of the Holy Spirit as the Messenger of the Father and the Son, the Revealer of the mind and will of God, and the Sanctifier, the means by which filth and dross are burned out of the human soul as though by fire. We are encouraged and charged by our leaders to seek the constant companionship of the Spirit, to attend to its promptings, to follow its lead.

We baptize people “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (3 Nephi 11:23-26; D&C 20:73-74). And, for that matter, the highest ordinance or sacrament within our Church, eternal marriage, received only in the temple, is performed in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In short, the Latter-day Saints live and move and have their being by and through the members of the Godhead; ours is a lived rather than a spoken or creedal connection to these holy beings. 

Scripture Beyond the Bible

Another reason for the exclusion of Latter-day Saints from the category of Christian is because we do not believe in the sufficiency of the Bible. In point of fact, to state that the Bible is the final word of God—more specifically, the final written word of God—is to claim more for the Bible than it claims for itself. We are nowhere given to understand that after the ascension of Jesus and the ministry and writings of those first century apostles, that revelations from God that would eventually take the form of written scripture and thus be added to the canon, would cease. As Joseph Smith taught, one would need to have received a modern revelation in order to know for certain that there will be no more revelation beyond the Bible.

So why was the canon of scripture closed? Emeritus Professor Lee M. McDonald, an Evangelical Christian scholar, posed some fascinating questions relative to the present closed canon of scripture. “The first question,” he writes, “and the most important one, is whether the church was right in perceiving the need for a closed canon of scriptures.” McDonald also asks: 

Did such a move toward a closed canon of scriptures ultimately (and unconsciously) limit the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the church? More precisely, does the recognition of absoluteness of the biblical canon minimize the presence and activity of God in the church today? … On what biblical or historical grounds has the inspiration of God been limited to the written documents that the church now calls its Bible?

While McDonald poses other issues, let me refer to his final question: “If the Spirit inspired only the written documents of the first century, does that mean that the same Spirit does not speak today in the church about matters that are of significant concern?”

Indeed, we might ask: Who authorized the canon to be closed? Who decided that the Bible was and forevermore would be the final written word of God?  Why would one suppose that the closing words of the Apocalypse represented the “end of the prophets”? Latter-day Saints find themselves today in a hauntingly reminiscent position relative to the continuing and ongoing mind and will of God. Is ours not the same basic message that Jesus and Peter and Paul and John delivered to the unbelieving Jews of their day—that the heavens had once again been opened, that new light and knowledge had burst upon the earth, and that God had chosen to reveal himself through the ministry of his Beloved Son and his ordained apostles?

Let’s be clear on this matter: no branch of Christianity limits itself entirely to the biblical text in making doctrinal decisions and in applying biblical principles. Roman Catholics turn to scripture, to church tradition, and to the magisterium or teaching office in the church for answers. Protestants, particularly Evangelicals, turn to linguists and scripture scholars for their answers, as well as to post-New Testament church councils and creeds. This seems, at least in my view, to be in violation of Sola Scriptura, the clarion call of the Reformation to rely solely upon scripture itself. In fact, there is no final authority on scriptural interpretation when differences arise, which of course they do regularly.

 “When [traditional Christians] accuse Mormons of not believing the Bible,” Professor Stephen Robinson has written, “they usually mean that we do not believe interpretations formulated by postbiblical councils. If [traditional Christians] are going to insist on the doctrine of sola scriptura [scripture alone] … then they ought to stop ascribing scriptural authority to postbiblical traditions.”

Would the early Christians who had for decades had access only to the Gospel of Mark (considered by most Biblical scholars to be the first Gospel written) have considered the deeper spiritual realities set forth later in the Gospel of John to be a portrait of “a different Jesus”?  Hardly. Thus the current mantra of “Latter-day Saints worship a different Jesus” is a sad, misguided, and too often malicious misrepresentation of the way things really are. Latter-day Saints clearly worship the historical Jesus, the Christ of the New Testament—the man who was born in Bethlehem, lived and ministered during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, functioned under the oversight of Caiaphas (Jews) and Pilate (Romans), gave his life as a sacrificial offering to atone for the sins of humankind, and rose from the grave in glorious resurrected immortality. That there may be differences on certain points of theology is not unimportant, but it does not merit the misleading concept that Latter-day Saints somehow worship a “different Jesus.” Supplementation of the Bible is clearly not the same as contradiction of the Bible.

One wonders whether modern conservative Christianity may unwittingly have created a type of double standard in terms of (a) what is required to be saved, and (b) what it takes to be a Christian. 

In the New Testament and at the time of Paul’s and Silas’s miraculous release from prison, the Philippian jailer asked the question of questions: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And [the apostles] said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Paul wrote to the Roman Saints that “if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation … For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” 

Could it be, then, that a Latter-day Saint who professes total faith in and reliance upon Jesus Christ and who seeks in gratitude to keep his commandments, can be saved but at the same time not qualify to be called a Christian? That seems strange at best.

What Kind of a Christian?

Sadly enough, the one feature and facet of Christianity with which too few seem to concern themselves is what might be called orthopraxy—how we act, how we live out our Christian faith. Jesus charged his disciples: “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” In assessing whether a man or woman is a true follower of the Savior, a Christian, we might ask: How does this person treat others, especially those who believe or act differently? Is the manner in which a person presents the gospel message such that the gospel may be perceived as “good news”?

Is this person’s speech and interpersonal relations such that people feel welcomed and appreciated, rather than spurned and rejected? To what extent does this person’s faith community feed the hungry, care for the poor, respond swiftly to natural disaster, or otherwise involve itself and its members in extending and disbursing Christian charity? This is how the first century saints were known and identified, and it is today a pretty persuasive evidence of the depth of one’s Christianity. The age-old question is still poignant and haunting: “If you were arrested and were to be tried for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?”

The fact is, no mortal man or woman is in a position to judge, to discern and perceive the depths of another human soul. No one of us has within his or her grasp the data, the delicate details, to so determine. C. S. Lewis, the beloved Christian writer and defender of the faith, a man whose focus on “mere Christianity” has made him a favorite of millions, declared: “It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men’s hearts. We cannot judge, and indeed are forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense … When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.” 

What Exactly is a Christian?

A Christian is one who is a follower of Jesus. No one of us has the power or right to look into the hearts of men and women and discern the reality of their Christianity or the depths of their commitment to the Son of God. Faith is a personal matter and is really between that person and God. What then are some standard definitions of a Christian, put forward by more traditional Christians?

From the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary: “A believer in the religion of Christ; professor of his belief in the religion of Christ; one who … studies to follow the example, and obey the precepts, of Christ.”

From The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: “A member of a particular sect using this name”; a civilized human being; a decent, respectable person.”

From the Harper’s Bible Dictionary: “Christian’ is the term that was increasingly applied to Jesus’s followers in the late first and early second centuries.”

From the Holman Bible Dictionary: “an adherent of Christ; one committed to Christ; a follower of Christ.”

In the Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms: “a name applied originally in Antioch to followers of Jesus Christ (Acts 11:26) and now used to designate those who believe in Jesus Christ and seek to live in the ways he taught.”

From The Amsterdam Declaration (2000): “The word Christian should not be equated with any particular cultural, ethnic, political, or ideological tradition or group. Those who know and love Jesus are also called Christ-followers, believers and disciples.”

Some friends of other faiths have suggested to me that it appears that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is seeking to move into “the mainstream of Christianity.” To be sure, Latter-day Saint leaders have encouraged members of the Church to get to know their neighbors better; to be more involved in community, civic, and political affairs; to show greater love, acceptance, and tolerance for those of other faiths; and, in general, help the world to better understand us. In addition, our Church is seeking to be better understood, to teach our doctrine in a manner that would (a) allow others to see clearly where we stand on important issues, and (b) eliminate misperceptions and avoid misrepresentations.

To be honest, it would be foolish for Latter-day Saints to stray from their moorings and seek to blend in with everyone else in the Christian world. People are joining our Church in ever-increasing numbers, not because we are just like the Roman Catholics or the Greek Orthodox or the Baptists or the Methodists or the Presbyterians or the Anglicans down the street. These people choose to leave their former faith and be baptized into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because of our distinctives; our strength lies in our distinctive teachings and lifestyle. In that spirit, President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

 Those who observe us say that we are moving into the mainstream of religion. We are not changing. The world’s perception of us is changing. We teach the same doctrine. We have the same organization. We labor to perform the same good works … They are coming to realize what we stand for and what we do.

Joseph Smith once observed: 

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

 There is too much at stake in the world today for God-fearing people to spend their time and energies attacking, belittling, or misrepresenting those who choose to believe differently. Jesus certainly called us all to a higher standard than that. What was his plea in prayer for his followers only hours before his sufferings and death? “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”  

The post Latter-day Saints and the Christian World appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Dear Mayor Hubbard,

We write to you not as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, nor on behalf of it, but as members of that church scattered across the country who have watched the Fairview temple controversy with growing concern. We know municipal leadership is hard. We know neighbors can disagree in good faith. We have often worked with our neighbors to get temples approved in our communities. We know growth can bring friction, and that public officials often inherit tensions they did not create. We also know that the language leaders use can either heal a community or quietly inflame it.

That is why your renewed request that the Church voluntarily lower the Fairview Texas Temple steeple deserves a candid response, not from the Church, but from its people. The town approved a 120-foot steeple more than a year ago; construction is now underway; and your latest appeal asks the Church to reopen what had already been mediated, compromised, approved, and begun.

The Church could have made this a courtroom fight from the beginning. It could have pressed for the original plan, with a steeple reported at roughly 174 feet—nearly 50% taller than the design now approved. Instead, after mediation, it reduced the project to the 120-foot steeple now under construction. The Church also accepted a slew of other concessions as part of a “neighborly” agreement. The concessions were not trivial. They were attempts to recognize your priorities and work with you. 

So when, after all that, you suggest that the “neighborly” thing would be still another reduction, many of us hear something more troubling than a plea for harmony. We hear a public official redefining neighborliness as surrender. We hear an approved agreement treated as merely the latest opening bid. We hear a handshake being turned into a pressure campaign.

That is not a compromise. It is a way of poisoning the well. It says to the public: if the Church builds what your town approved, then the Church has chosen legalism over love, rights over respect, height over harmony. But the Church already compromised. Fairview already approved. Construction already began. At some point, “please compromise” stops sounding like reconciliation and starts sounding like bad faith.

Nor is it serious to argue that because the Church has built smaller temples or steeples elsewhere, it must therefore build this temple smaller too. A smaller building in one city is not a perpetual promise never to build a larger one. Fairview’s own records show that religious-facility heights have historically been handled case by case, including approval of a 154-foot bell tower for Creekwood United Methodist Church. We noticed that distinct treatment. 

We understand that change is hard. Fairview sits in a region that is changing quickly. The Census Bureau reports that Dallas-Fort Worth grew 11% since 2020, with especially significant growth on the metro’s outer edges. Four of the country’s five fastest-growing cities are small cities in the DFW area. Latter-day Saints are part of that growth, too. The Church has tens of thousands of members in North Texas, and we need temples to serve them. Perhaps the character of Fairview that needs to be preserved is how you treat everyone in your city. Perhaps treating your neighbors of different faiths like they belong is the character that should be preserved. We’re not intruders. We’re neighbors. 

You can still be the neighborly one here. You can say, “We disagreed. We debated. We mediated. We both gave a little. We approved. And now we will honor what was approved.” That’s the neighborly thing to do. And mayor, if you don’t stop this passive-aggressive campaign, perhaps it’s you who’s chosen not to be neighborly. 

The Church is building the temple Fairview approved. It is not unneighborly for us to ask you to honor that.

Respectfully,

C.D. Cunningham

The post An Open Letter to the Mayor of Fairview, Texas appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

It took over 40 years to put into words what happened to me as a child. Each time I tried, I would somehow find ways to avoid talking about the abuse openly. 

After grappling with the dark shadows of trauma for over 60 years, the heart-level healing I am now experiencing—after so long—has surprised me.

As a little child in the early ‘60s, I often heard the words: “If you don’t stop crying, I’ll give you something to cry about.”

My dad, raised during World War II by a Marine drill sergeant father, viewed emotional outbursts, especially crying, as weakness—much like others of his generation. Even in my mid-20s, I remember Mom asking me not to tell her anything “upsetting” because she didn’t want to cry. “Crying doesn’t help anything,” she said.

But I had plenty to cry about. 

I had been the victim of ongoing abuse since the tender age of three through my midteens at the hands of multiple perpetrators. I also had plenty to say, but couldn’t say it, because “no one likes a tattletale.” Contributing to this barrier of silence were words from war-era Bambi: “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say nothing at all.”

Those phrases may seem small. But for a child living with abuse, I applied those sayings to the situation I was in, and those standards became a kind of prison for me.

That’s one reason why so many victims wait years, or even decades, to speak out. 

Mistaking Silence for Safety

Standing in front of a small U-Haul in December 1968, I pointed down the street and, with as much feeling as I could muster, exclaimed, “I don’t like that boy. He’s mean!”

Mom snapped: “Diana! We don’t say naughty things about people we don’t know. I don’t ever want to hear you say anything naughty about that boy again.”

And I didn’t.

It’s only because we were moving that I had the courage to point him out that day. But after Mom’s scolding, I didn’t dare say another word about him (or other abusers) for nearly 20 years.

I’m not alone with delayed disclosure. It is, tragically, common in cases of child sexual abuse. Many victims wait years or decades to tell anyone. Some research puts the average age of first disclosure or reporting at 52.

One 2010 research report summarizes: “On average it takes 17 years before victims disclose their abuse.”

Why do victims wait so long to speak out? What makes speaking out feel so impossible? Fear, shame, confusion, culture, threats, and the absence of empathy can all work together to keep a child silent. 

It wasn’t until recently that I could see how being scared to “tell” set me up for years of continuing abuse and ensuing mental health issues.

Saying It Out Loud

Even today, I wonder: Why didn’t someone stop the abuse when I was little? Why didn’t anyone see that I was suffering and try to help?

Those questions troubled me until words I overheard as a child came to mind while writing a few months ago: 

“Should we talk to her about it?”

“No, she’s too little. She won’t remember.”

Although it took me 20 years to speak up, I remembered.

I had just tried a third antidepressant, and I still wasn’t doing well. My doctor said, “I think what’s going on is more in here,” pointing to my head, “than anything else. A good therapist will help you more than I can.”

Even then, it took 18 anxiety-filled months before I mustered the courage to finally “tell”—to say out loud the words: “I was sexually abused as a child.”

Trauma researcher Peter A. Levine has written, “Trauma is not what happens to us, but what we hold inside in the absence of an empathetic witness.” He also explains that avoidance is sometimes “the nervous system’s attempt to cope with overwhelming activation.” 

Looking back, I can see that as soon as I came close to mentioning that I had been sexually abused, I would stop going to therapy. That is, until the next triggered depression. Without realizing it, I was actually avoiding the emotional turmoil of talking about what happened to me.

What felt for a season as a weakness was, in part, woundedness and fear. That distinction matters for survivors, but also for families, friends, and faith communities. If we misunderstand the factors that keep survivors silent, we may unintentionally deepen another person’s isolation. 

Deeper healing needed

Because that on-again, off-again cycle continued for over thirty-five years, progress seemed so slow that I often wondered what was wrong with me. Why couldn’t I experience more than fleeting relief from depression?

“Innocence offended, peace and comfort hid; Swallowed cups of bitterness, came to live,” I once wrote in a poem trying to make sense of it all.

Trauma does not stay neatly in memory. As Bessel van der Kolk has observed, “The effects of trauma are stored in the body. Until they are addressed there, words alone are not enough.”

That insight helped me understand why my healing required more than brief conversations or temporary relief. It also helped me see why healing can take longer than outsiders expect. Survivors are not machines to be reset. They are wounded souls and bodies learning and healing.

My emotionally raw poetry continued to help me heal: 

“Years of vinegar passed; no one knew but me. Sorrow’s Jailor, ne’er a wounded heart frees.”

When I first began writing, I didn’t know I had entered a pathway out of trauma. Even so, words still mattered a great deal to me—words expressed to others, and to God, too. 

I didn’t often pray aloud, but my wounded heart continually pleaded for help—yearning for deeper, more lasting healing. It wasn’t until recent years, while pondering and writing about my experiences, that I began to clearly see God’s hand in my life.

All along, silent prayers were being answered. 

As President Thomas S. Monson, former President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, once taught, “I promise you that you will one day stand aside and look at your difficult times, and you will realize that He was always there beside you.”

More Than My Story

Learning to trust in the Lord with all my heart has not been easy for me. But as I choose to trust Him—and his timing—I have, indeed, experienced deeper, more lasting healing. 

My story is personal, but the struggle that victims of childhood sexual abuse experience is not. Many who suffer do not disclose quickly. Many who try to speak do so indirectly. Many are met with misunderstanding. 

This issue asks something of all of us. 

It took over 40 years to put into words what happened to me as a child.

I wish it had not taken so long.

But I am grateful that, by God’s grace, it was not too late.

The post 40 Years to Say it Out Loud appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

As the Church Educational System programs continue to grow, they provide a much-needed antidote to the pessimism and despair many young adults today are experiencing.

Last week at a media event celebrating these achievements, Elder James R. Rasband, a General Authority Seventy and newly appointed Commissioner of the Church Educational System, spoke about the need for and benefits of religious practice among young adults.

He pointed to a recent report from the Wheatley Institute, which analyzed thousands of studies related to the relationship between mental health and faith. The study found that “Across mental, physical, and social domains, the best available scientific evidence consistently shows that religious involvement is associated with improved outcomes for individuals and for society.”

And dosage matters, he explained. A recent analysis of Pew data conducted by political scientist and statistician Ryan Burge shows that people who attend church weekly or more are about twice as likely to report being “very happy” compared to their nonreligious peers. The “happiness gap” is strongest among the youngest cohorts. “There’s no other way to spin this data,” Burge has written.

Providing frequent touchpoints is important at a time when emerging adults are delaying or rejecting traditional markers of adulthood and reporting lower levels of overall well-being. This time in life is typically marked by identity exploration, instability, self-focus, feeling, and a wide-open sense of possibility. It can be a meaningful developmental season, but when young people lack strong institutions, mentors, shared moral expectations, and real communities, exploration can turn into aimlessness.

In a national poll conducted last year by the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics, 57% of respondents ages 18 through 30 said getting married is important, and only 48% said the same about having children. Fewer than half felt a sense of community, and only 17% reported deep social connection.

It is exactly that kind of belonging that the Church Educational System programs are trying to create. Brother Chad Webb, first counselor in the Sunday School General Presidency and administrator of Seminaries and Institutes of Religion, said much of the increased enrollment in Seminaries and Institutes of Religion is due to the growth of the BYU–Pathway Worldwide program, which requires all students to take institute. But leaders are also intentionally targeting two areas in which students express the most interest: relevance and belonging.

Church education is serving these students’ academic needs as well. The Pathway program, which provides access to affordable certificates and degrees offered in partnership with BYU–Idaho and Ensign College, served nearly 90,000 students in 180 countries last year. This program is for Latter-day Saint students and nonmembers alike. A perhaps lesser-known program for secondary school students called Succeed in School is also providing academic support to students across the globe, with current programs throughout Africa, the Pacific, and the American Southwest, and plans for continued growth. About 96% of students involved in this program pass their respective countries’ high-stakes academic testing.

Seminaries and Institutes of Religion are also responding to students’ practical needs. The newly created Life Preparation lessons in Seminary are designed to help students develop emotional resilience, succeed in school, prepare for future education and missionary service, build healthy habits, become self-reliant, and prepare for temple covenants and family life. The Church’s Life Skills for Self-Reliance course similarly helps young single adults explore education and career options, find employment, develop study skills, prepare for interviews, manage money, create budgets, and avoid unnecessary debt. These are not separate from the spiritual aims of Church education, but rather part of them. Instead of providing yet another way for young people to escape responsibility, these seminary and institute programs teach that discipleship is a way to meet those responsibilities with faith, competence, and hope.

At a recent devotional celebrating Institute milestones, President Dallin H. Oaks, president of The Church of Jesus Christ, emphasized the individual spiritual growth available to students who take Institute classes. 

We live in a day when noise and confusion are common. In contrast, at institute you will learn to distinguish truth from error, build your relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ, find direction, and discover answers to life’s greatest questions, meet others to help you down the covenant path, and meet people who you may choose to date and marry, and prepare to love and lead like the Savior. … I promise that your time in Institute will bring the Savior’s peace, joy, and divine love.

Despite the excitement for such incredible growth, Webb said, “Ultimately church education needs to be about ministering to the one, whether numbers go up or down.” The numbers are worth celebrating, but the deeper promise of church education is found one student at a time building faith in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The post A Million Students, One Covenant Path appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

But today it has taken on a more bureaucratic feel. The old “UFO” has become the “UAP,” an unidentified anomalous phenomenon. The phrase feels less theatrical, but the fascination is the same. Americans still want to know whether the strange lights in the sky are drones, balloons, sensor errors, secret aircraft, or something stranger.

But while these conversations have historically been sidelined as conspiracy theories that serious people don’t engage in, that has changed. Former President Barack Obama recently made headlines for saying he believes aliens are real. Congress held public hearings on UAPs, including a 2024 hearing titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth,” followed by continued congressional requests for records and video files in 2026. NASA convened an independent UAP study team and concluded that the subject deserves a rigorous, evidence-based scientific approach. Since 2010, up to 70 planets have been discovered that are in the “habitable zones” of their star systems. The 2025 documentary “The Age of Disclosure” included interviews from military pilots, Department of Defense officials, Congressional Representatives and Senators, a Former Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of State. And the Pentagon began its release of UFO files. 

The sudden official sheen to this conversation has intensified the cultural imagination. While there have been no likely or definitive conclusions that extra-terrestrials have visited Earth, the question is being taken seriously in a way it never has before.

Aliens and Religion

A 2021 Pew survey found that just over half of Americans said military reports of UFOs were probably or definitely evidence of intelligent life beyond Earth. Religious Americans were somewhat less likely than the unaffiliated to say intelligent extraterrestrial life exists. 

For many, the religious question is obvious: What would happen to faith if we discovered we are not alone?

At the same time, the most careful surveys complicate the popular assumption that religion would collapse under the weight of alien life. Ted Peters’ “ETI Religious Crisis Survey” tested the idea that contact with extraterrestrial intelligence would produce a religious crisis, and found that most religious respondents did not expect their own tradition to collapse. Interestingly, religious people were often less worried about their own faith than secular respondents were about religion in general. In other words, the people most confident that aliens would destroy religion were often people outside religion looking in.

But if intelligent life exists elsewhere, how could aliens and religion fit together? How would faith survive this change to our paradigm of life and creation?

I want to explore that question within the context of my own tradition, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In my view, Latter-day Saints are unusually well-suited to think about the possibility of alien life. That does not mean we should credulously accept every sensational claim or canonize every blurry Pentagon video. Our faith does not depend on crashed saucers, whistleblower testimony, or the latest congressional hearing. But, if extraterrestrial life were discovered—microbial, animal, or intelligent—it would not require Latter-day Saints to rebuild their theology from the foundation up. In many ways, the foundation is already there.

Latter-day Saint scripture has never pictured creation as a small, sealed human stage with Earth alone under the eye of God. It teaches “worlds without number,” heavenly parents, faraway stars, and an infinite atonement. The Restoration certainly did not shrink the Christian cosmos. 

A Cosmos That is Already Full

The first reason Latter-day Saints need not panic over the possibility of extraterrestrial life is simple: our scriptures already teach that God’s creations extend far beyond this earth.

In the Book of Moses, Moses is shown a vision of the earth and its inhabitants and then learns that God has created “worlds without number” through the Only Begotten. The scripture does not explicitly state, but heavily implies, that many of these worlds were inhabited by children of God (and the chapter summary states that). It implies that these many worlds are part of God’s plan to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of His children.

Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) section 76 is even more direct. In Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon’s vision of the degrees of glory, they testify that by Jesus Christ “the worlds are and were created,” and that “the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.” This is the most direct reference in Latter-day Saint scripture to inhabitants of multiple worlds. It does not merely say that God made stars, planets, or matter. He made inhabitants. And it places those inhabitants in a familial relationship to God. D&C 93 similarly teaches that worlds were made by Christ. 

D&C 88 describes that Christ is the light that is the sun, moon, stars, and earth, and the light that “fills the immensity of space.” Scripture then teaches that God created other worlds, they have inhabitants, those inhabitants are children of God, and it is Christ’s light that is on all of them.

It doesn’t say what our relationship is or will be with those inhabitants of other worlds. 

Modern Church leaders have repeatedly returned to this theme. Late Church President Russell M. Nelson taught that the earth is only one of many creations over which God presides, and he cautioned that our knowledge of the Creation is limited and will be augmented in the future. President Dieter F. Uchtdorf of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has used the vastness of the universe to emphasize not human insignificance, but divine love; the God who created worlds without number still knows and values His children.

Elder Neal A. Maxwell, who also served in the Quorum of the Twelve, made the same point. He taught that the Restoration explicitly affirms a plurality of worlds and that God’s universal majesty does not make Him less personally involved in our individual lives. He said, “How many planets are there with people on them? We don’t know. There appears to be none in our own solar system, but we are not alone in the universe. … God is not the God of only one planet!”

These scriptural statements, and the interpretation from Church leaders, establish a basic theological posture. Latter-day Saints do not approach the universe assuming that human beings on Earth are the only rational creatures God has ever loved.

Creation is Not Random 

Latter-day Saint theology does not treat these worlds as mere divine trophies. The God of Moses creating these many worlds does not do so merely to display his power. He creates because He is a Father. This is the center of Moses 1. The scale of creation makes divine parenthood feel inexhaustible.

This is crucial for thinking about alien life. If there are living organisms elsewhere, they are not theological clutter. They are part of creation. If there are intelligent, morally accountable beings elsewhere, they are not an embarrassment to Christian doctrine. They would be evidence that God’s family is as large as we imagined.

Abraham 3 gives Latter-day Saints a distinctive vocabulary for this question. It speaks of intelligences, of differing degrees of intelligence, and of God as greater than them all. Whatever else this passage means, it resists the idea that human life is a late accidental spark in a meaningless universe. Intelligence, agency, hierarchy, progression, and divine governance are built into reality. 

But none of these possibilities would make God smaller. 

Are They Children of God?

The hard theological question is not whether extraterrestrial life could exist. In Latter-day Saint thought, it clearly can. The harder question is what kind of life it would be. 

Latter-day Saint theology distinguishes between different forms of life. Plants, animals, mortals, and resurrected beings do not occupy the same moral or salvific category. So if life exists elsewhere, the first theological question would not be “Are they aliens?” It would be, “Are they God’s spirit children?”

D&C 76 provides the strongest reason to believe that at least some inhabitants of other worlds are indeed sons and daughters of God. President Joseph Fielding Smith, a former prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ, similarly taught that the Father, through His Only Begotten, created worlds without number and that these worlds are peopled by His spirit children. 

That does not require us to assume that every organism in the cosmos is spiritually equivalent to human beings, but it implies we should be open to the idea that some are. It also doesn’t answer whether other worlds are populated now, were populated in the past, or will be populated in the future. But it does mean that Latter-day Saints already have a category for non-earthly persons who belong to the family of God. 

This is where Latter-day Saint theology differs from a thin human exceptionalism. We do believe human beings are made in the image of God. We do believe this earth has sacred significance. We do believe Jesus Christ was born, died, and rose here. But we do not believe God’s love is provincial. The fact that He is our Father does not prevent Him from being Fathers to others. 

As anyone who is not an only child knows, a sibling does not reduce the love you receive from a parent. 

One Savior, Many Sheep

One of the more difficult questions about extra-terrestrials and traditional Christianity has often been the Incarnation. If Christ was born on this Earth, does that make Earth cosmically unique? Would He need to be incarnate, suffer, die, and rise again on every inhabited world? Are there multiple falls, multiple redemptions, multiple atonements? 

Latter-day Saint leaders have generally answered by affirming both the local reality of Christ’s mortal ministry and the cosmic scope of His redeeming work. 

Nelson taught that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is infinite, not merely in duration, but in scope, extending to all humankind and to the infinite number of worlds created by Him. This gives Latter-day Saints a powerful doctrinal framework. We do not need to imagine a weak, local Christ whose saving power stops at the atmosphere. Nor do we need to multiply incarnations beyond what has been revealed. We can affirm what scripture and prophetic teaching affirm: Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh, the Creator of worlds, the Redeemer, and the Lord of the universe.

That does not resolve every mechanics-of-salvation question. But questions remain even without the addition of extraterrestrial life. If intelligent beings on other worlds fall, how is Christ revealed to them? What ordinances do they receive? Do they have prophets? Do they have scriptures? We don’t know.

The Book of Mormon prepares Latter-day Saints for the idea that God’s dealings with one people are never the whole story.

In 3 Nephi, Jesus tells the Nephites that He has “other sheep” who are not of Jerusalem and not of the Nephite land, and that He must go show Himself to them. I’m not suggesting Jesus was implying he was visiting other worlds, but underlining the idea that there are always more children of God for Christ to minister to. 

Christ’s self-disclosure is not limited to the records we presently possess. There are divine visits not recorded in our canon. Latter-day Saints have an open canon. If God has had dealings with other worlds, that would not offend the structure of our faith. 

Do we know? No, but not being told is not the same as being trapped. Latter-day Saints are comfortable with revealed patterns and unrevealed details. We know enough.

What If They Are More Righteous Than We Are?

Latter-day Saints should be cautious about imagining ourselves as cosmic tourists or missionaries. We have been given commandments, covenants, priesthood keys, and missionary obligations for this world. We do not possess a revealed commission to carry ordinances to hypothetical civilizations in another solar system. If God has children elsewhere, He is capable of revealing Himself to them, calling prophets among them, appointing ordinances suited to His law, and gathering them in His own order.

The aliens say that they love Jesus, and that He comes to visit every few years.

The pope is shocked. “Every few years, but He hasn’t even come a second time yet?”

The aliens feel bad, and try to help, “Maybe He doesn’t like your chocolate.”

The pope confused asks, “Chocolate? What does chocolate have to do with anything?”

“Well,” the aliens explain, “every time he comes we give him a big basket of chocolate. Why, what did you give to Him?”

Jokes aside, another possibility is exactly what the joke posits, that intelligent extraterrestrial beings do exist, and they are not invaders or monsters or lost pagans waiting for us to teach them about God. They might be more obedient, unified, humble or righteous than we are. 

Again, Latter-day Saint scripture leaves room for such a possibility. Abraham 3 teaches that intelligence differ and that God is greater than them all. This should help discipline our imaginations. Much of our alien fiction is really human self-projection. Sometimes aliens are our fears, sometimes our aspirations. Latter-day Saint theology gives as a less sentimental and more serious possibility. Other beings could simply be God’s children. Some wicked, some innocent, some righteous. 

What if There is No Alien Life?

A sound theology must also account for the other possibility: that we may never discover intelligent extraterrestrial life. The current evidence certainly does not prove alien existence, let alone alien visitation. Serious Latter-day Saint thinking should not build spiritual excitement around speculation that may collapse under scrutiny.

If no alien civilization is ever found, however, Latter-day Saint theology remains untouched. “Worlds without number” does not need to mean that human scientists in 2026 can identify, contact, or verify those worlds. God’s creations may be distant in space, separated by time, hidden by limits of observation, or simply beyond our stewardship. 

This helps protect us from two opposite errors. If the skeptic says, “If aliens exist, religion is false,” and enthusiasts say “If UAPs are real, my religion is confirmed,” Latter-day Saints should reject both. Our faith is grounded in Jesus Christ, his covenants, and the witness of the Holy Ghost—not in the newest unidentified object.  

The Restoration gives us a capacious cosmos, but it does not require gullibility. 

A Theology Big Enough for Discovery

So where does that leave us?

No matter what we discover, or don’t discover, the theological center holds. The Latter-day Saint doctrine of creation is already cosmic. The doctrine of God is already parental. The atonement of Christ is already infinite. And our understanding of revelation is already open. 

Not every speculation has, or even needs, an answer. We do not know whether any UAP represents extraterrestrial intelligence. We do not know what they look like, we do not know what their history is, or what their relationship is like to Christ. 

But we know enough that we do not need to fear that a discovery of aliens will upend our theology or understanding of the cosmos. We already know our Earth is small, but important eternally.

The discovery of alien life would not make the gospel any less true. It might just remind us that God’s household is larger than we suppose. That wouldn’t upend our beliefs. In fact, it sounds quite familiar. 

The post Aliens and Latter-day Saint Theology appeared first on Public Square Magazine.