andrew-neel-fGvXxVxmTi8-unsplash (1)

It’s Okay to Turn It Off

As valuable as it can be to stay updated on world affairs, the intimate and incessant witnessing of human heartache in the digital age can be overwhelming and distract from other important things. Don’t be afraid to set some boundaries.

“I cried for hours last night,” said one man talking about catching up on the Ukraine-Russia news the previous evening.  Another woman admitted she couldn’t stop checking the news—emotionally distraught in witnessing all the personal tragedy involved in this slow-motion destruction. 

Many of us can relate. The heartbreaking events unfolding in this other part of the world involve brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, and children—all of whom are equally precious as any of us. And facing an impossibly painful and bloody ordeal that some have described as the Ukrainian “1776.”   

War has been with the human family forever. But compared with previous eras, our ability to witness it in real-time, excruciating, audio-visual detail is new. And emotionally draining. 

Yet how could we possibly turn away from that?  “It’s like helplessly watching a bully go after a smaller, more helpless victim,” said another individual, “and not even be able to do anything.”

Immanuel Levinas once famously argued that when we’ve seen the “face of the other,” we don’t have the option of simply ignoring anymore. Not without hurting our spirits.  

That’s true here as well. It’s clearly important that we witness some of this—and be reminded of the importance of doing whatever we can to alleviate suffering and help wherever we can (finding reliable places where your contribution can do goodhere’s another good option—while avoiding scams)

What about the less cataclysmic needs closer to home? It can be easy to forget about and ignore some of these less dramatic aches all around us. To this, Mother Teresa—who spent her life ministering to the deepest pains all around—spoke eloquently, when she directed people back to what they could do for those closest to them, in their own midst.  “Peace and war begin at home” she once taught—adding, “If you want to change the world, go home and love your family.”

While keeping an eye on that modern tendency towards self-absorption, it’s worth asking how this kind of intimate witnessing of mass casualties overseas impacts everyone else “tuning in from home.”    

Clearly, these Ukrainian families and fighters—along with many unwitting Russian soldiers and their families—are going through the truest and most brutal, life-changing trauma.  But after years of studying bystanders of violence between others (like children watching domestic violence), researchers now know about something called “secondary trauma”—which is painful internal changes that happen when witnessing awful things others are experiencing.   

This is very different from witnessing violence in movies, which most of us are accustomed to—and which still affects us in tangible ways.  Most of us, of course, recognize those images as fake though and feel reassured that it (usually) works out in the end. But for children, who can’t appreciate that something’s not really happening, the effects of even made-up television violence are especially acute. 

How about televised or streamed violence that is all too real? Especially in a moment like this, it’s worth appreciating the real impact of witnessing real-time horror and devastation in others’ lives—so we can, at the very least, navigate this heartbreaking media environment in healthy ways and maybe even set some boundaries.    

All of this, of course, can quickly move in a narcissistic direction—another example of being consumed in our own thoughts and feelings when others are fighting for their lives. But there’s an equally unhealthy mentality that can insist that a focus on Ukraine is the only thing that matters right now—e.g., What’s the point of fixing dinner for your kids when so many children are suffering on the other side of the world?  Why should you be worried about anything when others are fighting for their lives and freedom?

Some of this does put our own problems in perspective. “Witnessing this does really help me see my smaller problems in a different light,” one woman admitted. In an article entitled, “The War in Ukraine Puts America’s Problems in Perspective,” Columbia University professor John McWhorter recently said, “America may be a mess in many ways, but a look at the headlines lately shows us what a mess really can be.”  He also suggested that what’s happening overseas should also put “a check on an American tendency to overdo the self-criticism inherent to our experiment.”

All this balance is helpful.  But while we can appreciate some of the courageous reporting that keeps us aware of what’s happening, some of the headlines seem to share a morbid fascination in promoting its most horrifying details—with headlines like:  “Horrifying pictures paint the dark reality of death on Ukraine’s streets … Russia’s bloody grip on Ukraine intensifies … Horrific video shows Ukrainians hit by Russian missile … Heartbreaking images: victims, destruction revealed after horrifying Ukraine hospital attack … Horrifying pictures show apocalyptic scene after women and children are targeted during ‘ceasefire.’” 

Horror. Horror. And more horror. No wonder many of us now have “itching” eyes—feeling a need to see more and more. But ask yourself honestly:  do you really need to see all this?

For those of us who have been following Ukrainian President Zelensky’s messages, it’s all too apparent that this may not end well.  The other night, after one of us followed his latest speech, a feeling of unease settled over—bringing to attention that same morbid fascination in watching this unfolding tragedy, with real life-and-death consequences.  

And with nothing we could (really) do.  

In that moment, it suddenly felt important to shut off all the devices and respect a line that should not be crossed in the witnessing of someone else’s suffering.  Instead, a prayer was offered up to the One who knew exactly what was needed and had the power to do something about it.  

In a day when “thoughts and prayers” are more often than not ridiculed as being insufficient and a distraction from “doing something,” we believers cannot abide this rhetoric. Appealing to God is more than just a distraction—it’s a unifying practice that unites all who believe in something higher than their own thoughts and feelings, and who hold on (with “surety”) to a future “hope in a better world” where this kind of thing doesn’t happen.  

And where “all tears”… “every tear” will be wiped away from weary eyes.  

In the meanwhile, while all too many tears flood all too many eyes, how are we to keep going?  

Omniscient awareness straining mortal minds.  Shelly Sawyer Jenson has highlighted the difficulty most human beings have to emotionally carry an awareness of the scope of problems everywhere in the world. As she put it, “For thousands of years, the problems most human beings have been aware of has been limited by the geographical boundaries of their own neighborhood and home—with most time and energy going to that.”  

By comparison, it’s a brand new experience for many of us to be so in touch with problems all the way around the world— far from the brick and mortar of our own homes.  

And it really hurts.  After Moses was shown “… the world and the ends thereof, and all the children of men which are, and which were created” he “greatly marveled and wondered” with awe and joy.  And yet, afterward, he eventually collapsed in exhaustion. After Enoch was shown a similar vision of the mass of people around the world and their suffering, he “refuse[d] to be comforted.”

But God didn’t leave either of these in exhausted or despairing places, saying unto one, “Lift up your heart, and be glad; and look.” At what? 

Even while knowing full well the pain of His children’s aggression against each other, the Almighty points both mourning witnesses to the consolation that comes in the compensating suffering of His Son. As the text notes, “Enoch saw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, even in the flesh; and his soul rejoiced, saying: The Righteous is lifted up.”

From  his own experience witnessing mass slaughter, Mormon might likewise say unto us today

My brothers and sisters, “be faithful in Christ; and may not the things” which you keep seeing online “grieve thee, to weigh thee down unto death.” “But may Christ lift thee up, and may his sufferings and death, and the showing his body unto our fathers, and His mercy and long-suffering, and the hope of his glory and of eternal life, rest in your mind forever.”

The reality is that aside from financial contributions, there are limitations on what we can do—both individually and as nations—for these brave brothers and sisters fighting for their freedom.  We can and should keep seeking to do more. And we should trust the power of united prayers.    

Even while doing everything we can to support brothers and sisters in dire circumstances in Ukraine (and elsewhere), may we keep coming back to that “hope for a better world” as an ongoing source of comfort and joy.   

In the meanwhile—while we hope, pray, and work towards that day—remember, it’s okay to turn off some of the endless reminders of heartache all around the world.  That doesn’t make you selfish, it makes you sane.  

And as you are guided, you can continue to join those providing support from a distance.  Turning it off isn’t the same thing as “turning away.”  

Our earnest prayers continue to flow for our suffering brothers and sisters in Ukraine, Russia—and all around the world.

About the author

Public Square Staff

Our core team, including our Editor, Managing Editor, Communications and Media Directors, Visual Display Director and Copy Editor.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Is it Time for Latter-day Saints to Support Same-Sex Marriage?

I wanted to thank Blair Hodges for calling attention to an article we ran earlier this year by Professor Robert P. George.  Blair has been a frequent critic of the magazine, and we appreciate his engagement and efforts in drawing attention to the work we’re doing. As one of the pre-eminent political philosophers working today, Professor George’s decision to publish with us was a major sign of legitimacy.  Hodge’s article was, in many ways, perceptive. He noticed that Professor George, and by extension, many of our editors here, is concerned that many people, especially religious people, struggle to justify their beliefs about family, marriage, and sexuality through anything other than appeals to religious authority. (We kindly disagree that these positions are anti-LGBT+ as Blair describes them.) And he’s right about that motivation. Church leaders have been very clear about the doctrine of the family for more than a generation, as we highlighted earlier this year. But where the cultural messaging on sexuality is so dominant, it’s easy for Latter-day Saints to feel overwhelmed and struggle to explain to others why they accept what prophet leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ teach what they do.   And Hodges is right that we hope to make a difference in this regard with our work. But otherwise, his article falls into the same traps of many before him that George and others have largely dealt with. Conflating “Hyper-Individualism” with “Expressive-Individualism” Hodges attempts to address George’s concern with individualism. But he makes a category error. Individualism, as Hodges uses it, seems to be a synonym for selfish. Individualism, as George uses it, means how we define the individual. These are two substantially different concepts. On this basis, Hodges raises concerns about hyper-individualism (hyper-selfish)—pointing out this issue is no more relevant to LGBT+ issues than to anyone else. That’s a fine argument to make, but it really has nothing to do with the point George makes. His point being, how we define the individual is of crucial importance to issues of sexuality. Because today the predominant cultural approach to defining the self is expressive individualism. Expressive individualism is a philosophy that holds that who we are is defined by what we feel we are at our psychological core. And that the greatest good is expressing that psychological core to the world, including through our behavior.  As described by Carl Trueman in his recent book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, this idea has its roots in the work of Romantic philosophers like Jean-Jaques Rousseau and like-minded poets, literary figures, and artists of the 18th and 19th centuries, but largely took off in the 1960s at the beginning of the sexual revolution. Expressive individualism has substantially become our culture’s default approach to defining identity. But many Christians push back on this idea as we choose to make our central identities based on a different foundation.  As articulated by President Nelson in a recent devotional for young adults, he explained that the three identities we should prioritize (and not allow to be obscured) are 1) Child of God 2) Child of the Covenant 3) Disciple of Christ As Latter-day Saints, then, we choose to make those our central identities and base our choices on that foundation.  Hodges also suspects that “queerness would be less ‘central’ to a person’s identity the less social pressure and regulation they’d face about it.”  But what does Hodges mean by less central? If identity powerfully influences the choices we make, then the less central an identity, the less influence it has over our choices. These choices include why, how, when, and with whom someone has sexual relations. Prioritizing disciple of Christ and child of the covenant as identities, as Russell M. Nelson suggests, would lead to different choices about sex than prioritizing sexuality as identity. Love and Disagreement One of Hodges’ main requests is that George “spent more time saying how a person can be loving towards someone while also condemning an important part of their identity.” In our view, this is a tired argument in an already wearisome conversation. Sexuality is not an inevitably central part of identity.  Our editorial team falls across the political spectrum. In each of our lives, we have people who love us despite having serious concerns with that political part of our identity.  Our editorial team are all Latter-day Saints. In each of our lives, we have people who love us despite harboring serious questions about the important religious part of our identity. We’ve also felt loved by people who thought it was a dangerous and outdated idea not to have sex until marriage, constituting an important part of all our sexual identities. But Hodges’ argument suggests it’s somehow impossible to love someone while having honest concerns about how they prioritize the sexual part of their identity.  But of course, it’s not. Not only is it possible, but Christian believers are under clear command to love those we disagree with.  It’s those who demand “you can’t love me unless you agree with my paradigm for identity” that are preaching an extreme and radically alternative  approach to tolerance in a pluralistic society, not those who say, “I love you, but I disagree.” That has been the durable default of pluralistic tolerance that has helped make our diverse nation possible. Race and Sexuality Blair also goes to the old tired well of comparing race and sexuality. This is a comparison that many civil rights activists have rejected.  Dr. Alveda King, Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, and William Avon Keen, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Virginia, the organization Martin Luther King Jr. started, have rejected the connection between sexuality and race in civil rights.  In fact, George takes on Blair’s point at length in his article in Harvard’s Journal of Law and Public Policy: Revisionists today miss this central question—what is marriage? when they equate traditional marriage laws with laws banning interracial marriage. … But the analogy fails: antimiscegenation was about whom to

Religion and Psychedelic Decriminalization+ Today’s Digest

Our daily rundown of the articles from around the web that we feel our readers would enjoy and appreciate. We hope to highlight the best of what’s around. Public Square Bulletin recommends: The Road to Decriminalization of Psychoactive Drugs Runs Through Religion Brad Stoddard – Religion Dispatches Brad Stoddard outlines the movement to decriminalize psychoactive drugs, and the role religious rhetoric and experience play in it. Whether you agree, or want to be aware of how religious freedom rhetoric is being used, it’s worth the read. We must not let health care become a religion-free zone Charles C. Camosy – America Magazine This Jesuit publication focuses on what it calls the “absolutely bizarre” insistence that religion should not play any role in the world of medicine. Camosy outlines the long-term problems of this approach. Threats to religious freedom and to women go hand in hand Jeff Brumley – Baptist News Global A panel at the United States Commission of International Religious Freedom found that everywhere religious freedom is threatened, the rights of girls and women are threatened as well. To Those Who Say Religion is for People with Weak Minds Daniel C. Peterson – Meridian Magazine Since Freud, many have concluded that religion is only adopted as psychological comfort. Daniel Peterson looks at various refutations of that argument, including a look at the possible psychological motivations of atheism. Getting ‘More Christians Into Politics’ Is the Wrong Christian Goal David French – The Dispatch Having people of faith in powerful positions used to be seen as a default good goal for many Christians looking to expand their influence in politics. French suggests that may no longer be a wise approach.    

Elusive Reasoning Among Expansive Latter-day Saints

In Faith Matters’ podcast, “Elusive Unity at BYU,” Church teachings about sexuality and the family are characterized as in profound conflict with the “real experiences” of Latter-day Saints identifying as LGBT+. In what ways might unexamined assumptions about identity be contributing to this same divide?

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!