I’d like to summarize three specific reasons why Latter-day Saints should support Evan McMullin’s candidacy for the U.S. Senate:

1. An independent commitment to democratic ideals. In a speech to college students in Dallas several years ago, Evan McMullin told attendees, “disagreement about policy issues is fine—even passionate differences. This ought to be welcomed in our country—the idea that we can grapple with these differences together.”

But then he said, with rising emotion in his voice, “but there are some things we must not disagree about …” Then he went down the line: Truth, Equality, Justice, Freedom. McMullin spoke plainly and earnestly about the founding ideals of America—as he often does. And he cautioned that commitment to these ideals is receding on both sides of the political spectrum.

During the impeachment trials of the previous administration, I was saddened to see many senators stay within party lines. I was especially dismayed to learn that this has been the case in every impeachment trial in modern times. I was proud of Senator Romney for voting his conscience rather than what his party expected. I am excited at the prospect of having two Utah senators who are willing to represent the will of their constituents rather than the dictates of a party. As a uniquely red state, Utah deserves unique conservative representation like the kind I believe McMullin will offer.

George Washington himself warned of the dangers of political parties interfering with how representatives represent their constituents.  But more recently, we have been reminded by President Oaks that:

There are many political issues, and no party, platform, or individual candidate can satisfy all personal preferences. Each citizen must therefore decide which issues are most important to him or her at any particular time. Then members should seek inspiration on how to exercise their influence according to their individual priorities. This process will not be easy. It may require changing party support or candidate choices, even from election to election.

As an Independent, McMullin’s strength will be the ability to represent the people of Utah, not a political party. To those who are concerned that sending McMullin to Washington decreases the chances for a Republican-controlled Senate, I say have no fear. Running under the banner of an Independent does not change McMullin’s conservative beliefs; however, it does allow him to express them more honestly and without fear of retribution.

Just as independent executive, legislative, and judicial powers exercise checks and balances upon one another similarly, an independent representative in a traditionally Republican state could offer the same. Utah is unique in its standing as a red state in that it tends not to follow trends seen in other red states around the country. And with the benefit of the conservative values Evan McMullin promises to lead with, I believe a “Senator” McMullin would be a fitting representation of our unique set of values and interests in Washington.

The problems facing Utah, the United States, and, frankly, the world are complex and intertwined. Much like Senator Mitt Romney, McMullin believes that it is not simply enough to say no to bad policy—and that one must also actively engage in developing good policy. At times it can seem that Senators functioning on the national stage forget their role to advocate the federal government for their state. If both McMullin and Romney were in Washington doing that, the Great Salt Lake may just have a chance. 

2. The value of political moderation. Politics tends to focus on negativity, extreme partisanship, polarization, and unwillingness to work across party lines. This impedes legislative solutions and is detrimental to the country. In our fractured political landscape, it is refreshing and encouraging to have a candidate whose moderate views mirror mine and represent President Dallin Oak’s call to “moderate and unify,” especially when it comes to “contested issues.”  

That approach takes tolerance and respect for different beliefs, cultures, and even value systems. I saw this in action as a 17-year-old one day. I picked up my grandma for the stake Fourth of July Breakfast when a woman flagged us down from the side of the road and, in heavily accented English, asked if we knew why the buses weren’t running. We explained that it was a national holiday and offered to drive her to her destination. Once we were on our way, my grandma turned to the woman (who was wearing a hijab) and said, “I see that you’re a Muslim, I’m a Latter-day Saint; let me tell you about what our religions have in common.” I drove amazed, listening to these two old women from wildly different backgrounds talk about all they had in common. 

This simple act of finding common ground impressed upon me how much more we can accomplish when working with rather than against others. My favorite part of the recent debate between Evan and Mike Lee was to hear McMullin say, time and again, that he will do the same. He has promised to find common ground and work with members of both parties. 

As we are counseled as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to “seek out and support wise and good persons who will support [constitutional] principles in their public actions,” I believe this individual’s past exemplifies exactly that. McMullin is a public servant who has spent his adult life in the service of our country as an undercover CIA officer and the chief policy director for Congress. In that service, he has witnessed what a lack of moderation invites and how it weakens a democracy. He is committed to support policy that:

• defends democracy from political extremism,
• unburdens families from extreme health costs,
• moderates government spending,
• nurtures our natural resources,
• and reforms and modernizes our military.

McMullin has proven his commitment to moderation as he co-founded a non-profit organization established to lead efforts across the country that united Republicans and Democrats against extremist movements and politicians in defense of American democracy. In addition to seeking unity, I believe McMullin will push back on negative trends on both sides.  In that same Dallas speech, for instance, he added the following illustration to show his concern with extremes on both sides: “Right now, we have people on the right who are questioning equality as a mere figment of the liberal agenda. And in the same moment, we have people on the left who are questioning freedom as a dangerous tactic of the conservative agenda.”

That’s the kind of balanced push-back we need on both sides of the political spectrum. 

3. Recognizing the threats to our nation from President Trump and the extreme right. McMullin’s experience uniquely positions him to recognize and defend against the kind of extremism that has raised its head in our country. Both his prior work in national intelligence and his track record of pushing back as a candidate on extremes on both the left and the right demonstrate this.  

In recent years, McMullin has been among the few conservative voices willing to push back on excesses on the political right—and decry the dangers in President Trump. I’m among those who have appreciated that courage. Far too many have overlooked, minimized, and justified the actions of our former President. McMullin never has—and never will. That’s the kind of political courage we need—a willingness to critique not only those on the other side of the political spectrum but also those on our “own side.” 

In an American atmosphere filled with acrimony, the real work is putting aside differences for the greater good. I believe Evan McMullin is willing to put in that work and make the kinds of efforts I saw my grandma so instinctively make that day.

When I was given an opportunity to make a case for why I and other members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should feel confident in a vote for Evan McMullin, my first thought was, “Isn’t it obvious?” On so many levels, his values and those of members of the Church (of which he is a member as well) are aligned. He is pro-life, self-reliant, caring for the most vulnerable among us, and fights against extremism. These are just some of the many attributes that make me excited to cast my vote for McMullin this Fall. I hope you do the same.

The post A Latter-day Saint Case for Evan McMullin appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Right before the first one began, I had already decided not to watch it. I didn’t think I could tolerate another shrill, partisan attack from Democrats typified by the almost unbearable Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. 

In David French’s article, This July Fourth, Meet Three Americas, he labels the three Americas “the red, the blue, and the tired.” That last descriptor fits me perfectly—firmly entrenched among “the tired.” I’m among the many who feel completely battered by both the far left and the far right. As French describes this large group, they represent:

The two-thirds of our neighbors and citizens (from across the political spectrum) who are fed up with polarization, forgotten in public discourse, flexible in their views, and still believe we can find common ground. … The exhausted American does not make a religion out of politics and is thus at a disadvantage when confronting the ferocity and zeal of the true political believer. The exhausted American is hungry for simple decency and will seek out friendships on the left and the right, so long as respect trumps differences. Even the most extreme disagreements are manageable so long as a friend is willing to listen and learn, and you’re willing to listen and learn in return. 

That’s me. Yet my husband turned on the first January 6 hearing, and I walked into the room a few minutes in. I quickly realized that this was something entirely different than what I had expected. I was struck by the calm, measured establishment of facts discovered from interviews with some of the people closest to the former president. I realized I needed to give this a chance.  I ended up watching it all. 

Some who have refused to watch the hearings have called them a “political ploy” and a Democrat “hit job” and have debunked the value of the hearings because there has been no defense presented. The original proposal was for an explicitly bipartisan committee, but Senate Republicans blocked it by filibuster. As far as witnesses are concerned, those who would defend President Trump have either refused to testify or have taken the fifth when interviewed under oath. Still, virtually all of the witnesses have been Republicans.

Many of these sessions have honestly left me shaken and in tears after hearing details about the lives of honorable people that have either been destroyed or badly wounded. And I’ve learned a lot about the day I did not understand before.  Yet, given the continued insistence that the hearings have simply been a partisan attack piece, many conservatives have simply ignored them. For those who didn’t have the time (or stomach or interest) to watch, I’d like to highlight 8 summary conclusions that feel are especially important for any of us to consider—each of them represents facts that, in my mind, are widely-supported enough to be broadly accepted even by conservatives:  

1. Former President Trump kept rejecting an increasingly clear election outcome despite being advised to concede by some of his own official advisors. In hearing #1, we heard details about how White House officials informed the president that his claims of widespread voter fraud were false.  Former Attorney General William Barr said, “I made it clear I did not agree with the idea of saying the election was stolen and putting out this stuff, which I told the president was B.S. … And I didn’t want to be a part of it.” Ivanka Trump testified under oath, “I respect Attorney General Barr, so I accepted what he was saying.”

In hearing #2, we also witnessed footage from under-oath interviews with Trump’s campaign manager, Bill Stepien, senior adviser Jason Miller, and multiple lawyers. All the witnesses were Republicans, and most were part of Trump’s inner circle. They all repeatedly tried to tell Trump the truth—that the outlook was bleak, he should not declare victory on election night, he was going to lose, and that his election fraud claims were “bogus and silly.” 

Yet while multiple advisors and aides were trying to convince Trump that the stolen election idea was folly, other confidants were continuing to look for evidence that would reverse the election outcome. The former President consequently went down a rabbit hole of increasingly bizarre conspiracy theories. Bolstering Trump with these theories were Rudy Giuliani, lawyer Sidney Powell, John Eastman, and former trade adviser Peter Navarro.

Those with authority followed through with all due diligence to check up on all of Trump’s theories, which continued to lack corroborating evidence. None of these investigations found more than a few votes’ difference from the original counts. Eight prominent conservatives—including former federal judges, two former senators, and former Solicitor General Theodore Olson—recently released a detailed report that carefully examined each claim of fraud made in the wake of the election. They went through the legal challenges and noted that 34 were dismissed, in some cases voluntarily by Trump’s legal team, before they ever reached a hearing. 

Despite all of this, thirty percent of Americans still believe that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump. (Of course, concerns about fair elections go back many years, to Gore v. Bush and beyond; and there is a legitimate conversation we can have in this country about electoral integrity and security that involves different, thoughtful perspectives). In the weeks preceding the inauguration (and following it, too), there were additional efforts to block the new government from functioning, such as refusing to allow Biden to get the daily intelligence briefing. And remarkably, even last month (July 2022), Donald Trump himself has contacted officials in Wisconsin to try and reverse state-specific results. 

2. The former President did not take quick or sufficient enough action to stop the unfolding events. There’s been lots of debate about security leading up to January 6 and the final protocol that day—including some suggestions that President Trump authorized more security ahead of time, which was declined by the D.C. mayor. In hearings #1 and 8, however, there was presented evidence to suggest that on January 6 itself, President Trump did not take adequate action to stop the January 6 melee.

The hearing presented never-before-seen footage of the attack, including from police cams, and it was a jarring experience to see the violence. Police officers attended the hearing, and many were in tears. There were 150 wounded, several so badly they haven’t yet been able to return to work. One officer described it as “a war scene” for which they had never been prepared. Yet as Liz Cheney noted, “Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard that day and made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets. But Mike Pence did each of those things.”

This most recent hearing #8 of the summer (commencing again in September) focused on the 187 minutes during which the attack on the capitol took place and what President Trump was doing during that time. Many members of his staff, outside parties, and even his family pleaded with him to do something, to tell people to disperse and leave. He chose not to act. After the Secret Service thwarted his desire to join the protest, he went to the dining room connected to the Oval Office, where he watched Fox News coverage for 2 hours.

In hearing #6, Cassidy Hutchinson reported overhearing a conversation that day between White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and chief-of-staff Mark Meadows: “I remember Pat saying to him, something to the effect of, ‘The rioters have gotten into the Capitol, Mark, we need to go down and see the President now.’ And Mark looked up [from his phone] and said, ‘He doesn’t want to do anything, Pat.’”

It was possible for Donald Trump at any time to go to the podium in the briefing room and give a forceful message that would dispel the riot. Sarah Matthews, Deputy Press Secretary to the President, who resigned the evening of the riots, testified that it would have taken President Trump 60 seconds to get there—with the press corps gathered in a matter of minutes. Yet the President delayed, with Pat Cipollone testifying that President Trump made no phone calls to anyone who might be able to quell the unrest at the Capitol. Trump didn’t speak with the attorney general, secretaries of defense, or homeland security that day. He was calling senators to push them to delay or end the electoral process at the capitol. 

Leader McCarthy phoned the President to plead with him—saying his own staff was running for their lives. The President refused to do anything, saying yes, his supporters were pretty upset. Joe Biden joined the plea on TV. 

The President finally relented and agreed to make a statement when the National Guard had been called by Mike Pence, and reinforcements were arriving. But he refused to read the script that had been written for him:

Instead, he toned down his condemnation of the events and mostly expressed his empathy and love for the people who had gathered and related that a singular event had happened—the election had been stolen from him and from them. His final tweet seemed to insinuate that January 6th had been not only a memorable day but a successful one.

3. Trump knew his supporters had weapons yet still encouraged them to go to the Capitol. In hearing #6, Cassidy Hutchinson spoke as a witness based on her role as an aide to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows—her office was just feet from the President’s. She was present for many of the discussions leading up to January 6th and on the day itself.

Among other things, Hutchinson testified that Trump was informed that some of his supporters were in D.C. armed to the teeth. On the morning of Jan. 6, she said, Meadows and Trump were informed that Trump’s supporters came to his “Stop the Steal” rally armed with weapons—pepper spray, knives, brass knuckles, stun guns, body armor, gas masks, batons and blunt weapons, the committee detailed. The committee also played police calls reporting people with AR-15s. Hutchinson said Tony Ornato, the deputy chief of staff who served as a liaison for the Secret Service, told Meadows on the morning of Jan. 6, “something to the effect of ‘And these [expletive] people are fastening spears on top of flagpoles.’ ”

It’s true that President Trump said at the rally that if people were going to the Capitol, to do it “peacefully.” Yet he did not discourage people from going. Hutchinson testified as well that Trump knew members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were armed—and shared details of how he wanted to join them specifically in their march to the capitol. Hutchinson provided second-hand reports of his anger at being kept from joining them.

4. Vice President Pence faced real danger, in large part due to the president. The third hearing focused on Vice President Mike Pence, who rioters were just 40 feet from at one point, many chanting “kill Mike Pence.” Yet Pence refused to evacuate with the Secret Service but stayed to finish the certification of the election.

In the final summer hearing #8, events were reviewed that minute by minute demonstrated the growing panic among security agents protecting Mike Pence, who thought things would quickly escalate to a life or death situation. As tensions ramped up, Trump tweeted that Mike Pence had betrayed them, further inflaming the crowd. “Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done,” Trump tweeted, aware at the time that rioters had breached the Capitol. Matthew Pottinger, a decorated Marine intelligence officer and Deputy National Security Advisor to the President made the decision to resign at that moment.

The President wanted Pence to reject the electors or throw the election back to the states—intending to bring in a new slate of electors to cast electoral votes for him instead of for Joe Biden. But, of course, Pence did not have the constitutional power or authority to do what Trump expected him to do. Pence’s courage was in simply following the rules, which enraged some Trump supporters. In one video, one man was heard to say, “If Pence caved, we’re going to drag the [expletive] through the streets.” (Thus far, Pence has not testified, and Trump has never contacted him to apologize.)

Had Pence not rebuffed the pressure, the country would have been thrown into chaos. Such an act would have meant that after a free and fair election, the President could simply try to overturn it and hold onto power.

5. President Trump instigated over-the-top pressure and intimidation of election officials and even personally released some people’s private details (aka “doxxing”). In hearing #4, we witnessed evidence that Donald Trump pressured GOP state officials to reverse election results. Rusty Bowers, Arizona House Speaker (and a Republican who voted for Trump), was one of the witnesses. Bowers said that there were a lot of theories but no evidence, but John Eastman pressured him to decertify the election results, and Trump asked him to replace the certified electors with Trump’s newly recruited replacements. Several members of Congress and other officials also pressured Bowers.

Citing his Latter-day Saint faith and constitutional oath, Bowers refused to bow to pressure. Bowers was doxxed—his personal information was revealed, resulting in threatening crowds gathering in his front yard even as a daughter was seriously ill.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger also testified and explained how his family was doxxed and harassed because of a smear campaign instigated by Donald Trump, including being called a pedophile by the President.

Two compelling witnesses were Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, an election worker in Georgia, and her mother, Ruby Freeman. Trump doxxed these women, too, accusing them of being serial election defrauders. The resulting outrage among his supporters, fueled by these insinuations and accusations, caused them to abandon their work, withdraw from social contact, and fear leaving their homes.

Also prominent in the hearing was the courage and loyalty to oath manifested by many Republicans who refused to participate in the attempt to overturn election results.  Many of those have suffered slander by Trump and then doxxing that put them and their families in harm’s way.

While it’s true that both political parties engage in such tactics, we should all be able to acknowledge these are dirty political tricks that have no place in civil discourse, especially at the highest levels of leadership in our nation.

6. Former President Trump took other unprecedented steps to try and retain power. In hearing #5, more focus went to Donald Trump’s attempt to urge the Justice Department  into acting to help him retain the presidency. When those attempts failed, he tried to replace key officials in the Justice Department with others he chose, even just a few days before the inauguration. This possibility was so unacceptable that most of the assistant attorneys’ general threatened to quit en masse.

In hearing #6, Cassidy Hutchinson also testified of the quest for pardons for various aides and government officials and that Trump wanted to extend pardons to some of the rioters too. The most recent hearing went deeper into examining multiple requests of various Republicans seeking blanket pardons. Why the requests for pardons if they believed their recommendations and actions to be within the law?

Also discussed was the former President’s requests that the Justice Department examine voting machines and invalidate state election results, which actions are clearly outside the scope of their office. The President was furious when they would not or would not comply.

7. Stop the Steal has been profitable for the Trump campaign. In hearing #2, we learned that an estimated $250 million was collected from Trump supporters to “Stop the Steal” following Election Day, $150 million of which was received in the first week. And money continues to pour in, especially to the Save America PAC, which is the major Trump-supporting political action committee. Money also went to other outside groups supporting Trump; salaries for ex-Trump officials; a charitable foundation with connections to former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows; and even to the Trump hotel chain.

8. Some of the most extreme protestors seemed to be emboldened by President Trump’s signals. In hearing #2, testimony was heard from filmmaker Nick Quested who followed the activities of the Proud Boys prior to the riot—suggesting that plans had been laid well before the event. Later interviews revealed that some members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers expected to become Trump’s private, special army if he retained the presidency.

Later in hearing #7, we learned more about Donald Trump’s influence on these groups, examining his shares on social media and how groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys responded to them. The case was made that the former President led them to believe they were the seeds of his personal army and encouraged them to come to the capitol to help restore him to the presidency.  The hearing detailed some of the social media exchanges between members of the groups as they prepared for the day. 

Jason Van Tatenhove, a former spokesman for the Oath Keepers, testified of the effect of these messages. He also said that Trump was dangerous and would continue to be in the future if left unchecked. He said, “If a president is willing to try to instill and encourage, to whip up a civil war amongst his followers using lies and deceit and snake oil, and regardless of the human impact, what else is he going to do if he gets elected again? All bets are off at that point.” He also pointed out how lucky we are that more people, including elected officials, weren’t injured or killed on January 6, 2020.

Some final thoughts. Despite all the foregoing, there have been no apologies or evidence of remorse from the former president for the killed or wounded, none for Mike Pence, nor for government officials who were terrified that day.

His primary focus has been himself. That continues to be the case.

Because of my own family background (being raised by a narcissistic parent), I’ve had to become very familiar with that condition and the wreckage it can cause. And it’s hard for me not to see the traits of malignant narcissism here—especially the lack of empathy and remorse, a tendency towards extreme anger and blaming others, and a willingness to lie repeatedly. For a narcissist, the greatest loyalty in every situation would be toward himself.

Whether or not this diagnostic category formally applies, my point is this: You simply don’t want someone with these characteristics to lead the most powerful country in the world. In Plato’s dialogue with Critias, he asks: “How will a man choose the ruler that shall rule over him? Will he not choose a man who has first established order in himself, knowing that any decision that has its spring from anger or pride or vanity can be multiplied a thousandfold in its effects upon the citizens?”

I recognize many thoughtful and good-hearted people see former President Trump and even some of the events on January 6 differently. And I acknowledge that many of his supporters at the capitol felt deceived by what happened—and could be considered victims. This session of the hearing also included testimony from “Stephen Ayres, an Ohio man who traveled to D.C. for the Stop the Steal rally. He hadn’t intended to storm the capitol but ended up being part of the crowd that did. In his testimony, he discussed how he was very active on social media and how it influenced him to make the trip to D.C. As Price St. Clair noted in his coverage of the hearing for The Dispatch, “He told the House committee he no longer believes the election was stolen and is mad that Trump is still lying about it.”

I also acknowledge there are other questions about January 6—from alleged police brutality to the possible role of extraneous agitators—that merit additional examination. I hope some of this will be examined in upcoming hearings. In our attempt to understand a broader picture of what took place, I would especially hope that conservatives don’t follow pundit orders to write off the work of these proceedings—and instead, consider seriously what is being examined and confirmed.

The post The January 6 Hearings Are Not Just a Political Stunt appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

The January 6th Committee Hearings have brought up many memories and raised even more questions. I was there that day. And the event being portrayed was very different than the one I attended.

The year 2020 critically altered my awareness of the world around me. For much of my adult life, I preferred to avoid the news; I experienced it as all bad, disturbing, and disruptive to my belief in the goodness of humanity.

However, the events of 2020 up to and including the presidential election demanded my attention and shook me. Like other citizens, I tried to find non-partisan news in the destructively divisive climate, and consumed media from a wide variety of sources. I was proud when I purchased my ticket to be in Washington, D.C. on January 6th, for what was represented to me as a patriotic rally. I felt drawn to attend, engaged, responsible, and concerned for our country.

From the moment I landed, I met many others who expressed similar sentiments. Picture the crowd with me: dressed in casual everyday clothing, Gen-Y mingling with Boomers. Everyone I spoke with was energetic, God-fearing, and patriotic, with many races and cultures present. Being in this crowd felt like attending a hometown parade, where everyone is polite, lets you cut through to the front of the group, helps people up on shoulders and walls to see better, holds your place in line, and offers to take pictures for you—and sometimes with you. As I moved with the crowd down the streets and onto the trains, it was common to hear DC locals thank us for being there. One of them pulled her car over and stopped us at a crosswalk—expressing thanks to us for showing up. A woman on the train told us she worked for the current administration, and as grateful as she was, she was open about her disappointment that the presence of so many would not make a difference. 

Speaking for myself, everyone I met was the kind of person who makes eye contact, shakes your hand, and makes an art of casual, friendly conversation. However, I did see people that didn’t look or feel that way. These individuals moved differently, they walked with purpose and focus—like when you have instructions to get somewhere quickly. They wore backpacks, boots, and masks. They stomped through the friendly crowds, never making eye contact or stopping to talk with anyone. At one point, we were walking along the street and witnessed two young 20-something-year-old men dressed in all black, coordinated backpacks and other gear that seemed out of place and tactical. They were pulling things from their backpacks and changing clothes topped off with red MAGA baseball caps. Although I didn’t witness any wrongdoing by them, they didn’t fit in with the bulk of others at the rally.

When we visited the BLM Boulevard our first night there, we witnessed a number of angry, anti-Trump protestors. Though unafraid to be with people who thought differently from me, it seemed wise to not overly engage. Although we were near the White House, we witnessed a police-escort emptying out two white, unmarked school-type buses filled with a crowd of the boot-wearing, tactical-looking men we had seen earlier. At this point, we didn’t understand why there’d be a need for this.

On the day of the rally, we arrived early, probably 4:30 a.m. Even as we arrived, in those early morning hours, there was a crowd like I have never seen at any concert or sporting event!  The description of a “sea of people” doesn’t come close—the vastness was more like an ocean! Once we were inside the gates of the event, we found ourselves about 15 rows back from the stage and felt lucky to have landed seats right behind the reserved, seated “special guest” section. When it became light enough to really see the crowd behind us it blew my mind!  The crowd was at least as wide as the block and went back well past the Washington Monument that was across the lawn and street from the rally. People were shoulder to shoulder the entire way back. This crowd had gathered out of a collective love for our nation and our freedoms. My eyes will never unsee it!  My heart will never unfeel it! Since then, I have heard reports about the crowd being closer to 10,000-20,000. Yet we witnessed hundreds of thousands.

It was cold and we spent most of the day standing, walking, meeting, and talking to others. As we did, it was common to hear of struggles with phones—batteries draining, no signals to send photos or videos, and only occasionally getting a text or call coming through. Because of that people were being especially helpful to one another, the old-fashioned way before we all had phones, sharing information and updates. Because we were all still taking photos and videos (just couldn’t share them), many exchanged phone numbers so that later we could be in touch. Those many millions of friendly and celebratory photos and videos of the day’s happenings are certainly not what we see represented in media representations of January 6, even though in my experience, this kind of interaction was the majority of what took place. 

Another common topic of discussion was how many were not necessarily there “for Trump.” Clearly, many were. But many others we talked to were there for reasons like ours; we felt concerned about the integrity of the election, had a desire to be part of something important, and were showing up to show we cared about our country.  Never once did I hear talk of rebellion. I didn’t see guns. I didn’t hear anger. I didn’t hear hate. I saw people sitting on walls, swinging their feet, and singing patriotic and gospel songs. 

I listened to many speeches that day from politicians and Trump’s family. Their words were truly inspiring, showing respect for the core principles of our great nation. They shared their desire to help America be its best. President Trump spoke for over an hour. Not once did I feel like he was encouraging any kind of misconduct. In fact, I remember him reminding us that if we were going to the Capitol, to do it “peacefully.” The speeches we heard from the rally stage are recorded and can be viewed by anyone seeking to know what was said in its entirety. It’s all there to appreciate in its full context rather than edited “sound bites;” and what I’m suggesting is the full picture tells a different story.

When the speeches were done, we started to make our way back to our hotel. We were anxious to warm up, rest, charge our phones and get some decent cell reception. As we began to hear more rumors of updates, we were all the more anxious to get back to the hotel at that point so we could hear the news updates for ourselves. We watched in horror as other photos and videos exploded across our screens.

We felt an urgency to go to the capital area and see for ourselves how things had changed so much. Worried calls and messages from family back home were confusing. We didn’t feel scared or in danger. Nobody was running in the opposite direction telling us to get to safety. Nothing and no one gave us any impression that we should clear out or not be there. To the contrary—the crowd was still singing.

It’s true that as I eventually left the Capitol, I heard loud bangs, looked back, and saw puffs of clouds near where I had just been standing. We later learned it was tear gas set off by Capitol police to clear people away. It was nearly 5 pm and the Washington, D.C. mayor had ordered a 6:00 curfew. The crowd then quickly thinned out and dispersed.

Even at the airport, as we were leaving, townspeople who attended the rally seemed to find each other. We would gather in a circle and share the things we had experienced. We shared stories and headed home.

It’s true I’m among those with questions about the integrity of an election process that experienced consequential changes against the backdrop of a global pandemic. I’m also concerned (like so many) with a growing amount of chaos in our institutions.  But the last thing I would want is to participate in something that threatens American democracy. That’s not why I was there. And it’s not why the people I spoke to were there.

We were standing with other Americans proud to be patriots. Like so many things, the “Save America” rally was multi-faceted and complicated. And there’s a good chance, you’re not hearing the story of how it looked to most of us who were there.

The post What Else Happened January 6th appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

My job required me to spend a considerable amount of time working with many congressional staff members on a wide variety of issues throughout my career.  I had the opportunity of observing hundreds of our national leaders as they dealt with both the minutia and the weighty matters of government. As a lifelong member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I believe the Constitution is a divinely inspired document and I felt privileged to be part of the inner workings of our national government under that Constitution. In that capacity, I had opportunities to work with Mr. Biden’s staff on official business and would occasionally be in a meeting or a hearing where Mr. Biden was present and functioning in his official capacity.  

My impression of Mr. Biden has always been a positive one. One of the things I like best about him is that he is a man of faith. He has had some significant challenges in his life that would challenge anyone’s faith but he has remained steadfast in his Roman Catholic beliefs.  

As I am sure most people are aware, Mr. Biden lost his first wife Neilia and his Daughter Naomi (“Amy”) in a car accident in December of 1972 while they were out Christmas shopping.  (His two other sons were also in the car and were injured, but their injuries were not life-threatening.) Also, in 2015 his son Joseph Biden Jr. (Beau) died of brain cancer.  These experiences obviously had a huge impact on Mr. Biden.  After his wife’s car accident, he was planning to resign from the Senate to be able to be closer to his children, but Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield convinced him to stay.  He stayed, but only on the condition that he could commute 90 minutes each way by train back and forth to his home in Delaware every day to be able to be with his children. He did this for 36 years.

I remember times when we would be in a meeting or even in a hearing and Mr. Biden would get up and leave because he wanted to be at home every night to tuck in his children.  It always impressed me that he would put his family ahead of everything else, including himself.  It also impressed me that in spite of these tragedies he continued in his faith in God.   

As I observed Mr. Biden interact with others he always behaved respectfully; with empathy, caring, and concern.  I also saw occasions when he would try to calm contention and be a peacemaker.  In addition, when we had to report facts that were not helpful to his political agenda, he welcomed them, thanked us, and was very gracious about the work that was done.  I always found him to be honest, of high integrity, and interested in the truth unvarnished.  He seemed to be genuinely more concerned about the people he represented than he was about himself.  As my job required me to interact with many politicians, I found Mr. Biden’s character quite refreshing.      

Knowing something of the forces that come to bear in national politics, I am all the more motivated to accept President Ballard’s plea in the recent October General Conference, “No matter how you pray or to whom you pray, please exercise your faith—whatever your faith may be—and pray for your country and for your national leaders.” Continuing he said, “This is not about politics or policy. This is about peace and the healing that can come to individual souls as well as to the soul of countries …” 

Regardless of our political leanings, I believe we should all pray that President Biden will be inspired and motivated to lead this country in the righteousness of traditional moral values.  

The post What A Latter-day Saint Learned about Mr. Joe Biden Through Decades of Working on Capitol Hill appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

To be clear, most Americans (about 60% of them, according to recent polling) believe the election was fair and legitimate.  But it’s equally clear that it’s not just President Trump who has concerns with the election, with a Quinnipiac poll over a month after the election finding an astounding 77% of Republican respondents believing there was widespread fraud in the presidential election, and a full 34% of all respondents believing that Biden’s victory was illegitimate. 

34% is not 3%.  And it appears these disagreements won’t be going away anytime soon. Because we believe trying to hear each other out still matters (for lots of reasons), we’ve worked on another “disagreement map” of the competing interpretations involved.  As with our previous map of COVID-19 disagreements, the aim of the map is not to lay out the evidence supporting different positions—but instead, to simply sketch out as best we can what those positions are, attempting what Charles Taylor once called a “perspicuous contrast.”

That means we try to summarize competing arguments in their strongest and most compelling terms—comparing them side by side, in as fair a light as possible. Even so, we’ve found these maps to be remarkably irritating to some people on both sides. In this case, we’ve already had people tell us this article “trivializes a crime”—with one friend telling us, “So long as we’re talking about how we feel and are seeing each other’s perspective, everything is going to be fine. Really? Sometimes it’s just about finding the truth and acknowledging it in the open light of day.” No doubt, we’ll hear similar things from democrats concerned that we’re giving a platform to dangerous, and reckless accusations.  

So, to be clear:  our goal is not to suggest that it doesn’t matter which side you believe, or to argue there is no substantial evidence to validate one side or the other, or even to suggest that both sides are equally valid or supported. Rather, we’re simply trying to capture in summary form, the contours of contrasting belief that currently exist on the matter.

In these heated times, it’s remarkable how much people (on all sides) struggle to understand distinctly and fairly what political opponents actually believe. (So much easier to hear what your favorite critic of Those People tells you they really believe). We’ve been listening carefully to the different arguments being made and doing our best to hear the nuances.  So without further ado, with an aim of encouraging deeper listening (even and especially now) between Americans who might disagree on these matters, we provide this juxtaposition of views, created by our own staff (that doesn’t agree on what happened in the election—and in many cases, like other Americans, isn’t completely sure what the full truth is).

1.Evidence. Is there any legitimate evidence to support the concerns of those who believe there was substantial, and potentially decisive fraud in the recent Presidential election? 

• No, there simply is not. With all the reviews that have been conducted, no damning evidence of fraud or even serious voter irregularities has been uncovered—at least not any more than happens in normal years, and certainly not sufficient to overturn the election. 
• Yes, there definitely is. As evident across nearly a thousand affidavits sworn under oath, there is a surprisingly large amount of documented evidence of serious fraud—significantly more than happens in normal years, and enough to potentially overturn the election.  The kind of conclusive evidence people demand will only be uncovered through a thorough forensic analysis of ballot handling processes (machines and electronic voting machine logs) that have been mostly out of reach.

2.Voting Logistics. Given these extraordinary changes in voting connected with the pandemic and updated technology, doesn’t all this make fraud easier—with the possibility of a small group able to exploit the process in order to influence the results?    

• Sure, you can believe that—along with a variety of other zany conspiracy theories that more and more people seem to be gravitating towards.  The truth is these technologies have been proven to be trustworthy—and the choice to vote-by-mail a safe one, with results that came from it, confirmed as reliable.  
• So much easier.  Why so quick to write off any evidence that this may have happened? Is it really that hard to understand how changes in voting laws and ballot tabulation technologies and processes have made our elections more susceptible to fraud that could subvert the will of the people—and how that would be extremely difficult to detect?  

3.The Courts. If the evidence is legitimate, why were most of the electoral fraud cases dismissed by courts?  

• The suits challenging the election results were dismissed because the claims are actually bogus and baseless, on closer examination. That’s why so many judges considered the evidence and dismissed dozens of legal challenges.
• Most of the suits challenging the election results were dismissed on technicalities—and not because they looked carefully into the evidence. Other judges didn’t see this as within their jurisdiction or feel comfortable ruling on something so politically charged. 

4.A Full and Fair Investigation. Has the evidence of fraud been examined adequately and fully? 

• Yes, it has. Across these many suits brought before courts, judges have been able to examine the evidence, just as Americans would expect. Yet week after week, with the allegations examined (and reexamined) by election officials and courts alike, nothing truly substantial has been found.   
• Not at all. In addition to being dismissed, avoided, or written off entirely by election and judicial officials, most mainstream journalists have insisted from the beginning there is no evidence worth considering—and therefore, largely ignored the true merits of the arguments being made. 

5.‘Keeping Up the Fight.’ What are we to make of the willingness of some to continue fighting, even after so many courts have ruled?  

• This reflects a stubborn unwillingness to yield to the institution we’ve established in our American system to arbitrate disputes like this—our courts, which deserves to be trusted in these matters.  
• This reflects a willingness to continue the fight for fair elections and freedom itself, despite widespread institutional forces and barriers rising to oppose both—all of which have crucial implications for the United States in this critical juncture. 

6.President Trump. What is the underlying, driving motivation behind President Trump’s continued efforts to challenge these results?  

• Isn’t it obvious? This man can’t accept defeat—and will do anything to hang onto power, just as many feared he would. This is about ego, pride, narcissism, self-preservation, and an utter lack of graciousness and respect for the American system.   
• Despite what so many accuse him of, the President is fighting for what he (and millions of other Americans) believe to be the right thing.  His persistence reflects optimism and courage, rather than the despicable motives his critics have always insisted drives him.     

7.Republican Leadership. How should we understand all the Republican leaders supporting President Trump’s challenge? 

• This is the sad reflection of this president’s stronghold on the entire party, with people doing his bidding for fear of him and his many supportive voters turning against them.  It’s really about fear of Trump and election consequences for themselves.  
• Contrary to the remarkably incendiary rhetoric against them, this support is because many of these leaders are honestly persuaded and honestly believe these electoral concerns to be legitimate, and the fight to be worthy. It’s also about trying to represent voters in their states who share these same concerns.    

8.The Republican Base. What about all the rank-and-file members of the Republican party who believe these accusations to be true as well? 

• This is the sad result of so many normal Americans being swept up in these florid and baseless allegations. It’s because people are angry, and leaders are stirring them up.   
• This is because many Americans honestly believe these concerns to be valid and worth looking into more. It’s because people care about America and preserving fairness in our system.   

9.Threatening Democracy. Do these ongoing challenges to and questioning of the election results represent a threat to democracy?  

• You bet they do. In addition to undermining public trust in the election results, such an inexplicable unwillingness to concede defeat sets a dangerous precedent in a country whose history centers critically on a peaceful transfer of power.  
• No, they don’t.  It’s the lack of willingness to examine legitimate evidence that represents the real threat to our democracy. Rather than trying to hurt our American system, those seeking a rigorous investigation into these allegations are earnestly seeking to preserve our democratic institutions as trustworthy and fair.    

10.What’s the Point? What good will come from more examination of the evidence—aren’t people already decided?  

• They are.  And any other further investigation will only serve to reinforce entrenched biases on each side. Furthermore, to do so would be to fall into yet another ploy by Republican leaders to undermine trust in the election and potentially overturn results.  Why should we give any other room for that to happen? 
• Many are—but not all.  And state legislatures that have looked into the evidence have been persuaded there is a basis for concern.  If there is any justification for that, why wouldn’t we want to investigate enough to know it? And if no justification ends up being found, the additional inquiry could be reassuring to Trump supporters that at least the matter was fully vetted.    

The post Mapping Public Disagreements about Election Challenges appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

At the transformative moment in Latter-day Saint history when members of the Church of Jesus Christ believe God the Father and His Son appeared to Joseph Smith while seeking true religion, he asked “which of all the sects was right…and which I should join?”

The response shocked the boy prophet: “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong.”

The divine warning went on to highlight specific “creeds” that had misled adherents and leaders that had become “corrupt” as Isaiah foretold: “They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Joseph was “forbade” repeatedly to “join with any of them”—a possibility that had “never entered into [his] heart” because he had never considered that “all were wrong.”  (Notice that he was taught not that these other churches were all wrong, but they all were wrong).

We tend towards the opposite—condemning our opponents as being all wrong, rather than recognizing goodness and truth they still possess. In the same moment, we can insist our side is all right, while overlooking evidence of our own troubling creeds and corruptions. 

Why is it so difficult to consider the possibility that all the major options in society’s great contests might, indeed, simply be wrong (in the sense that they don’t contain 100% of the truth)?

As Nathaniel and Terryl Givens suggested prior to the election, “If you are a Christian, you are politically homeless. This has always been true. Now it is obvious.” Calling this sort of “exile” the “plight of all sincere Christians,” they go on to cite David French as saying: 

More and more, thoughtful (mainly young) Christians say to me, “I’m pro-life, I believe in religious freedom and free speech, I think we should welcome immigrants and refugees, and I desperately want racial reconciliation. Where do I fit in?” The answer is clear. Nowhere.

So, how do we become so convinced we must pick a side?  Maybe because we get swept up in what Hugh Nibley once called the “neighborhood brawl.” I recently found this excerpt from Approaching Zion so fitting to this moment in our country: “Satan’s masterpiece of counterfeiting is the doctrine that there are only two choices, and he will show us what they are.”  In this way, the adversary “convinces us that we are making the vital choice when actually we are choosing between branches in his road.” He continues: 

Which one we take makes little difference to him, for both lead to destruction. This is the polarization we find in our world today. Thus we have the choice between Shiz and Coriantumr—which all Jaredites were obliged to make. We have the choice between the wicked Lamanites … and the equally wicked Nephites. Or between the fleshpots of Egypt and the stews of Babylon, or between the land pirates and the sea pirates of World War I, or between white supremacy and black supremacy … or between Catholic and Protestant, or between fundamentalist and atheist, or between right and left—all of which are true rivals, who hate each other.  

Nibley continues:

A very clever move of Satan!—a subtlety that escapes us most of the time.  So I ask Latter-day Saints, “What is your position frankly regarding the merits of cigarettes vs. cigars, wine vs. beer, or heroin, vs. LSD?” It should be apparent that you take no sides.  By its nature the issue does not concern you. It is simply meaningless as far as your life is concerned.  “What, are you not willing to stand up and be counted?” No, I am not.

Does that mean we should never pick a side—or stand up for various good causes around us?  Of course not. But neutrality is not always the inspired or better place to be, either.  

It’s simply to point out how easy it can be for all of us to get swept up in either/or battles between black and white options—neither of which represent God’s will.  Nibley elaborates on the danger of this: 

This fatal polarization is a very effective means of destruction.  As the Romans knew, “divide and conquer” is the means of gaining power and leadership. So we have always been told we must join the action to fight against communism, or must accept the leadership to fight fascism, or must join Persia against Rome. … Or in World War I, you just join the Allies or the Central Powers.  While all the time there is only one real choice—between accepting the gifts of God for what they are on his terms and going directly to Him and asking for whatever you need, or seeking the unclean gift, as it is called, of power and gain. Remember, Moroni ends by saying; “Deny not the gifts of God, … and touch not the evil gift, nor the unclean thing [filthy lucre and so forth]” (Moroni 10:8,30). So that’s the choice I think we have.  

I’m not optimistic that any of this will persuade many minds on either side of our great political divides. People are so deeply embedded in their respective tribal politics that some of what I’m raising may be unsettling, even threatening, to deep-seated convictions.  And after all, it took God Himself appearing to Joseph Smith for him to realize both sides were wrong. Not until then did he recognize that reality.  

If that’s at all true in our day, how easy it is for us to miss.  So much easier to see our side as the Great Defender of all that is good, and the other side as the Great Threat.  All matters of political disagreement, then, become about making choices between right and wrong.  

But what if we’re not?  What if we’re choosing between wrong and wrong? Or partial truth and partial truth? And essentially pursuing different “branches” of the same road?  

In that case, it may not even matter to the adversary which fork we go down, as long as enough of us go on each side to keep the fight going. The point is to keep us at each other’s throats. 

And forget that there are believers on both the left and the right. That there are mothers and fathers on both sides.  There is goodness on both sides, and truth on both sides—along with bad folks on each side too.  

We think everyone on the other side is so different. They’re not! It’s more like a Venn diagram with plenty of crossover. But we get so fixated in our mold that we assume our opponents are completely wrong.

And downright evil.  Why, then, wouldn’t you hate them?  

I believe Satan wants us to hate each other—and to remain in perpetual conflict with each other.  

And I find it interesting that recent circumstances of a closely divided country seem to be creating maximal contention.  What if the point isn’t to choose either side, but to opt out of contention entirely?  

In that case, if both sides of the political spectrum are in fact wrong in important ways, then practically, what does that really mean?  Certainly, it doesn’t mean the outcome of these prevailing battles getting all the attention is meaningless or unimportant. Maybe it simply highlights other things even more important. And it might even suggest a different way of proceeding entirely—and another way of approaching the national “brawl” continuing to play out before us. As Nibley goes on to ask, “What then of the choice between entering into divisions, schools, controversies, contentions, vanities, or avoiding them? How can you avoid them?”  

He responds, “If you don’t want to get involved in the neighborhood brawl, there’s only one thing you can do—move out of the neighborhood. [Yet] we refuse to do that.  [But since] both sides are wrong … you must move out of the neighborhood.”

Nibley, of course, is not referring to physically moving away—or refusing to participate in influencing the pressing conversations of the day. It’s something else he’s speaking to—something less dramatic, but harder to achieve:  continuing to engage publicly, but in a Godly way – without the vitriol and vengeance we see on both sides today.  

Nibley adds, “We of course don’t do that without supernatural aid.”

He’s right.  It’s hard—incredibly hard—to extricate oneself from the latest greatest brawl (take your pick—Trump v. Biden, Black v. Blue Lives Matter, Lebron v. Jordan).  So, it will probably require divine assistance for any of us to make any progress there. Nibley concludes:

That’s where it comes in; the whole thing is supernatural. That changes everything, of course. The argument then ceases. We are dealing in absolutes there.  That’s where the gospel comes in. Consider the stories of all the great patriarchs—Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Noah, Jared, Ether, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Lehi, and Alma. All are the stories of individuals who faced the problem of contending against the world—a world in rapid decline.  Why are these stories told to us in such harrowing detail? Do you think they don’t apply?  

Oh, they do.  Exactly now.  

And I pray we will all hear those voices, before it’s too late.  

The post What was Really the Choice in the 2020 Election? appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Many people of faith are supporting Trump and many others are supporting Biden.  Trump supporters criticize Biden and Biden’s supporters criticize Trump.  They are both correct to do so. 

But the real issue is not whether Biden is bipartisan and Trump is divisive.  The issue is which is best for our country; which will defend our individual freedoms; and consequently which is deserving of our vote.

The clear answer is that neither is deserving of your vote.  The reason neither is deserving is that we cannot sustain our country and our moral God-given rights by choosing the least bad of the two major party candidates each election.  Americans have elected either a Republican or a Democrat for one hundred and seventy years.   It is time we stopped electing Republicans who have given our prosperity to other countries and Democrats who have abandoned our moral principles. 

Bipartisanship is defined as the cooperation of two political parties.  But the major two parties, i.e. Republican and Democrat, will not stop the continuing deterioration of America, either morally or otherwise.  The reason is that neither of these parties represents the best interest of Americans nor the moral fiber that made our country great.   Their party platforms are instead at odds with what made America the envy of the world.

America became great because our Founders unleashed individuals from the chains of government control and interference.  The Founders defined and limited what the government would be empowered to do.  The Constitution was the document they drafted to keep Americans free of government abuse and to limit government power.

Our Founders were not just right; they were proven right as relying on the strength of this document America became the greatest country on earth.   Americans became the most prosperous, most free, most educated, and most envied human beings on the planet.

We can choose between Biden and Trump and continue down the path we have followed for decades.  We can continue to kill nearly a million unborn people each year.   We can continue to police the world.   We can continue down the path towards bankruptcy. We can ignore what is evident to us all, which is that America is failing.  Or we can return to the Constitution and to the morals that made America great.

People of faith should carefully consider voting for and on the basis of their higher principles.   Neither Biden nor Trump represents those principles.  There is only one political party that has a platform that has proven it is the right platform and that lives up to the principles of Judeo-Christian faith. It is the Constitution Party. 

I would encourage members of your church to vote for me, Don Blankenship.  As such, I will strive to follow the Constitution as my guide for decision making.   It is that simple.  Politics should have no role in government decisions.   It is time to choose right over wrong and the interests of our country over the interests of a political party.

The post Unhappy with Your Options? Vote Constitution Party appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Here we are in the heat of another U.S. presidential election. The politically obsessed myopia endures. Many see through the two-team prism—you are either for the Democrats or the Republicans. Whichever side you choose, so the thinking goes, you accept all of it. After all, the nation’s soul is at stake! Your side is wholly right, the other side is entirely wrong. Your side is light, the other side is darkness. 

It is a devilish dualism.

As we sit amid the madness, a Book of Mormon teaching on unity begs our attention.

Some 2,000 years ago, a society in the Western Hemisphere was, in important ways, a lot like modern America. About 33 years after the birth of Jesus, we see a people called the Nephites who once enjoyed prosperity and peace but are now too well acquainted with vice. Goodwill and faith in God have, for the majority of them, given way to vain ambition. They pursue power, authority, and wealth at all costs. This leads to class distinctions and the fracture of their religious landscape.

A small group of believers remains among them, led by a holy man named Nephi. He does the miracles so familiar to readers of today’s New Testament. He casts out devils. He raises the dead. He heals sickness. He preaches repentance. He baptizes in the name of Jesus. 

Then an epic and deadly concoction of storms, fires, and earthquakes shakes their entire world into near oblivion. Some cities are submerged in water. Others burn to ash. Roads are broken up. Many people perish. Their surviving kindred can do nothing but mourn, howl, and weep while enduring three days of a vaporous darkness so thick that no light can mitigate it. 

Into this paralyzing darkness comes the piercing, yet gentle, ministerial voice of Jesus. It is a most miraculous occurrence. He explains the what and the why of all they have just experienced. The rampant death and destruction are requisite, He says, with the justice of God for their most egregious violators of societal harmony. He pleads with the survivors to let the gift of extended life spur them on to change their ways. Though they sit in the dark, utterly unable to create their own light, hope remains. How so? As Jesus tells them, “I am the light and the life of the world” (3 Nephi 9:18, emphasis added).

The light returns to the land the following morning. And so, too, does Jesus. The miraculous is turned up another notch. The resurrected Lord of the earth appears in person to a whiplashed, humbled people. He invites them to know for themselves that He is more than a ghost. They approach Him. They touch and feel the evidence of crucifixion in His hands, side, and feet. They are overcome to be in the presence of the King of Kings. They fall at His feet in worship. They shout His praises.

Jesus then delivers one of the finest lessons on unity and oneness the world has ever known. Though a small band of believers and a church were established prior to the great destruction, Jesus pushes the reset button. Notice the how and why of what He does.

With the eyes of all the people upon Him, he invests Nephi and a few others with the authority to baptize. He then shows them and the people how to properly perform this rite. Why do this if, as the Book of Mormon record shows, they already had authority and were already baptizing correctly prior to His coming? Because in addition to their other shortcomings as a society, they could not agree on the basics. They were known for their “great doubtings and disputations” (3 Nephi 8:4).

Jesus repeats three times a simple declaration: “There shall be no disputations among you as there have hitherto been” (3 Nephi 11:28). Who was wrong and who was right in those debates? He does not say. It does not matter. Who is wrong or right is not nearly as important as what is wrong or right. When it comes to arguing and being disagreeable, Jesus declares that “the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil” (3 Nephi 11:29). Hearts boiling over with anger have no place in His loving kingdom. Only the soft, simple hearts of children will do.

Because our elections generate more heat than light, we need frequent reminders that there are no purely evil or wholly good people—no matter their voting preferences. Gulag survivor Alexandr Solzhenitsyn learned this through eight years of deep reflection enabled by the terrors of the Soviet prison system. He was once himself a decorated captain in the Soviet Army. But he was, in his mind, “a murderer, and an oppressor” who in his “most evil moments … was convinced that [he] was doing good.” Only the crushing tutelage of the prison camp enabled his soul to give birth to this remarkable sentence: “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts.”

Elections certainly matter. But few certainties are found in electoral politics. Ours is an age where, in the words of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, “veracity is taking second place to the mass manipulation of emotion.” Indeed, what Augustine St. Clare says in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, printed in 1852, could be said by many Americans to describe 2020: “Such pious politicians as we have just before elections—such pious goings on in all departments of church and state, that a fellow does not know who’ll cheat him next.”

Can we both hold a strong opinion and confess the limits of what we know? Can we acknowledge that those with different views are probably, like us, genuinely interested in the common good? Do we really want to allow the acids of animus toward our neighbor to destroy both our relationships and our souls? I don’t think we do. Not when we count the cost. Not when we taste the bitter fruit of soured friendships.

Of course, relationship building is expensive (it requires a major investment of time and humility) and we are all too often drawn to cheap things. But a key message of the resurrected Jesus in the Book of Mormon is that even a country as divided as ours can rise to the challenge.

What happened to that Book of Mormon people of “great doubtings and disputations” when Jesus left them? For two centuries afterward, “there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.” Indeed, “there were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.”

Achieving this utopian-like peace was not an effortless enterprise. Those people reconsidered their ways, abandoned deceitful patterns of thinking, and made better choices. They saw the divine in every face.

A country founded not on left and right but on the simple yet too-often-misunderstood ideal that all men and women are created equal surely can still do the same.

The post A Book of Mormon Missive for the 2020 Election appeared first on Public Square Magazine.