Download Print-Friendly Version

Reading The Miracle of Forgiveness surprised me. I grew up hearing this book used as the quintessential example of gospel bluntness. I also craved that kind of no-nonsense approach to gospel standards and admired it when I encountered it in leaders. Still, even with a high tolerance for directness, I was taken aback by how forthright President Spencer W. Kimball could be. His moral calls were unambiguous, his language arresting. It raised a sincere question: why does prophetic language feel less fiery today? Some say our leaders are too soft now. Others say prophets of the past were too harsh. Which is it?

History shows that prophetic tone has never been static. In the 19th century, Brigham Young’s rugged style fit the demands of frontier survival. President Joseph F. Smith spoke with the gravity of one who had personally suffered persecution and loss. In the mid-20th century, President Kimball’s direct calls to repentance reflected a culture where plain talk was considered a virtue. Today, President Russell M. Nelson often uses the language of invitation: “Think Celestial,” “gain spiritual momentum,” “let God prevail.” The tone feels warmer, but the content is still exacting. Part of the reason for these shifts may lie in a rhythm we see repeatedly in scripture and history. Prophets often speak with great boldness before a prophecy is fulfilled—Noah warning of the flood, Abinadi confronting King Noah’s court. In our own day, decades of clear prophetic warnings about the disintegration of the family may now be giving way to counsel aimed at fortifying those who will listen, even if some interpret that change in focus as a departure from truth rather than prophecy fulfilled. To draw from Noah again, after the flood came and went, his messaging (to those left) likely shifted. Not because eternal truths changed, but because the priorities changed.

 A style that felt normal to a 1940s farmer might feel abrasive now. Research in Communication Accommodation Theory, developed by Howard Giles in the 1970s, shows that effective communicators instinctively adapt their tone, pacing, and style to their audience to maximize receptivity. Prophets, like other inspired leaders, may adjust their delivery so the message can reach hearts without being rejected at the outset.

There is also a broader cultural shift toward sensitivity in public discourse. Pew Research surveys over the past decade show that Americans increasingly prioritize “respectful” language and are more likely to view blunt speech as offensive rather than refreshingly honest. Younger generations, in particular, tend to value empathy cues and “emotional safety” in messaging. Whether this is a positive or negative development is up for interpretation. But against that backdrop, it is not surprising that prophetic language has evolved to meet listeners where they are without abandoning eternal truth. 

President Ezra Taft Benson captured the heart of this when he said, “The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet. God’s revelations to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the ark. Noah needed his own revelation. Therefore, the most important prophet, so far as you and I are concerned, is the one living in our day and age to whom the Lord is currently revealing His will for us.” The prophets of the past spoke to the needs of their time; the prophet now speaks to ours. Both deserve to be heard in their own context.

Language naturally evolves, and prophetic word choice evolves with it. Linguistic research by George Lakoff has shown that small shifts in framing can dramatically influence how a message is received, even when the core meaning is the same. Words like “virtue” and “chastity” still appear, but “sexual purity” or “moral cleanliness” are more common. Even subtle substitutions, such as using “home” in place of “family” in certain contexts, may broaden the resonance of a message to those in varied circumstances while still preserving the underlying doctrine.

There are risks in every approach. If prophetic rebuke feels too sharp, some will dismiss it as unkind. If it feels too gentle, others may miss the urgency. The greater danger, in either case, is to focus so much on the delivery that we fail to hear the substance. Dismissing Brigham Young’s counsel because of his rough edges, or ignoring President Nelson’s because it comes with compassion—both risk missing the voice of the Lord.

Modern prophets do the same. President Gordon B. Hinckley’s hallmark optimism fit a global Church coming into public view. President Thomas S. Monson’s warmth and personal storytelling reflected a desire to strengthen individual hearts. President Nelson’s steady call to “hear Him” combines encouragement with a clear articulation of covenantal obligations. Seen together, these patterns suggest not a departure from truth but a consistent application of prophetic stewardship — to declare God’s will in ways the current generation is most able to receive.

The living prophet will always be the most relevant voice for our time. Comparisons across decades can be illuminating, but they can also distract from the revelation God is giving now. Truth is truth, whether it comes as a thundering rebuke or a tender invitation. The question that matters most is not whether we prefer the tone, but whether we will act on the counsel. Ultimately, the Lord directs His servants in how they deliver His word. Tone shifts may reflect both changing circumstances and divine wisdom in preparing His people for what lies ahead.

The next time we hear a prophetic message, it may help to listen with two questions in mind: What is God asking me to do? And am I willing to do it? The answers will matter far more than whether the words stirred us like a trumpet blast or drew us in like a quiet voice.

The post What Changed in Prophetic Language, And What Never Will appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

This is the 7th article in our Peacemaking Series. The previous article: The Complex Art of Christian Kindness: Building Bridges

I don’t agree, but I’m not saying anything. 

I’m going to keep my opinion to myself. I don’t want to rock the boat. I’m just trying to avoid contention; I don’t want to argue or start a fight. I want to maintain the peace, get along, and play well with others. If I say something, it’s a party foul: nobody likes a party-pooper, buzzkill, debbie-downer, wet blanket, tight-wad, stickler, contrarian, Nazi, one-upper, smart-aleck, know-it-all, skeptic, cynic, nay-sayer, zealot, fanatic, troublemaker, right-winger, left-winger, fence-sitter anyways! There’s a lot of pressure to choose a side and be a team player. It takes less effort to go with the flow, blend in, keep my head down, and roll with the punches. Right now, I’m being selfish: I need to let others have their turn. It’s important to listen to those you disagree with, be open-minded, and have diversity of thought. If things get out of hand, then the system will correct itself. Plus, it’s not like they’d listen anyways…right?

There are so many “good” reasons to stay quiet.

Many haven’t had effective communication patterns modeled for them. Online, clickbait writing and algorithms tend to exploit extreme opinions and communication tactics, promoting the most extreme and loudest “shouted” opinions because it maximizes engagement. For the same reasons, so many movie conflicts get “resolved” by shouting matches, fist-fights, gun-fights, building smashings, battles, death, and war. Not to say these problems are new; they’re only the most recent evolution in negative gossip and tall tales. We are saturated with extreme portrayals of what disagreements can lead to.

But disagreeing is so important. I’m sure we’ve all felt the crushing blow of accountability when hearing variations of the quote, “Bad men need no better opportunity than when good men look on and do nothing” (Mill). But realistically, not all disagreements are good versus evil; rather, they distinguish among variants of “good, better, best” (Oaks). Unilaterally shared information, collaboration, and perceptive participation are necessary in resolving such issues. 

The seventh of its kind, the following article is a compilation of research used when creating a video for The Skyline Institute’s playful yet informative videos on conflict resolution called the Peacemaking series. This month’s video, “Disagreements Bring Balance,” teaches the value of and tactics for voicing one’s opinion, even when disagreeing.

Our intent is to help people embrace vocal disagreement through an empathetic framework that can align actions with beliefs. There are several contributing factors affecting one’s ability to disagree effectively, such as personality, emotions, and verbal tactics.

What Makes Me So Special?

It is clear our genetics––as much as how we were raised––have a significant influence on our personalities. Psychologists often use the Big Five personality traits—or Five Factor Model (FFM)—to describe our natural tendencies. The traits are Openness (to new experiences), Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism—often remembered by the acronym OCEAN. For our purposes, Agreeableness is most relevant. Agreeableness describes the tendency to be compassionate, cooperative, and trusting in social interactions. Individuals high in agreeableness are typically described as friendly, patient, and often prioritizing the needs of others––seeking to maintain positive relationships. Personalities oriented toward agreeableness are just going to have a harder time finding the internal motivation to disagree. Those who score low in agreeableness (or high in disagreeableness, depending on how you wish to phrase it) will find the motivation to disagree easier. However, they will find it harder than agreeable people to express their disagreements in a socially effective way.

Consider the irony of staying silent because of wanting to respect and not contradict someone else’s opinion. It’s almost as if saying, Their opinion is important, they should share it, and I should listen to it. In fact, everyone’s opinion is important, everyone should share, and we all should listen. Except for my opinion, I will not share it, and therefore, no one can listen to it. When stated in this way, the illogic is exposed. 

As an example of this same sort of illogic, one co-author of this current video works as a mental health professional at an OCD clinic and interacts with clients who have determined they are unworthy of God’s forgiveness, often diagnosed as scrupulosity. When he asks them, “Who is God willing to forgive?” They reply, “Well, everyone.” He then, smiling, gently asks them, “So what makes you so special?” To which they often chuckle, recognizing their own mistaken perception of themself. So for those of us who don’t share our opinions out loud for fear of whatever reason, consider: What makes me so special that I’m the only exception to the rule ‘every voice matters’, or ‘two heads are better than one’? We invite you to consider yourself responsible for voicing your perspective; every voice matters.

Brene Brown’s research on these ideas clarifies the power of vulnerability. Vulnerability is a social currency that strengthens and deepens relationships. Relationships die when only one side is vulnerable. Internally, if I consistently diminish and disregard my own voice by not sharing my opinions out loud, I reinforce a negative perception of my own thoughts and ideas or a negative perception of other people’s opinions about my thoughts and ideas; and, repetitive silence can lead to resentment and emotion bottling. Externally, it will eventually impact my relationships with others “because, as it turns out, we can’t practice compassion with other people if we can’t treat ourselves kindly” (Brown). Instantly obliging without voicing one’s opinion excludes the other participants from the opportunity of increased perspective and possible collaboration (to be explored more in an upcoming article). Intrapersonally and interpersonally, a deep sense of connection can only come from authenticity: letting go of who one thinks they should be in order to be who they are. The principle of sharing isn’t just for kindergarten. To truly connect with others, we also have to share our honest thoughts and feelings—starting with ourselves.

Some might not share because they think other people aren’t worthy of their opinion. It’s worth considering whether that reluctance comes from a place of insecurity masked as arrogance—often, what looks like detachment is a quiet need for compassion.

Tactics for Assertive Communication

With motivation lined up inside of an empathy-oriented framework that is mutual empathy toward self and others, we can move on to verbal strategies that help structure disagreements effectively. Last month, we highlighted the importance of curiosity—like asking questions and restating the opposing view before expressing disagreement. This month, we share tools for expressing disagreement. These help foster “emotional safety” in our relationships.

Assertive communication clearly states personal needs with consideration for the needs of others. This is in contrast to passive or aggressive communication. Passive communication is preoccupied with the needs of others, inappropriately apologetic, and timid or silent. Aggressive communication focuses only on personal needs, often with an intensity, blame, or shame at the expense of others. Then, of course, there is that toxic cocktail of passive-aggressive communication that shames others while never clearly expressing personal needs. Just like other problems, the best way to address passive-aggression from others is not to ignore it (that would be passive), or by attacking it head-on (that’s aggressive), but by 1. keeping emotions in check, 2. directly addressing the negative behavior, and 3. asking direct questions. For example, you might say calmly, “It looked to me like you rolled your eyes. That makes me feel small and disrespected. I think I’ve upset you—do you want to talk about it?” This is what assertive language reads like; it clearly states personal needs; it is unambiguous and addresses the actual issue (which is not eye-rolling); and, it creates space for them to express their needs and feelings; also, it doesn’t force a conversation. However, even if the language is assertive, but the emotion is uncontrolled, then the communication is no longer assertive: the emotional intensity tips it into aggressive communication. The manner of conduct and the language expressed contribute to the quality of communication, whether it’s aggressive, passive, passive-aggressive, or assertive. 

Communication that is couched in personal experience doesn’t shift blame and direct anger toward other people. Instead, it focuses on personal feelings and personal perceptions of the situation. The Gottmans––marriage relationship experts––recommend using “I statements” or “I language” as a technique for verbally structuring disagreements. Begin any statement with an “I,” and make sure what follows is factual information from your own perspective. For example, an “I think…”, “I feel…”, or “I noticed…” are all particularly good ways to generate a “soft start” in a disagreement. This isn’t an excuse to say something like, “I think you waste your time on video games.” That’s still blaming and shaming the other person. Instead, describing without placing judgment, like “I’m worried you’re spending too much of your time on video games,” would be way better. Better yet, adding “… and I think it could be affecting your grades and relationships. I want to see you succeed and spend more time with you myself. Can you help me understand this from your perspective?” The real concern is addressed, vulnerability is shared, and an abundance of space has been created for the other person to share their feelings. There’s a chance the person could be wasting their time, but the latter conversation could foster an environment for the next Shigeru Miyamoto. 

Lastly, we offer the tool of talking in parts as a way of exploring and giving voice to the complex array of emotional nuances inside of oneself, especially when in a conflict. This technique draws from therapeutic models like Internal Family Systems (IFS), which recognize that we often have multiple internal perspectives. “Part of me wants to, but another part of me doesn’t.” One of the benefits is that there’s no limit to how many parts of you there are; “Part of me feels angry, but part of me gets where you’re coming from, and another part of me doesn’t want me to admit that.”

Closing Exercises

As our last exercise, let’s construct a “soft start” for an argument. Think of the last conflict you had or one that’s preoccupying your mind right now. Surely something came up. For the sake of exercise, let’s go with it. No scenario works out perfectly, but assuming the best, let’s apply the techniques in this article. 

1. What am I feeling? Emotions—like awkwardness, frustration, or fear—usually pass within 10–90 seconds. Instead of pushing them away, notice what you’re feeling and name it. Then choose how to respond. For the sake of the exercise, name the emotion, and accept it. Whether it sticks around depends on how we react to it, our thoughts, and our actions. So, what am I gonna do? Let’s decide to say something—which might not be appropriate for every situation (more on that in a future article), but for the sake of the exercise, let’s play it out in our mind.

2. What questions should I ask? Find my curiosity. Foster a feeling of goodwill. Ask as many clarifying questions as necessary. Do not try to trap or blame, seek understanding. For the sake of the exercise, think of at least 2-3 questions that could help or would have helped.

3. What is their perspective? Restate their perspective for them to hear in a way with which they would be completely satisfied and wholeheartedly agree. It is a generous and compassionate perspective of the other person, not some reduced characterization or strawman. We must steelman their argument and maybe even take the time to consider, Do I really disagree? At the very least, what do we agree on? Vocalize what you agree on. For the sake of the exercise, restate their opinion in the best version you can consider.

4. Share my perspective. Use assertive language. State actual needs and feelings. Use “I statements” or talk in “parts” to help. Avoid shame, and seek the deeper connection your vulnerability has enabled. For the sake of the exercise, structure an example of using at least one “I statement” and one talking in “parts”.

Depending on the situation, these steps may not always happen in the same order. But generally, understanding the other person (Step 3) follows curiosity (Step 2). And, Step 4 often clarifies Step 1 as we speak out loud.

May you find belonging and a deeper connection, and make more peace within yourself and your relationships.

The Peacemaking Series

You can view the rest of the videos in the Peacemaking Series HERE on YouTube. Each month, a companion article is released with new tools and insights. Next month’s topic is Forgiveness. To explore more articles by The Skyline Institute published in Public Square Magazine, visit us HERE. You’ll also find our original research supporting The Family Proclamation, along with videos and podcasts, at TheFamilyProclamation.org. Follow us on social media for more.

The post Disagreements Bring Balance: When Silence Isn’t Peace appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

In Genesis, the people of Shinar came together to construct a great temple-tower (11: 1-9). By their hubris, they supposed they could, without the aid of God, build strong and high enough to reach Heaven. God, seeing their arrogance, cursed them. The previously perfect language which had passed from generation to generation became corrupted, and the Adamic tongue broke into the languages of the world. Misunderstanding and disunity scattered and divided the people from the incomplete ruins of their tower. Since then, fallen men have had to communicate one with another through the words of fallen language.

Over the period of a decade or more, a couple of our organization’s founders have traveled to another great tower––The United Nations in New York City––specifically to attend the Commission on the Status of Women, a global policy-making body dedicated to promoting gender equality and empowering women worldwide. In many ways, they observed and participated as the nations of the world engaged in and sought to legislate a tower that might reach the Heavens and bring peace to all the Earth. But too frequently, they observed how the very language one would use corrupted, and at times manipulated, any endeavor to bring about genuine equality or empowerment. The meaning and definition of words like love, equality, family, gender, marriage, feminism, (etc.) have been debated heatedly for hours at a time and from year to year. Such focused constructions of arrangements like family versus the family bore heavy consequences and connotations in the implementation of their practice. Each word means vastly different things to each attendee.

After years of frustrated efforts, they coined the term semantic ambiguity as a method of explaining their frustration, only later to discover it as a majorly discussed phenomenon amongst linguists. Semantic (or lexical) ambiguity is a form of verbal polysemy. 

Polysemy – when something has the capacity to have many meanings.

Poly – Many

Semy – Meanings

Some words are literally polysemantic. Words like light, bank, and cool each have multiple definitions. In addition, words’ connotations and concepts can vary significantly depending on an individual’s personal understanding or experience. Phrases and words like mental health, spiritual, and politics, or concepts like right and wrong, faith and science, or race and equity are all examples of words and concepts that may have very different meanings based on the context of the conversation and someone’s life experiences. And polysemy is not isolated to words but could include any kind of symbol; like flags, social groups, and even fashion. 

Semantic ambiguity is the frustrating experience when the appropriate interpretation of a word is unclear. This month’s video from TheFamilyProclamation.org’s Peacemaking Series discusses this topic.

In the video we see a playful analogy for when an innocently introduced idea turns into a squirrelly conversation of a highly debated topic. Perhaps it’s an uncomfortably relatable scenario, and semantic ambiguity doesn’t only relate to situations mentioned in the video, like politics, religion, and culture. It happens quite often, even when a parent or spouse asks, “Will you hand me that ‘thing’?” To which it seems the only useful response is, “What ‘thing’?”

Like the scattered builders of Babel, we wrestle with the fractured nature of language, striving to construct meaning amidst semantic ambiguity. By our assumptions, words––the basic brick for building bridges to understanding––can just as easily become barriers, shaping or distorting the truths they seek to convey. In the pursuit of peace—whether in the halls of policy or the intimacy of daily conversation—clarity should not be assumed, but constructed. Seeking to understand before seeking to be understood builds something lasting: the foundation of unity for a tower to Heaven.

The post From Babel to the UN: How Semantic Confusion Undermines Peace—and the Radical Power of Clarity appeared first on Public Square Magazine.