Download Print-Friendly Version

Dignity. That’s what’s missing from our politics. 

Leadership isn’t just about what you do; it is about how you do it. At the core of our humanity lies a profound longing for our dignity to be recognized—for the inherent worth of each of us to be acknowledged. As scholar Donna Hicks has written in her book Dignity: Its Essential Role in Resolving Conflict, “When we feel worthy, when our value is recognized, we are content. When a mutual sense of worth is recognized and honored in our relationships, we are connected.” Effective leaders facilitate relationships by cultivating recognition and respect for the dignity of others. Unaddressed dignity violations destroy connection, smothering progress and development.

The Constitution of the United States is built for disagreement. It not only expects conflict but channels it: elections instead of coups, courts instead of tyranny, justice over arbitrariness, and persuasion over coercion. But no amount of constitutional design can substitute for a culture where people choose to recognize one another as fully human. Dignity is not the opposite of conviction. It is the opposite of contempt. 

Leaders set in patterns of disparagement and contempt damage this culture. If we want a healthier political culture, we need to name the patterns in political leadership that are harming us and seek leaders who implement principles of dignity in their leadership styles. 

Why Dignity Collapses in Politics

The tendency to aggrandize oneself and demean others is, ironically, rooted in a lack of self-confidence. As Hicks further describes in her book, “The temptation to save face is as powerful as our fight-or-flight instinct … The dread of having our inadequacy, incompetence, or lack of moral integrity made known is enough to … do whatever it takes to protect ourselves.” 

That instinct shows up in politics as a familiar set of moves: avoiding, deflecting, dodging, and attacking instead of taking responsibility. It shows up as blaming rival administrations, condemning entire organizations or groups of people, and ostracizing opponents. It shows up as othering. 

While “othering” enemies is an oft-used war tactic, promoting dignity is a more effective approach to leadership because it harnesses individuals’ excellence. Honoring dignity promotes the self-respect necessary for proactive and practical greatness. You change people by introducing them to their goodness rather than demeaning them. Perceiving and appreciating the dignity of others helps to unlock their creative potential. 

I share five ways that politicians—and anyone, really—can emphasize the dignity of others in their leadership. For additional ideas, check out some of the resources provided by Project UNITE.

Principle 1: Lead by Recognizing Inherent Value, Especially in Your Opponents

If dignity is the acknowledgment and recognition of every individual’s inherent value, then the first test of leadership is simple: Do you talk about political opponents as fellow citizens, or as inferior people who must be shamed, crushed, or erased?

Notice that neither party has a monopoly on contempt or on dignity. It isn’t about ideology; it’s about integrity of character. On the left, dismissive rhetoric tossing entire communities into a moral rubbish heap has become a shorthand example of what it feels like to be written off. On the right, language declaring opponents “enemies,” “traitors,” or “enemy of the people” functions the same way—less as a critique of behavior than as a declaration that the other side is illegitimate. Dignity collapses when leaders use labels that convert people into caricatures, treat disagreement as proof of moral inferiority, and popularize contempt as entertainment.

This matters because contempt is contagious. Once leaders model it, followers feel permission to practice it.

Principle 2: Sidestep Shame and Blame to Get to Problem Solving

The strongest leaders are able to sidestep shame and blame in order to problem-solve. Rather than wasting energy on contempt, the most effective leaders focus on taking responsibility for what they can control and drawing out the goodness of others.

Dignity-honoring leadership, here, looks like owning mistakes without theatrics and naming trade-offs and limitations honestly. It means replacing scapegoats with solutions. Both parties have had their moments of success and failure. 

In the frantic days after Sept. 11, 2001, Republican Rep. John Cooksey of Louisiana suggested pulling over anyone who looked “Middle Eastern,” including anyone with “a diaper on his head” with a “fan belt wrapped around” it.  In 2018, Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California urged supporters that if they saw members of the Trump administration “in a restaurant” or “a gasoline station,” they should “create a crowd” and “push back,” telling them they were “not welcome anymore, anywhere.” In both cases, these are politics of humiliation that smother problem solving. 

Dignity-violating leadership like this makes a sport of blaming. It treats every setback as proof that others are incompetent, corrupt, or inferior. It assigns villain status to whichever target is useful that week: the previous administration, the media, the courts, the bureaucracy, immigrants, corporations, extremists, woke elites, or religious fanatics.  The labels change. The psychological pattern does not. Shame and blame feel powerful in the moment, but they suffocate progress and development. The strongest leaders are able to sidestep shame and blame to get to problem-solving rather than wasting energy on contempt.

Principle 3: Resist “othering”—because it builds fear, not strength

Some leaders believe that “othering” rhetoric promotes unity among the in-group. It often does—briefly. But it actually and ultimately engenders fear. And when our psychological safety is at stake, we are, as Hicks describes, thrust into “a frozen state of self-doubt, preventing us from accessing the positive power that is at our disposal once we see and accept our value and worth.”

The fear isn’t limited to outsiders. I’m part of the in-group now, but what if I’m the next one to be cut out? It seems fine until you are the one getting “othered.” 

Consider how President Trump othered his rivals, complaining that he had to fix “disasters” and “failed policies” inherited from a “totally inept group of people.” President Trump went on to say that “President Biden totally lost control of what was going on in our country.” Perhaps his task was difficult, but by claiming it was others who caused or failed to solve problems, he suggested he was somehow above them.

Dignity-violating rhetoric treats entire groups as suspicious, disposable, or beneath respect. It publicly humiliates opponents in an attempt to signal dominance. It turns politics into a permanent purge: who’s in, who’s out. 

Principle 4: Negotiate and Govern by Acknowledging Dignity First

Politics is negotiation—between regions, classes, generations, cultures, and moral codes. An effective negotiator acknowledges the dignity of any leaders’ attempt to protect their people, then moves forward to interest-based solutions.

Honoring human dignity begins with a basic posture: You are a human being with worth; now let’s argue honestly about what is right. In practice, this means starting with shared goods—safety, opportunity, freedom, flourishing—and treating opposing concerns as real, not fake. It means keeping criticism tethered to actions and ideas. It means arguing about ideas instead of attacking people.

Contempt can’t do this work. Emphasizing weakness, antagonizing, and enflaming hatred may feel like strength, but it is often simply avoidance veiled in camouflage. The alternative is the discipline of honoring dignity up front, and then digging into the substantive work of negotiating interest-based solutions. You can see flashes of that discipline when leaders refuse the cheap thrill of televised dunking and instead build coalitions around shared goods like stability, safety, and opportunity. Sometimes that looks like cross-party pairs who learn to argue honestly without degrading—think of bipartisan efforts like McCain–Feingold’s campaign finance work, or the strange-bedfellow coalitions that produced criminal justice reform in the First Step Act. Sometimes it looks like the unglamorous willingness to split credit and share blame, like the 1983 Social Security compromise shaped by Speaker Tip O’Neill and President Reagan’s team.

Both parties have been tempted by the cheap thrill of televised dunking. But doing the substantive work turns the theater of humiliation into governance.

Contempt doesn’t negotiate; it escalates.

Principle 5: Praise The Good In Others More Than Emphasizing the Negative

Honoring dignity will always be more effective than fostering disparagement and contempt. Honoring dignity promotes the self-respect necessary for proactive and practical greatness.

Leaders from both parties have had rare, powerful moments when they described the other side’s voters as understandable—neighbors motivated by real fears and hopes—even while fiercely disagreeing. You can hear it when Joe Biden, in his 2020 victory speech, told Americans to “lower the temperature,” reject the language of “red” and “blue,” and treat one another not as adversaries but as fellow citizens. You can hear it, too, when Republican Gov. of Utah Spencer Cox’s call to “disagree better”  warns Americans not to slip into the habit of treating one another—especially our political opponents—as enemies. 

And leaders from both parties have had destructive moments when they spoke as if the other side’s voters were beneath respect. The difference is not cosmetic. It is structural. Their language either builds trust in institutions and the rule of law, or it erodes it.

The Good News

The good news is that violations of dignity can be named, tamed, and healed; this rebuilds the civic trust on which strong communities are built and unleashes the inherent power of dignity.

Don’t be fooled by righteous indignation masquerading as political victory. Leaders (and each of us) can build this dignity dimension by praising the good in others rather than overemphasizing the negative, accepting responsibility for our actions, and choosing to popularize dignity validation.

Although I have focused on broader principles of dignity, there is no question that there are politicians today who have violated these norms with increasing frequency and severity. The sanctity of holding political office has been tainted by demeaning nicknames, dehumanizing political opponents, and contempt filled with shame and blame, both domestically and internationally. These behaviors are not the sole domain of one party or ideology. But having the most powerful leaders in the world disregard the dignity of others so often and so severely undoubtedly has a coarsening impact on our entire national discourse. 

Elected officials take cues about dignity from those who elect them. It is time for every responsible voter to pause in a moment of deep introspection and ask: Do I really value the inherent dignity of my fellow human beings?

The incentives we create will determine the leaders we get. If we reward humiliation, we will get more humiliation. If we reward dignity, we may yet recover the kind of political discourse where disagreement does not require degradation—and where progress and development are not smothered by contempt.

The post The Dignity Deficit appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

“Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.” —Martin Luther King Jr.

Sometimes the week’s sermons foreshadow a struggle that will soon knock at your door.

My wife, Missy, and I learned this recently in a peacemaking crisis with a neighbor, which came less than 24 hours after we heard two sermons on peacemaking. I’ll call our neighbor Alice (not her real name). She’s a short, stocky, 50-something woman who walks with a waddle. She loves animals. Between November and March, Alice feeds the crows pounds of peanuts. The result is a noisy murder of birds and a roof and yard (ours) littered with shells that clog our gutters.

Then, about six months later, on the Monday morning before Thanksgiving, Alice knocked on our door as we were busy preparing to leave for the airport.

“Did you put this on my door?” she asked. 

She showed us a piece of light blue paper with these words: “PLEASE STOP FEEDING PEANUTS TO THE CROWS!!!!!”

“No,” I responded.

“Did someone else in your house put it out? I know you don’t like the peanuts,” Alice said, her face and voice making clear she was not convinced by my denial.

“No, we didn’t put that sign out,” Missy said.

“Are you lying to me?” Alice asked.

“No,” I said.

I was terse because there was no time to talk. Like those birds, we had to catch a flight.

And with that, Alice shrugged her shoulders in frustration, turned around, and stomped down our steps. In her mind, we were guilty.

The next Monday morning, we were back home. A crow was on our skylight, pecking away at something. I worried the bird might chip the window. As I often do, I opened our front door to raise my hands and shew away the murder congregating on the street.

Alice saw this through her window and was steamed. She stormed over, knocked on the door, and asked to speak with me.

“I was on the phone with my daughter just a minute ago when I saw you open your door and wave the crows away,” Alice said, her voice on edge and full of spite. “I know it was you who put the sign on my door. You are sign people. You have a no soliciting sign and that other one asking people to not leave dog poop on their lawn. Why can’t we just talk about this and not behave like we’re in middle school? What is your problem with the crows?”

This was quickly turning into a Shakespearean tragedy, with Alice misinterpreting our every word and move.

I explained calmly that the crows’ pecking wakes us up and clogs our gutters. I could have added that their repeated noises bothers one of our daughters, who has sensory issues. And there’s also the potential for their pecking to ruin our roof.

As I closed the door, she lobbed one last verbal grenade.

“The crows are the nicest neighbors I have,” Alice said. “You are so mean!”

I immediately wondered—was I too forceful, too rash? The exchange rocked us and turned the day to ash.

The next afternoon, we composed a note of apology for misunderstanding her and regret for the scene that marred our Monday. Missy left it on Alice’s porch with a loaf of pumpkin chocolate chip bread.

Alice responded a week later with a brief note, sent via snail mail. She thanked us for the bread but did not apologize. Her words felt like a backhanded way of saying we are to blame.

With the wound still fresh and our minds in disbelief at her callousness, we tossed her note in our recycle bin. We wanted to be right. We wanted her to see the logic of our clogged gutters and our daughter’s sensory needs. But the ensuing silence was heavy. The poison of strife was setting in, that physical tightening of the chest that happens when a neighbor becomes an adversary.

It was here that the sermons from that Sunday began to sink in. The peacemaking process can be chaotic and confusing. As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King famously noted, “Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.”

Love and forgiveness are the only way forward. Thus our quick offering of peace. This Dr. King also knew. “Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that,” he said. “Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”

Alas, progress toward peace feels less like a victory march and more like the slow process of clearing a blocked gutter—one handful of debris at a time. But we will try. And we will keep trying.

We want to be peacemakers. But peacemaking is a long dance, a communal project that must be engaged in by both sides. Whether it is building muscle, better habits, stronger relationships, or a neighborhood and society where we simply respect and love each other, nothing comes to pass without Dr. King’s idea of “continuous struggle.”

In Moses’ reflection of the wonder of his theophany, we find a powerful phrase: “I beheld [God’s] face.”

Though this painful experience with Alice remains unresolved, it was an opportunity to behold her face up close—not merely as the “crow lady” or a source of drama, but as someone created in the image of God. We are commanded to love her who, at the moment, feels like an enemy. As the musical Les Miserables concludes, “To love another person is to see the face of God.”

The continuous struggle to find that divine face in the neighbor is the path toward the light of God. It is not paved with grand gestures or born of sudden, mountain top epiphanies, but is carved out of daily rhythms of relation where we smile at others, say hello, step into shared spaces, and listen. The struggle isn’t heroic—it’s habitual.

The post The Continuous, Habitual Struggle for Peace appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Americans have always been divided over politics, but the divide seems to be getting worse.  Members of the two major political parties overwhelmingly see members of the other party as “immoral” and “dishonest,” according to Pew Research. Approximately 11% of Americans are less likely to support a topic if they think there is bipartisan support for it, a YouGov poll found. For at least 11% of the electorate, not letting the other guy win is more important than winning.

But focusing on the statistics of divisiveness too much can obscure a different truth: Americans are not as divided as they seem. In fact, there is near consensus among Americans on a range of important political issues. Americans need to begin to see the political spectrum not as two sides split down the middle, but as a large block of consensus with extreme ideas at the ends of the opinion spectrum. Approaching political controversies from a perspective of unity rather than division is the first step to resolve the urgent political challenges we face today.

Media biases are well documented by groups like Ad Fontes and others that study media biases. Many modern media conglomerates combine incomplete facts with biases to present a cultivated reality, as several organizations have shown. When outlets are so skewed, the citizenry splits. 

President Dallin H. Oaks has also spoken of the dangers of division. In a 2023 address at the University of Virginia, he observed, “Extreme voices influence popular opinion, but they polarize and sow resentment as they seek to dominate their opponents and achieve absolute victory. Such outcomes are rarely sustainable or even attainable, and they are never preferable to living together in mutual understanding and peace.”

The result of this manufactured contention is division among Americans. Pew’s repeated values index shows the share of Americans at the ideological “tails” of the political spectrum roughly doubled from 1994 to the mid-2010s, with shrinking overlap between parties. The public is sorted more by party identity and values than in the 1990s, people feel colder toward the out-party than before, and elected officials vote in more unified, polarized blocs. Not only are politicians unwilling to work to achieve bipartisan successes, but prominent political leaders and media demonize their opponents.

In contrast, President Russell M. Nelson repeatedly called upon us to be peacemakers:

“Too many pundits, politicians, entertainers, and other influencers throw insults constantly. I am greatly concerned that so many people seem to believe that it is completely acceptable to condemn, malign, and vilify anyone who does not agree with them. Many seem eager to damage another’s reputation with pathetic and pithy barbs!  . . . Anger never persuades. Hostility builds no one. Contention never leads to inspired solutions.”

Are Americans really as divided on the issues as we are led to believe? No! Though this may come as a surprise, there is unity and consensus in America if we are willing to look for it. Some of the hottest political topics this year enjoy agreement from the overwhelming majority of the country. For example, 91% of Americans agree that protecting the right to vote is “extremely important,” according to a recent YouGov poll. Americans also overwhelmingly agree on establishing terms limits for Congress, capping annual out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, increasing federal funding to improve cybersecurity, and many other issues.

In spite of broad agreement among the electorate, political topics are often politicized, and the electorate and its representatives become divided. Yet the majority of both major parties agree on at least 109 policy proposals, according to a recent YouGov poll. In many cases the government actively works against the will of the people by neglecting this consensus.

A few examples of the 109 areas of agreement include:

• Increasing federal funding for public school accommodations for students with disabilities. Approximately 86% of respondents agreed federal funding should be increased for schools to support students with disabilities. This is a consensus opinion. Those who disagree are on the fringe on the topic.
• Requiring presidential candidates to take cognitive exams and disclose the results. 80% of all respondents think there should be a cognitive exam given to presidential candidates and those results be published before a candidate can be elected. That is a massive consensus.
• Increasing funding for the maintenance of national parks. 80% of respondents agreed that the federal government should spend more on national parks. The value of such parks is recognized globally and Americans overwhelmingly want their parks protected.

Areas of agreement exist for even the most controversial topics, such as abortion. For example, ninety-two percent of Americans agree that abortions should be legal in at least some cases. On the other side, seventy percent agree that elective abortions should not be legal in the third trimester. This consensus could be the beginning point of more productive discussions about preventing and regulating abortion. 

If there is common ground on abortion, there is common ground everywhere. On nearly every political issue, points of common acceptance and understanding can instigate paths to consensus solutions.

To be sure, we will not be able to resolve all political challenges in ways that make everyone happy. But that does not absolve us of our obligation to make a good-faith effort to find inspired solutions. President Oaks said, “As a practical basis for co-existence, we should accept the reality that we are fellow citizens who need each other. This requires us to accept some laws we dislike, and to live peacefully with some persons whose values differ from our own. Amid such inevitable differences, we should make every effort to understand the experiences and concerns of others, especially when they differ from our own.”

As followers of Jesus Christ, we can follow the counsel of our modern prophets as well as the example of our Savior, Jesus Christ. We start by respecting those around us and seeing them as our fellow brothers and sisters, in spite of their political positions. Satan seeks to divide us using geographical, societal, and political divisions to inspire disharmony. Rejecting labels placed on others for political reasons helps us to see situations—and others—more clearly.

True study of the issues, challenges, and potential solutions will drive us to open our minds and recognize what we have in common both as citizens and as children of God. The General Handbook of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints  teaches us to “seek out and share only credible, reliable, and factual sources of information.” Following this counsel will naturally drive us to limit polarized sources and seek out real truth, which likely requires engaging multiple perspectives and opening our minds to accept truth when we see it. When we start from the assumption that there is common ground, we can break free from the bifurcated political landscape in which we live.

“We urge you to spend the time needed to become informed about the issues and candidates you will be considering. Some principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties, and members should seek candidates who best embody those principles. Members should also study candidates carefully and vote for those who have demonstrated integrity, compassion, and service to others, regardless of party affiliation. Merely voting a straight ticket or voting based on “tradition” without careful study of candidates and their positions on important issues is a threat to democracy and inconsistent with revealed standards (see Doctrine and Covenants 98:10). Information on candidates is available through the internet, debates, and other sources.”

Leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ have delivered repeated prophetic counsel. Our duty as followers of Jesus Christ is to actively fulfill it by becoming peacemakers. So the next time you find yourself feeling outrage or contempt for what “they” think or do, remember: you probably agree with them on a lot of issues. The divide may not be as wide as you imagine. If we’re willing to look, perhaps we’ll find that “they” are standing right next to “us” on some important political topics. Peacemaking starts by rejecting the voices that look to divide us, recognizing what we already have in common, and building from there.

The post We’re Not All That Divided: The Myth of a Nation Split in Half appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

This is the 9th article in our Peacemaking Series. To read the previous article: You Don’t Need to Feel Forgiving to Forgive

Even small disputes can feel like an attack on the heart of a relationship. Words are twisted, intentions misread, trust frays, and bonds weaken under the weight of tension. Yet through gospel principles, even the most serious conflicts can be healed by separating the conflict from the person, practicing repair attempts, and addressing the deeper needs that fuel disagreement. 

This article accompanies a short animated video from the Peacemaking series created by the Skyline Research Institute. In partnership with Public Square Magazine, each installment in the series pairs one of the short, playful videos with a companion essay, bringing together conflict resolution theory, research, and scriptural principles to provide practical tools for building stronger families, communities, and societies.  None of this is to suggest that abusive cycles of domestic violence need to or should be repaired.

The accompanying video for this article portrays a symbolic “relationship heart” under attack by a crocodile, requiring expert conservation efforts to prevent its destruction. The image captures a simple truth: conflicts, if mishandled, threaten the very life of a relationship. Yet with deliberate and principled intervention, even serious disagreements can be transformed into opportunities for healing.

Conflict as a Multidimensional Phenomenon

Conflict does not emerge solely from sin. Competing desires, misunderstandings, cultural pressures, resource constraints, stress, and personality differences all play roles in producing tension. While the spirit of contention is not of Christ, contention is an attitude toward conflict, not the conflict itself. So while sin may intensify these pressures, it does not account for their entirety. This recognition matters because it opens space for understanding conflict as a natural, even necessary, dimension of human relationships, rather than an aberration to be eliminated altogether.

Scholars distinguish between task conflict and relationship conflict. Learning to distinguish the two can help people in a conflict find the appropriate resolution. Task conflict refers to disagreements about ideas, procedures, or goals, while relationship conflict involves perceived incompatibilities in values, personalities, or status. Too often, task conflict is mistaken for a relationship conflict. Task conflict requires situational creative problem-solving. Relationship conflict requires significant effort and attention. Task conflict has sometimes been considered useful for stimulating innovation, but in practice, its benefits depend heavily on trust, communication, and context. When handled poorly, even task conflict can grow into a relationship conflict.

Repair Attempts as Relational Lifelines

The research of John Gottman underscores why some relationships survive conflict (task or relationship) while others disintegrate. According to Gottman, repair attempts consist of “any statement or action … that prevents negativity from escalating out of control.” These may include humor, affection, a soft word, or an acknowledgment of responsibility. Crucially, repair attempts are less about eliminating conflict than about ensuring that conflict does not overwhelm the bond itself.

Gottman’s longitudinal studies reveal that successful relationships maintain an approximate 5:1 ratio of positive to negative interactions. This balance enables trust and affection to cushion moments of disagreement. Where positive expressions abound, repair attempts gain traction; where negativity dominates, repair attempts fail to take hold.

From this perspective, repairing a relationship requires deliberate cultivation of gratitude, appreciation, and forgiveness, ensuring that conflict remains a temporary disruption rather than a permanent rupture.

Separating the Person from the Problem

Theologically, separating the individual from the conflict echoes one popular translation of St. Augustine’s appeal to “separate the sin from the sinner.” But remember, conflict does not emerge solely from sin. This distinction affirms that identity transcends wrongdoing, allowing space for compassion alongside accountability.

President Russell M. Nelson has similarly urged believers “to end conflicts in their lives,” pointing toward deliberate choices to interrupt cycles of contention. The Family: A Proclamation to the World reinforces this ethic by affirming that “successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.” Faith and repentance thus become relational as well as personal spiritual practices, enabling bonds to endure through moments of strain.

Scripture amplifies these teachings. “A soft answer turneth away wrath” (Proverbs 15:1) highlights the power of repair attempts. Christ’s counsel to “agree with thine adversary quickly” (Matthew 5:25) affirms the urgency of reconciliation. And the Lord’s commandment, “be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine” (Doctrine and Covenants 38:27), emphasizes the divine importance of unity.

Three Conservation Steps

The metaphor of “relationship conservation” highlights the need for careful, intentional action when bonds come under threat. These three steps help provide a structured approach.

Step One: Separate the Relationship from the Conflict

When disagreements emerge, the first task is to distinguish the conflict from the relationship itself. Emotions associated with the issue must not be allowed to contaminate perceptions of the person. In academic terms, task disagreement should not become relationship conflict. In theological terms, sin should not obscure divine worth.

Illustration: A sharp dispute over household chores does not mean affection has diminished; the issue is the task, not the person. “Sorry, I don’t mean to attack you—I’m just talking about the dishes.”

Step Two: Resuscitate the Relationship

Before addressing the substance of the disagreement, the bond itself requires renewal. Expressions of gratitude, acknowledgment of shared values, or gestures of affection resuscitate the relationship and create space for constructive dialogue. Gottman’s framework identifies such repair attempts as the decisive factor in whether conflict erodes or strengthens the bond. Within Christian practice, such moments parallel repentance and forgiveness, where humility and grace interrupt cycles of accusation.

Illustration: In the middle of an argument, a sincere “thank you for how much you do” can revive goodwill and open the way for resolution. “I know we’re both frustrated right now, but seriously, thank you for everything you’re doing—I feel grateful for you. You’re such a hard worker.”

Step Three: Address the Deeper Need

Finally, conflict resolution requires attention to underlying needs. A sharp exchange over scheduling may conceal a longing for recognition; frustration about money may mask deeper fear or insecurity. Kimball’s insight that sin reflects unmet need underscores this principle: resolution demands not only solving the surface issue but also addressing the emotional or spiritual heart.

Illustration: Anger over finances may reflect a deeper desire for security; meeting that need restores peace beyond the numbers. “I hear you about the finances. I can see why you feel that way. What can we do to help you feel more secure?”

Conserving the Heart of Relationships

Conflict in relationships is inevitable; destruction is not. When conflict emerges, whether from sin, misunderstanding, or competing needs, deliberate conservation measures can preserve the relational heart. Separating the relationship from the conflict prevents task conflicts from turning into relationship conflicts. Resuscitating the relationship through repair attempts interrupts cycles of negativity and reinforces the relational bond. Addressing deeper needs transforms conflict into an avenue for growth and intimacy.

The crocodile may attack, but the heart can be saved; relationships need not fall victim to disagreement. Instead, they may emerge stronger—evidence that even in the face of contention, peace remains possible.

The post Disagreement: Three Steps toward Relationship Conservation appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

In recent years, it’s become increasingly common to hear Latter-day Saints acknowledge—sometimes with real sorrow—that family relationships are getting more complicated. My family, like many others, is fractured by a variety of pressures, some relational, some religious, some political. We frankly don’t talk much anymore. For all intents and purposes, we’ve scattered. And yet, through it all, I remain active in my faith, trying to live and teach the gospel while navigating family dynamics that are often more painful than edifying.

I know I’m not alone. Pew Research has noted the sharp rise in both political polarization and religious disaffiliation in American life over the past 20 years. According to 2023 data from PRRI, about 27 percent of Americans now claim no religious affiliation at all. Gallup reported in 2021 that church membership in the U.S. fell below 50 percent for the first time since they began tracking it. Among young adults, those numbers are even more stark. Add to that a steady climb in family estrangement, and it becomes clear that the pressures on faith-filled families are immense.

Of course, this isn’t just an external cultural problem. Within the Church, the old social glue that once held extended families together—mission service, marriage, and weekly sacrament meeting attendance—no longer binds with the same universality it once did. Gospel living has become, in some sense, more intentional and more home-centered and church-supported. Faithful Latter-day Saints today are often raising children, ministering, and serving in callings alongside people they love who no longer believe. Sometimes those people are in their own homes.

So, how can someone in a situation like mine live the gospel without retreating into either isolation or bitterness? How can we pursue a life of conviction that is still open-hearted and gracious in divided circumstances?

First, it helps to acknowledge the emotional toll that fractured families take. A great deal of writing about faith crises focuses on those who leave. But those who stay often feel displaced in a different way. Many live with grief, confusion, or quiet shame, unsure of what they did wrong. It is not uncommon to feel spiritually alone, even when active in the Church. For some, a kind of survivor’s guilt creeps in. For others, fear about saying the wrong thing leads to chronic anxiety. These are real struggles that deserve compassion and care.

Second, we need a framework for understanding these divisions—one that recognizes not only personal pain, but deeper moral and epistemological divergence. While some separations arise from trauma or offense, many reflect fundamentally different assumptions about truth, authority, and what it means to live a meaningful life. As the apostle Paul asked, “What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14). Paul’s point is not to vilify ex-believers, but to emphasize that meaningful communion depends on shared foundations. Without them, even sincere efforts at connections can falter.

This divergence doesn’t remain abstract. It plays out in families, friendships, and communities. In our time, moral disagreement is often mistaken for personal rejection. Thus, when a believing parent expresses concern about a child’s choices, it is often interpreted not as loving guidance but as judgment or control. Likewise, when an ex-member critiques church teachings, faithful relatives may hear it as betrayal rather than sincere conviction. This cycle of hurt and misinterpretation creates a relational impasse.

Here, the principle of charity becomes essential—not the therapeutic empathy of modern discourse, but the scriptural virtue of love grounded in truth. Charity “rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6). It refuses to lie about what is right and wrong, but also refuses to give up on people. It allows us to keep our hearts open without compromising our convictions. In practice, this means listening without needing to agree, showing up without needing to fix, and loving without needing to control. It means resisting the urge to “win” conversations instead of making space for relationships to breathe. Latter-day Saint thinkers like Terryl Givens and Ralph Hancock offer helpful resources here. Givens describes faith as a chosen, relational trust rather than mere intellectual assent, and Hancock emphasizes the sacred role of moral authority in a fragmented age. Together, these perspectives help us understand not only why these divisions run so deep but also how we might navigate them with both clarity and compassion.

But knowing these things doesn’t automatically fix family estrangement. Faithfulness does not guarantee relational harmony. In fact, Christ Himself warned that loyalty to the kingdom might set “a man at variance against his father” and “the daughter against her mother” (Matthew 10:35). These words are difficult, but they remind us that division is sometimes the price of discipleship.

The point is not to force unity where it cannot exist. Rather, it is to live with integrity, trusting that the Lord sees the efforts we make and honors the covenants we keep. The family is not only central to the Plan of Salvation—it is also the arena in which we often experience our greatest mortal trials. But these trials, painful as they are, can shape us into more faithful disciples.

If I could speak to a younger version of myself, or to anyone just beginning to navigate these kinds of family fractures, I would say this: it’s okay to feel disoriented. It’s okay to grieve. You’re not failing because your family doesn’t look like the ideal. You’re not weak for feeling torn between loyalty to your faith and love for those who no longer share it. 

You may find yourself in situations where you don’t know what to say. A sibling makes a snide comment about the Church in a social media post. A parent quietly withdraws at the mere mention of the Church. A child rolls their eyes when you call for prayer. These moments sting — not just because of what’s said, but because of what’s lost: the ease, the shared language, and the sense of spiritual intimacy that once came so naturally. 

Practicing compassionate orthodoxy in these moments doesn’t mean pretending those differences don’t matter. It means choosing to stay soft-hearted anyway. It might look like biting your tongue when you want to defend the Church, not out of fear, but out of love. It might mean sending a birthday text even when you haven’t spoken in months. It might mean praying for someone who thinks prayer is meaningless. It might mean setting a boundary, not to punish, but to protect your peace.

If you’re feeling overwhelmed, remember: you’re not alone. Many faithful Saints are walking this same road. And while the path may be narrow, it’s not empty. The Savior walks with you. He knows what it is to be misunderstood, to be rejected, and to love without being loved in return. And He will strengthen you to love as He loves—with truth, tenderness, and hope. 

I’ve come to think of my own situation not as a personal failure, but as part of the cost of discipleship in a fractured world. I hope for healing, but I do not expect perfection. I pray for reunion, but I try not to demand it. Instead, I seek to live in a way that honors both truth and kinship, conviction and kindness. This is what I mean by compassionate orthodoxy—not a softening of doctrine, but a deepening of love rooted in fidelity to Christ.

The post When Loved Ones Leave the Church: Holding to Faith in a Fractured Family 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

The topic of listening to women recently made the rounds again in the online Latter-day Saint world as a result of a post by historian and podcaster Jared Halverson of Unshaken Saints. In the original post, Halverson, discussing D&C 25, lamented that women are leaving churches in higher numbers than men, and stated that women are “important in the kingdom of God” and, like Emma Smith, should “lay aside the things of this world.”

What would it mean for him and other men in the Church to “listen to women”? Listening is often rightly urged in public discourse—understanding the perspectives of others is important.  But often what is really meant is not “you’re not listening to me,” but “you’re not agreeing with me.” 

As Allyson Flake Matsoso has written previously in an article aptly titled “What Love Isn’t”: 

Without disagreement, there would be no need for tolerance. But now, tolerance has come to mean simply: accept what I believe or do as good and valid.  Yet validation is not true tolerance. Let’s keep the disagreement in the definition of tolerance. If we still hold to Christianity, or any form of objective truth, there must be disagreements, for we make the bold claim that our way is The Way.

During the 2020 “Great Awokening,” when I became deconverted from the social justice movement, I had many conversations with friends who insisted that I simply must not understand their positions or the lived experiences of minorities. No matter how well-versed in Foucault or Said or Derrida I was, my perspective was dismissed as ignorant and uncaring, rather than simply rejecting a worldview of which I had a deep understanding.

Likewise, when Elder Holland addressed BYU in what has now been dubbed the “musket fire speech,” he expressed deep caring and concern for LGBT+ Latter-day Saints, and noted the effort which the Brethren have dedicated to understanding and ministering to this population: 

Too often, the world has been unkind, in many instances, crushingly cruel, to these our brothers and sisters. Like many of you, we have spent hours with them, and wept and prayed and wept again in an effort to offer love and hope while keeping the gospel strong and the obedience to commandments evident in every individual life.

And yet this claim was ignored, and he was willfully misconstrued as having called for “musket fire” toward LGBT+ students. 

While I find it truly saddening that individuals interpreted that talk as a call to attack, I also find it genuinely concerning that a call to defend the gospel was met with so much hostility. In the same way, Halverson’s genuine expression of admiration for women and concern about what a catastrophic loss it is anytime a woman leaves the Church was so twisted into a paternalistic caricature, it is almost hard for me to take his critics’ arguments seriously.

But when faithful Latter-day Saint influencers concede ground to critics, it makes it harder for women of faith to express faithfulness. It grants authority to agitators to set the boundaries of what is acceptable to discuss in matters of faith. It tells faithful Latter-day Saint women that, yes, the critics are right, when you say that you are happy in your role as a woman, that you aren’t interested in priesthood ordination, you are hurting other women. 

My friend Meagan has written powerfully about the eye-opening experience it was for her when she joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at 15 years old, and saw the way the Church molds boys and men “to care for women and about women.” This was in stark contrast to many of the men she was exposed to in her traumatic early childhood. Latter-day Saint men, through service in the Church, become thoughtful, generous, gentle, and selfless leaders. But the women of the Church also need men who are bold and courageous, who defend faithful women and their viewpoints against the kind of emotional terrorism that is so common in online discourse. In the case of Halverson’s video, hundreds of women poured into the comments with words of support. Their perspectives are also important.

So are men listening to women in the Church? I asked some faithful sisters I know about their experiences feeling heard by men in the Church.

One sister shared that she had recently had to request a release from a leadership calling in her ward because of a change in family circumstances. Her bishop asked thoughtful questions about what was going on in her life and not only honored the request, but made an extra effort to look after her family during their challenging time. 

Another pointed to the many additional garment materials and styles that have been introduced in the past 15 years, which allow for more comfort and flexibility in clothing. 

One friend recently participated in a focus group facilitated by the Church for a new women’s podcast pilot. She met virtually with women of diverse backgrounds and life circumstances to give feedback about the direction of the podcast and to share more broadly about what they would like to see more of in church media. 

For myself, I recall a Face-to-Face in 2018 with Elder Quentin L. Cook and the late historian Kate Holbrook, where Elder Cook deferred to Dr. Holbrook to teach and testify about church history, including tough topics like polygamy. I also think of my own family and the families of many of my friends—women are valued decision makers in Latter-day Saint homes, with the important stewardship of not only caretaking and nurturing but also secular and gospel education.

But as a general membership, we must choose which voices we listen to. We cannot hear and validate all perspectives; we cannot agree with everyone; we cannot caveat every testimony. What women am I choosing to listen to on matters of faith? I am choosing to listen to the women who teach and testify of the Savior and His gospel. 

I do not believe it was a coincidence that the parable of the ten virgins was cited at least five times during this last general conference. Our leaders are trying to help us refine our focus toward the Savior and prepare for His second coming. To that end, while we should all embrace our friends of all faiths—including our more heterodox or progressive Latter-day Saint friends—there is also wisdom in filtering our own social media so that it supports our faith in Christ, or at the very least is not actively working against faith. We need to turn off and tune out the voices that do not help us hear Him. 

President Camille Johnson of the General Relief Society recently gave wise counsel applicable both to influencers and podcasters and general church membership: “We are commanded to share His light. So, keep your lamp full of the oil of conversion to Jesus Christ and be prepared to keep your lamp trimmed and burning bright. Then let that light shine. When we share our light, we bring the relief of Jesus Christ to others, our conversion to Him is deepened, and we can be whole even while we wait for healing. And as we let our light shine brightly, we can be joyful even while we wait.”

The post Listening to Women—or Listening Through the Narrative We Prefer? 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.

The Need for Conflict Resolution

There is an increased sentiment of conflict and division amongst American and global populations. Are you amongst them? In light of recent exasperating events from the last half-decade, like pandemics, global conflicts, and a couple of divisive election cycles, it can be hard to feel “peace on Earth and goodwill toward men.” While these large-scale issues occupy our minds, conflict within close relationships can feel particularly unbalancing and disruptive to everyday life. Can you relate? Among other factors identified in research, those who report feeling they have a ‘great life’ attribute it to living in a great community and having loved ones they can turn to for help. Thankfully, there is a certain branch of study focused on solving arguments at the global and personal level: the study of Conflict Resolution. There are actual, scientifically designed and proven theories and methods for easing interpersonal conflict. Moreover, these theories don’t require a genius-level intellect to understand or implement them in personal life.

The Idea for a Video Series

Skyline Research Institute––a non-profit dedicated to bridging Christian discipleship with scientific theory––has joined forces with Public Square Media to introduce a 12-part series of videos explaining basic principles for Conflict Resolution. The video series has been in the works for a couple of years, inspired by two speeches from President Russell M. Nelson of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The idea for the project came to one of the project’s script-writers while listening to President Nelson’s message about the healing power of gratitude in 2020. At the time, this student and TA for a collegiate course in Interpersonal Theory and Practice, couldn’t help recognizing the correlation between President Nelson’s plea for “civility” and the basic principles from his coursework. Though initially postponed due to the challenges of the time, the concept found renewed energy when President Nelson later emphasized a similar call in his talk, Peacemakers Needed.

The Tone and Audience

Skyline Research Institute enthusiastically embraced the idea, recognizing the universal importance of conflict resolution and exploring ways to tailor the content for maximum impact. Once the series director and new script co-writer came on board, a vision emerged for a comedic tone. This approach aims to counter the heaviness of the subject material with light-heartedness, making the videos more emotionally digestible and consumable, particularly for younger audiences. To complement this tone, each video is paired with an article explaining in greater depth the theories or philosophy expounded in it, offering additional intellectual stimulation for more mature audiences—enter Public Square Magazine.

Content and Aesthetic

The creation of the videos is religiously motivated and correlates doctrines from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; however, the content of the videos remains secularly focused on explaining well-adopted theories in psychology, conflict resolution, and emotional management. Each video was inspired by direct quotations from President Nelson’s talk Peacemakers Needed, then paired with a relevant academic theory that explains the same principle. Coupled with quick editing, the animation style looks as if someone is drawing pictures on a whiteboard in a silly and perhaps even irreverent style of line art. The “artist” often uses personified objects or animals to convey a sort of pictorial symbolic analogy for the theory being explained. The visuals typically convey a literal interpretation of the narrator’s symbolic language exaggerating the irony in each figure of speech.

The Introductory Video: “Peacemaking”

With this article, we are excited to unveil the pilot video of the Peacemaking Series. It begins with a series of vignettes depicting rather chaotic interpersonal and global relationship metaphors: a person dancing around social landmines, relationships teetering on the edge of a cliff, and people throwing spears across the internet. While no wizard can grant a magic solution, a message of empathy and help for those with a genuine motivation for more peace in their lives follows. Each video within the series contains powerful principles for creating healthier relationships through perspectives and techniques of peacemaking.

One Interaction at a Time

We can literally change the world—one person and one interaction at a time. How? By modeling how to manage honest differences of opinion with mutual respect and dignified dialogue. ~ President Nelson

The series begins with its first piece of advice: Start by taking personal responsibility for changing the world around you one interaction at a time. Consider how this message echoes some of the greatest advocates for peace.

Gandhi ~ 

Peace requires one first to be brave enough to love another, and to trust another. That requires faith in oneself. One has not the strength to be peaceful if he is fighting the internal duel of selfish desires.

Confucius ~

Knowledge lay in the investigation of things. Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified. Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families being regulated, their states were rightly governed. Their states being rightly governed, the whole kingdom was made tranquil and happy.

Martin Luther King Jr. ~

We are not responsible for the environment we are born in; neither are we responsible for our hereditary circumstances. But there is a third factor for which we are responsible, namely, the personal response which we make to these circumstances.

Jesus Christ ~

If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first, be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. . . 

Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. (in Mathew 5:23-24, and Mathew 18:15)

Conclusions

Skyline Research and Public Square invite you to join us as we roll out these playful and quippy videos each month this year. The accompanying article is an opportunity to dive deeper into the theories and philosophies underpinning them; these videos and articles aim to serve as valuable resources for seminary teachers, professors, mothers, fathers, church teachers, and anyone seeking to enrich their understanding and teaching of these concepts. As a sneak peek, here is a list of all the episode titles. We hope it helps build some excitement, but most importantly, we genuinely hope these videos help you become a peacemaker within your personal relationships. Together, we wish you a happier New Year, with more peace on earth and goodwill to all.

Controlling Anger

Conflict Is Natural

Semantic Ambiguity

Positive Gossip

Bridges of Understanding

Disagreements Bring Balance

Forgiveness

Save the Relationship!

Conflict Management Styles

What Is Power?

The Resource Video

The post Peacemaking, Redefined: Why Civility Feels So Radical appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

In the wake of a polarizing hyper-partisan election, where caustic accusations have been heedlessly hurled in the hopes of securing one more vote, an old and ugly anger threatens to breach the protected and protective space of home and family. The unmerciful activism of cancel culture is a social cancer, and now we’re being told to take it home—a cancel culture home brew that can strain and break our closest relationships, leading to decades-long rifts.

Following the election, some pundits and journalists (here, here, here) are suggesting that for their own emotional health, family members may need to leave their chairs at family gatherings conspicuously empty. Others seem to advocate it as a form of familial activism, silently exclaiming by their absence their aggravation and irritation toward family members whose political views and choices are seen as contemptible, wrong, and hurtful. Some go so far as to configure it as an imperative moral issue. Ultimately, toxic contempt and contention are being promoted.

Whether posited as self-care, messaging, or retribution, heeding such supposedly “therapeutic” advice tempts us to only extend the political conflagration and turn family too into a scorched earth wasteland. Looking for somewhere to vent and someone to take the lash of one’s frustrations, family is, tragically, a convenient target, and the holidays are the immediately available venue. 

As a therapist, I predict a poor outcome, but common sense will lead you to the same conclusion. Let’s be clear about this, we are being tempted to concoct a cancel culture home brew. How is that going to turn out? In the moment, we may say to ourselves, “I really don’t care,” but that may be rash and can lead to regret. The Family Proclamation warns against “the disintegration of the family” and calamities upon individuals, communities, and nations that follow. Relationship rejection and repudiation, shunning, and ostracizing, like many other human impulses, may be personally palliative in the short run but is no prescription for the long-term well-being of anyone. The actions pundits are suggesting will only severely complicate a family’s future. Burning bridges is never more unwise than in the relationships we rely on the most. 

The pundits and media platforms on both sides of the political divide all thrive on “othering” and bogeyman narratives. Families, our most cherished, enduring, and essential attachment relationships, are torn apart by “othering.” Someday we realize that family is all we’ve got, and we emphatically say no to family “othering.” Cancel culture home brew is pure poison. 

Make Family Our Starting-Point Solution

Instead, families are our starting-point solution, the place where respectful pluralism begins and is practiced and polished. Family relationships can become our fixed star to navigate by, reminding us that relationships are primary. The choices we learn to make in our families can chart a course to a transformative public pluralism and peacemaking. Family can be our starting point from which we generalize relationship commitment and pluralistic practices. Family can be where we come to see pathways forward, guiding us in revitalizing society. We must resist the pundits who suggest we traffic cancel culture politics into the home, however common the trope may be.

Family Intervention

Let Thanksgiving for our family relationships and Christmas for the Prince of Peace help us get our bearings and refresh our relationship commitment to each other, even in the face of differences. Instead of becoming another front line in the battle, families can be our resort in times of trouble, our reminder of relationship priority and preeminence, and the relationship base from which we take our bearings and build outward and upward.

Families are our first introduction to pluralism. No family is a cookie-cutter replication. Each person is a unique encapsulation of humanity, personality, and experience, and the challenge and opportunity of pluralism only grows as the family grows. Adult children, the persons they marry, and the grandchildren that follow bring ever-expanding diversity and opportunity to put relationships first.

Instead of being the final casualty of our toxic politics, family relationships should be our reminder to lay politics aside at numerous critical junctures—such as home, church, and neighborhood—and refresh and renew ourselves in the joy of relationships that are so core and fundamental in our lives. 

On the heels of our political calendar, a time-out moment can be helpful, yet (as pundits’ words tainted with grievance clearly show) time-outs all too easily morph into a cold-shoulder retribution and punishment, hoping to hurt. Therapeutic time-out is a relationship-affirming pause as one prepares to return and repair, not withdraw. “I love you. Our relationship is everything. I’ll see you soon (definitely for the holidays), just give me a moment to decompress”—should be the affirming message and transparent motivation behind time-out.

Part of building and renewing relationships is curiosity, expressed through attentive listening. The experiences that have shaped each person can be a rewarding point of engagement, a wonderful human story worth diving into. The world’s most awe-inspiring destination is the landscape of the human heart, the unfolding panorama of the eternal soul, the breathtaking beauty of love—these are life’s can’t-miss experiences. Thanksgiving can be about sharing our stories, remembering the joys, the humor, the love, and being there for each other.

In time, even our perplexity over our differences can become a point of interest, exploration, and growth. In the process, we find that our priority values are constantly distilled, defined, and refined. We realize that our enduring attachment bonds mean the most and we begin more regularly to make choices that avoid amplification of differences into the realm of discord or contention. As family members develop relationships of respect, love, and mutual appreciation, a higher path of political rapprochement opens up. Surprisingly, as we keep relationships first, opportunities and the ability to occasionally talk politics and to listen to each other with genuine interest increases.

Families are there for us. We love them. We get upset with them. But we should never disown them over politics. Any party, politician, pundit—or anyone else—that tries to come between me and my family, that tries to drive a political wedge, that suggests I should disassociate or disown them, that puts politics above family, is … wrong.

Let’s not yield the home front to toxic politics but rather make our relationship education and experience on the home front a springboard to a more civil society. Aspiring to a happy Thanksgiving and Christmas, consider these resources for peacemaking (here, here) and for further down the road (this, this, this). President Russell M. Nelson observes: “Contention is a choice. Peacemaking is a choice. … Anger never persuades. Hostility builds no one.” Elsewhere he invites: we can “interact with others in a higher, holier way, … [we can] choose to be a peacemaker, now and always.” If there is ever to be peace on earth—and there will be—it will begin and be learned in love at home—through relationships created and sustained not by an easy compatibility but by unbreakable bonds of love.

The post Cancel Culture Home Brew: Political Self-Care or Dangerous Games? appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

At the core of Reiss’s argument is the assumption that Trump equates to Nazism. However, while many scholars recognize the problematic aspects of Trump’s rhetoric and policies, there is a broad consensus that he does not fit the definition of a fascist, much less a Nazi (and yes, there are distinctions between Italian Fascism and the racialized National Socialism of Nazi Germany, both of which differ substantially from Trump’s crude mix of conservative nationalism and populism). If experts don’t agree on Trump’s classification within the broader spectrum of generic fascism, it is irresponsible to label him specifically as a Nazi and imply that Latter-day Saints are guilty by association simply for voting for him.

Further, focusing on this one data point lacks nuance and fails to consider the broader attitudes of Latter-day Saints toward immigration, which tend to be favorable, particularly among those who have served missions. 

Put simply, the survey results do not reflect the complete picture. Utah has been designated a sanctuary state by the Salt Lake City Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.), largely due to the cultural and political influence of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Scholars note that while Utah is a very conservative state, its approach to immigration differs from national trends. Voters in Utah (and Latter-day Saint voters in general) often support strong federal border policies while advocating for a more compassionate stance at the state and local levels toward long-term illegal immigrants, reflecting a desire to balance the Church’s teachings on immigration which state that “every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders,” while also stating that “Families are meant to be together. Forced separation of working parents from their children weakens families and damages society.” A specific example of this in Utah was in 2011 when the Church lobbied for HB 116, a compassionate alternative immigration bill to more punitive bills being passed in states like Arizona. Evidence from voter polls suggests the Church’s lobbying efforts and public statements were effective in swaying the attitudes of Utah voters who identified as “very active” in the Church.

Lastly, Reiss references David Conley Nelson’s controversial book, Moroni and the Swastika, to argue that Latter-day Saints “accommodated” the Nazi regime. However, relying solely on this source is problematic; Nelson’s work has been taken to task for its polemical approach and sloppy scholarship. German Studies scholar Jonathan Green wrote a devastating two part review of the book pointing out gaping holes showing that Nelson misrepresents the research he cites and he makes audacious claims where the historical record is simply silent. Grant Harward is also critical, agreeing with Green that Nelson is overly polemical and that he overstates his case when he argues that German Latter-day Saints were uniquely accommodating to the Nazis compared to other religious groups. To be clear, neither scholar denies that there were Latter-day Saints who were Nazis or that the Church made mistakes in how they dealt with the Nazis. They only take issue with Nelson’s attempt to paint church leaders and German saints during WWII in the worst possible light when the historical data does not merit that conclusion. 

Additionally, newly discovered documents from the B.H. Roberts Foundation challenge Nelson’s conclusions. These records reveal that only 5% of German Latter-day Saints were members of the Nazi Party, compared to 10% of the general population. Joseph Goebbels banned James E. Talmage’s Articles of Faith for being too pro-Jewish, and Gestapo officials categorized Latter-day Saints as a “Sekte”—a designation that framed them as a cult to be monitored for anti-state activities. Some Nazis even believed President Heber J. Grant was a “Jewish millionaire” who controlled the banks in Utah. Gestapo officials were also aware of church leaders’ many statements condemning fascism and Nazism and categorized the Church’s teachings as subversive to the Nazi state. Their internal correspondences show that officials seriously considered banning the Church entirely but thought it unfeasible at the time due to the Church’s international connections.

In conclusion, Jana Reiss’s article misrepresents the motivations of Latter-day Saint conservatives, American conservatives, and the historical context of German Latter-day Saints under Nazi rule. Our political discourse is already fraught with polarization, and labeling those with whom we disagree as Nazis is unproductive. It is my hope that Reiss’s future discussions will embrace greater empathy and understanding toward those with differing views, especially toward her fellow co-religionists. Conservative Latter-day Saints are not going away, and she needs to learn to live with them without grossly misrepresenting their values and motivations.

The post How The Media’s Nazi Comparisons Fan the Flames of Division appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

In a low moment, both Ryan and Jeff explode in an online social media exchange that includes phrases like, “I honestly cannot fathom how any decent person could vote for ________.” Their relationship is deeply damaged. To make matters worse, each seeks counsel from members of his own (fiery) political tribe. Both tribes further demonize the former friend and “other,” who is canceled and socially damned.

It is now 2024. Ryan and Jeff have not spoken in nearly a decade. Both are painfully poorer for the loss of a deep friendship where, once, on occasions as poignant as family deaths, each had lifted and served the other like a brother. All this was lost over disparately checked boxes and a failure to remember that reasonable people can disagree.  

The names are changed but this story is true.  Perhaps you have seen the same “friend to ‘un-friend’ tragedy” in your own circle and have names of your own to throw on the waste pile containing the decaying remnants of Ryan and Jeff’s broken bond of brotherhood.

 America:  The Dream, the Vision, the “Great Idea”

As brothers and sisters in the American family living in a land unlike any other, we must individually and collectively be more civil, more wise, and more honorable than we have been in recent elections. There is a better way.

America is not only a land—it is a dream, a vision, a sacred yearning. Paul Hewson (better known as Bono), a 2006 Nobel Peace Prize nominee and winner of the 2008 Nobel Man of Peace Award, has frequently written and sung about this vision. As a youth, Bono saw his native Ireland torn by Catholic-Protestant intolerance that escalated to violence and resulted in bombing-related deaths among some of his closest friends and literal neighbors. These travesties presented a poignantly painful and perplexing puzzle for Bono as a child of a Catholic-Protestant interfaith marriage. Surely, he hoped, humankind could do better than hatred, violence, and blood-soaked ground. Bono recently wrote of both his native Irish home and the American dream:

Ireland is a great country, but it’s not an idea. Great Britain is a great country but it’s not an idea. America is an idea. A great idea. … America is a song yet to be finished. … Perhaps America is the greatest song the world has not yet heard. … (Surrender, pp. 463-464).

For Bono and many around the globe, America has offered and can yet offer light and hope via the religious and political tolerance, civility, and pluralism promised in the American motto E pluribus unum—from many, one. This dual-fueled flame of unity and plurality—of the right to hold sacred personal conviction coupled with authentic tolerance of others to believe differently—requires unwavering and acute diligence and effort.

Selling Hate Versus Honoring Different Roots

E pluribus unum is not a promised land, nor is it a birthright. It is the apex of a mountain that must be collectively ascended. Without intentional upward effort, the heavy gravity of political, religious, racial, and ideological differences drag us downward to disintegration and entropy. Indeed, the Neo-Nazi leader Lincoln Rockwell once said to Alex Haley, “The easiest thing in this world to sell is hate.”

Gratefully, Alex Haley refused to take the “easy” path of hate. Perhaps no American artistic product has wielded more impact and unifying force than Alex Haley’s subsequent effort, the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel (and landmark TV mini-series) Roots. Through Roots, America, the “great idea” was challenged, and “America the People” was confronted with the horrors of African slavery and invited to step onto the painful ground of African Americans in deepened empathy and respect. Many accepted that invitation, and, in some ways, America became a better version of herself. We still have rivers to cross, however.

It is relatively easy to have warmth, affection, and sympathy for a person or group with whom we share religious, racial-ethnic, or political ties. However, we find nowhere in the writings of world religions a statement that reads, “Blessed is the one who only loves the easily lovable.”

By contrast, various expressions of the Golden Rule—exhorting us to respectfully treat others as we would be treated—are prevalent across religious traditions. While it is frighteningly easy and destructive to hate, it is deeply honorable and constructive to develop friendships and relationships of trust with those whose experiences, beliefs, and views differ from our own. Love of one another—including those we are tempted to see as “the other”—is an ascension worth the required personal and collective effort.

Striving to Surmount the Empathy Wall of Political Differences

The philosopher Terry Warner echoed, “To the immature, other people are not real.” Similarly, one obstacle to achieving the aim of E pluribus unum is a concept the Berkeley sociologist Arlie Hochschild has called “the empathy wall”—a barrier that keeps us from truly seeing others as “real.”

While holding a strong progressive orientation herself, Hochschild made the concerted effort to live among, share meals with, and interview passionate (circa 2015) Tea Party supporters in Southern states with petroleum-based economies. In her book-length study, Strangers in Their Own Land (2016), Hochschild actively avoided the tendency of many social researchers to repeatedly steal the microphone from her participants, like a “diva soloist.”

Instead, Hochschild listened to the voices of others. She listened not only for hours but for months. She probed, prodded, dug, and came to better understand those persons who allowed her onto their porches and into their homes. Hochschild did not change her own political views, but she did pay the steep price to climb over “the empathy wall.” Her example resonates with the philosopher Martha Nussbaum’s statement:

[A]ny self-knowledge worth the name tells you that others are as real as you are, and that your life is not just about you, it is about accepting the fact that you share a world with others, and about taking action directed at the good of others.

Given the divisive and hostile climate that too often prevails in contemporary America, it has never been more important to intentionally surmount the empathy wall that can prevent us from “sharing a world” with others while also blinding us from viewing others as entirely “real” as we are.

Arlie Hochschild’s personal investment in the kind of expensive pluralism required to surmount the empathy wall is remarkable and motivational. Based on 25 years of interviews with religiously, racially, and ethnically diverse families in their homes, our team developed a visual representation of ascending over Hochschild’s “empathy wall” called the empathy ladder (see Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1 The Empathy Ladder

 An Overview of the Empathy Ladder

The journey offered by the empathy ladder leads us from the bottom rung of myopic ignorance to the second rung of tentative tolerance. From tentative tolerance, we can step up to indirect learning. Indirect learning can rise to healthy appreciation, and one step above healthy appreciation is relational learning. The descent to the personal, sacred ground of another person (on the other side of the empathy wall) includes stepping from relational learning to deep respect. From deep respect, we finally step onto the sacred ground of holy envy. Each additional step on the empathy ladder deepens our ability to appreciate another person or group. The more often we navigate the empathy ladder, the greater the enrichment we receive to our minds, hearts, and relationships.

Stephen Covey posited that the most important principle in human communication may be: “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” One person making this gracious effort can have ripple effects. Indeed, we have reported from our interviews with hundreds of strong married couples from diverse races and religious traditions that one of the foundational lessons these exemplary families illustrate is “the principle of lived invitation.” Namely:

“Our behavior is permission to others to behave similarly … but it is more than that. It is an invitation to do so.”

Our research team has further noted that “[L]ike individual persons, each religious tradition has its own quirks, blind spots, and foibles. … [T]aking potshots at these perceived weaknesses is a cruel game that can rapidly turn into a blood sport.” Indeed, these are games where no one wins. Instead of amplifying prevalent weaknesses we observe in other denominations or persons, we posit that it requires intention and strength to focus on the strengths of others. The effort to develop the kind of deep respect that is rarer than love can lead us to the final step of developing holy envy.

We believe that a full-souled expression of holy envy results from deeply honoring the best of one’s own religious tradition and people, coupled with a broadminded and large-hearted desire to also acknowledge, honor, and be elevated by the best of other religious traditions and people as well.

Our team has observed and documented that religion wields what de Tocqueville called a “peculiar power”—a power that can destroy or construct, harm or heal. Like religion, political passion also wields peculiar power. Can the political empathy wall be surmounted so that contentious division can be replaced by “deep respect”?

A Political Vision of Surmounting the Empathy Wall

We began this report with the tragic reality of Jeff and Ryan’s terminated brotherhood— former friends who opted to lob verbal grenades onto the other side of the empathy wall instead of making the effort to surmount the wall and see the person on the other side as “real.” We now turn to an alternative model for the 2024 election cycle.

Pam Monroe spent her early career in Progressive politics with an especial passion for policy designed to help and lift those in poverty. Pam’s career eventually shifted to academia where she would hold an endowed professorship at LSU. Pam was widely and highly esteemed by colleagues (liberal, moderate, and conservative) and, in 2004, was elected President of the National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) while still in her 40s. Throughout her career, Professor Monroe’s focus never shifted from her concern for those in poverty. But caring for the poor was not Pam’s only love. “Everything I am,” she has repeatedly said, “is because of the love of Jim Garand.”

Jim Garand, like his wife Pam, has held an endowed professorship at LSU for decades. Like Pam, Jim was elected President of a large academic organization (The Southern Political Science Association) at a relatively young age. Unlike Pam, however, Jim is a committed Conservative—one who has frequently had to look beyond his party’s primary nominees in recent elections.

Both Pam and Jim are powerhouses. Both are articulate, enigmatic, passionate and have no difficulty expressing themselves and speaking their keen minds. Given these realities, it may seem that the stage was set for an epic battle and a very brief marriage—one likely featuring pyrotechnics. However, the years have yielded something quite different. You see, both Pam and Jim know how to listen to each other with deep respect. In connection with queries about this, Pam responded,

I fear you give us too much credit—rather, that you give ME far too much credit. Jim is the peacemaker. I’m just not an idiot.

Further, from Pam’s perspective, “We haven’t bridged a gulf quite so wide as the essay references.” Perhaps Pam is right. She usually is. However, she and Jim are the closest thing that this author has ever seen to embodying the elusive American ideal, so we will continue. Jim responded,

Pam likes to say that marriage is the best hard work that one ever does, and dealing with personal political division in today’s polarized United States is not easy and reflects that “hard work” theme. Sometimes it involves one of us listening without comment to the other rant over something that one of us finds outrageous. Sometimes, it involves not bringing up a touchy topic when emotions might be raw. It also involves not trying to score cheap political points or use “zingers” on the other. In intense political discussions, it can be difficult to show this kind of restraint.

To recap:  From Pam and Jim, we have references to peacemaking, bridging gulfs, shared “hard work,” and often “listening without comment” with mutual “restraint.” It sounds a bit like Durant’s “river of fire” wisely banked at a thousand turns. Notably, a profound respect for each other and their relationship is evident and woven into both partner’s comments.   

Pam and Jim’s marriage has subsequently inspired deep respect and holy envy in many who have observed their blessed union over their more than 40 years of marriage. Pam and Jim offer a hope-filled reality to an America plagued by political division. Pam and Jim both play fair and acknowledge many conspicuous flaws in both major parties … including certain candidates their preferred party has nominated. Pam and Jim’s political values are different, but both of these remarkable persons have surmounted the empathy wall so frequently for each other that they also share a great deal of sacred ground. Whatever political winds have blown over the past four decades, they have refused to surrender the rock of their respect-filled relationship.

The Purpose and a Plea

It is uncertain which parties and candidates will prevail in various elections in 2024 or during the next contention-filled election cycle. Whatever the poll results this month or in the future, Pam and Jim will continue to “seek first to understand,” they will continue to warrant and offer deep respect, and they will continue to love one another. If they can do so for four decades, maybe the rest of us can do likewise with the politically opposing loved ones that we have not yet foolishly canceled.

In the contention-riddled face of the cannibalistic political “now,” my purpose here is a plea that we each honor the timeless, sacred, and inherent worth of relationships between persons. May we be wise enough to “do politics,” civility, and respect in a way that embodies the American ideal. A question for each one of us remains:

“Am I willing to climb the empathy ladder for someone else?”

A passage from the Jewish Zohar reads:

A wise man knows for himself as much as is required, but the [person] of [true] discernment apprehends the whole, knowing both his own point of view and that of others. … He apprehends the lower world and the upper world, his own being, and the being of others.

May we all more wisely and respectfully discern and “apprehend” the faith, the political beliefs, and the being of others. May we make the effort to surmount the empathy wall rather than lobbing verbal grenades over it. May we move closer to the “great idea” of America.

The post The Great Idea of America: Lessons from a Mixed-Politics Marriage appeared first on Public Square Magazine.