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

What is power? Even without a formal philosophical framework, it is easily recognizable in a multitude of dynamics: physical power, electrical power, political power, military power, economic power, intellectual power, social power, persuasive power, spiritual power, and more.

In a conflict, what can be done when it seems the other party has all the power? As Christians, should we desire power? And if so, what kind of power is righteous, and what kind is destructive?

The Series

This is the second-to-last article in the 12-part series published by Public Square Magazine and written by the team at TheFamilyProclamation.org. Each article expands on the ideas from 12 short, 1–2 minute videos in the playful yet poignant Peacemaking Series. 

This week’s video, “What is Power?”, offers practical suggestions for navigating the power dynamics inherent in conflict resolution. The video uses the visual analogy of two children playing baseball to illustrate power plays that emerge in conflict. Its dual purpose is to help those who feel powerless recognize the power they do have, and to caution those who abuse power that they bring upon themselves natural consequences because of their abuse. 

Power Defined: Control Over Resources

“What is power?” the video asks. “Perhaps the simplest definition is the ability to control a resource.” While this simplifies a vast and complex topic—one debated by Western thinkers from Plato and Aristotle to Locke, Marx, Foucault, Piaget, and Bourdieu—it provides an accessible entry point. This thesis seeks to provide an accessible, utilitarian definition that helps a person recognize their own power.

Viewed through this lens, a sense of powerlessness stems from a lack of control or an ignorance of or undervaluing of personal resources. Resources are not only external, like money, property, information, or authority, but internal as well: like participation, patience, integrity, ingenuity, empathy, motivation, faith, or moral conviction. Increasing one’s power becomes a matter of recognizing available resources and learning to exercise mastery over them.

Mastery and Self-Control

But what does it mean to be a “master”? Consider Christ, who taught, “Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted” (Matthew 23:10-12). True mastery is not domination, but compassion and self-control.

Christian discipleship emphasized such power of persuasion emanating from an internal purity of charity. We love God because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). Charity is a gift from God, yet manifests itself within a disciplined inner self (see 1 Corinthians 13:4-8). There are resonances of this principle beautifully expressed in ancient Asian philosophies. Confucius illustrated that an empire’s “good government” radiates out from the individual citizen’s self-mastery of heart, thoughts, and knowledge. Similarly, the Taoist believes “mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power.”

The Baseball Analogy: Play as Power

Patience, long-suffering, and charity are not merely moral virtues—they are practical strategies that make influence sustainable. Power emerging from coercion or fear may achieve immediate results, but will eventually fail.

In the video, a larger child wishes to play baseball with a smaller friend. When the larger child’s aggressive play causes an injury, the smaller friend no longer wants to participate. This simple example illustrates a profound principle: abusive systems of power eventually lose the participation of those they seek to dominate. Tyrants are overthrown; corrupt institutions collapse; cheaters stop getting invited to play. 

The childhood adage “It doesn’t matter whether you win or lose; it’s how you play the game” captures a deep truth about sustainable power: Those who respect others’ agency and fairness and elicit joy inspire continued engagement.

Dr. Jordan Peterson illustrates life as a series of successive and increasingly complicated games. While winning is important, whether or not an individual wins the immediate game isn’t the most important objective. Fair-play is the quality of an individual who engages effectively in the “meta-game”; they demonstrate they are a person worth playing with and therefore attract playmates. Someone who wins repeatedly but fails to play fair will eventually exhaust their playmates. This might explain why someone can “win” some games (like the financial game of life), but “lose” in other games (like the relationship game of life).

The solution is mutuality: power is most durable when all parties willingly participate. Participation is power. And, play motivates participation. Systems perpetuate themselves when participation is voluntary, and relationships thrive when engagement is balanced and mutually beneficial. Whether we “win or lose” in any particular interaction is often secondary to whether our behavior encourages ongoing participation and trust. 

Using Simple Resources

Power often begins not with influence over others, but with the careful stewardship of the resources already at one’s disposal. Consider William Kamkwamba, who, as a young boy in Malawi, built a windmill from scrap materials, bringing electricity to his village through ingenuity and persistence. Malala Yousafzai, despite attempted murder and continued death threats, risks her own safety to insist on women’s right to education—wielding her voice and persistence as resources to inspire global change. Mother Teresa used the simplest acts—tending the sick, feeding the hungry—to exert a quiet but transformative influence over those around her. Harriet Tubman’s courage and careful planning allowed her to lead countless enslaved people to freedom using her knowledge, relationships, and tireless action as her tools.

In each case, these individuals did not possess vast power in conventional terms like money, authority, athleticism, or status. And, in most of these examples, there were even adversarial individuals who utilized all the resources they had to try to stop these good-doers. But these impressive individuals got scrappy using what resources they did have, countering their antagonists, and succeeding in their goals. Their strength came from recognizing the resources they did have, like skills, relationships, knowledge, moral courage, and choosing to act. These examples demonstrate that sustainable power grows from within, from conscience, compassion, the willingness to act, and inviting others to willingly engage in the pursuit of justice, truth, and good. 

Power and the Christian Perspective

The gospel reframes our understanding of power. Power is not inherently good or evil. When aligned with God’s will, we become powerful in healing relationships, strengthening communities, and fostering enduring peace. Christ Himself never sought domination. He healed, taught, and served—exercising influence through love, persuasion, and example rather than force.

Influence rooted in persuasion, patience, and love aligns human relationships with divine law, creating sustainable cooperation and peace. When everyone wants to play, the game is on.

The post The Paradox of Power and the Secret Strength of Meekness appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

The Nuances of Emotional Control

It can be easy to vilify an emotional response in an argument––especially anger––but if we can learn anything from Star Trek’s Spock, emotions are not a weakness. It is difficult to know which happens first, thoughts or emotions. There are different models arguing for both sides of the debate, and this article does not promote one side or the other. Functionally, it is effectively impossible to separate or isolate any interaction into its purely emotional or logical aspects. Like Spock, peacemaking wisdom would teach us to recognize an argument holistically as both emotional and logical. Once an emotional response has taken hold in an argument, it needs to be addressed.

This episode portrays an extremely relatable scenario. Two people are in a verbal conflict, and a volcano of boiling anger rises within one of them. The episode then depicts an analogy. As the adrenaline response takes hold of the angered person, it sends a super fast hare with a message to ‘fight, fly, or freeze.’ Taking a few deep breaths controls the internal emotional situation and gives enough time for the tortoise––sent from the rational part of the brain––with a more thoughtful message to arrive, which says, ‘Getting mad at this person isn’t going to help.’

Just like Glinda, we don’t justify ‘flying off the handle.’ But too often, messages like ‘take a deep breath’ or ‘calm down’ are used in an argument as emotionally manipulative or dismissive pieces of advice. It is as if someone feeling strong emotions automatically ‘makes’ them or their argument incapable of being rational, which isn’t true. And while it may seem like emotion and logic are opposites, in reality, a rational conversation isn’t the opposite of an emotional or––perhaps more accurately––an emotionally sensitive conversation. So while we agree Elphaba is justified in her anger, letting strong emotions take over the conversation becomes as equally unproductive as ignoring them. So please feel assured when we say, ‘take a deep breath,’ we don’t mean it dismissively; we mean it constructively . . . and literally.

The Deep Breath Technique

Taking slow deep breaths in emotionally charged environments (e.g. awkwardness, anxiety, pain, anger, sadness) has massive benefits. Taking a deep breath can;

• Increase your personal supply of oxygen, encouraging better physical and brain function, including mental and visual acuity
• Suppress undesired symptoms of an adrenaline response like rapid heart rate, limb stiffness, or restlessness
• Slow the verbal response time and pace within an argument into a more thoughtful rhythm giving both sides more time to consider the situation, and their own behavior and combat emotional flooding
• In some circumstances, this activates a mirror neuron response––the same response that makes yawns ‘contagious’. Your deep breathing may encourage those present to take a deep breath, granting them all the same positive benefits without you having to tell them to slow down, calm down, or take a deep breath.

While the benefits of deep breath matter, it is also important to notice the limitations of such an exercise. They are not guaranteed to:

• Change your emotion
• Change the emotions of others
• Solve the central conflict

The Deep Breath Technique is not a magic pill. All of our solutions will have limitations and require consideration in their application. In emotionally charged environments, remove the expectation from yourself and others that emotional control techniques are a method for completely sedating or getting rid of negative or strong emotions. Emotional control, like a muscle, gets stronger and more effective with repeat attempts. And no matter how long, deep, or repeated, taking deep breaths will not erase your emotions or resolve the central problem. The purpose of the Deep Breath technique is to increase personal emotional control as you seek to resolve the central conflict of the circumstance.

Why Should We Avoid Behaving Out of Anger?

All episodes in this series are inspired by principles in President Nelson’s call Peacemakers Needed. This episode proposes the Deep Breathing Technique as a first step solution for increasing personal emotional control when trying to follow President Nelson’s counsel to end hostile confrontations.

Anger never persuades. Hostility builds no one. Contention never leads to inspired solutions. Regrettably, we sometimes see contentious behavior even within our own ranks. We hear of those who belittle their spouses and children, of those who use angry outbursts to control others, and of those who punish family members with the “silent treatment.” We hear of youth and children who bully and of employees who defame their colleagues. . . this should not be. As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are to be examples of how to interact with others—especially when we have differences of opinion. One of the easiest ways to identify a true follower of Jesus Christ is how compassionately that person treats other people. . . The Savior’s message is clear: His true disciples build, lift, encourage, persuade, and inspire—no matter how difficult the situation.

If you consistently find yourself or feel guilty about having used anger in the past, the solution is simple: repent and change. Shake the devil off your back and start living the less angry life you want for yourself and those who live around you. Elder Boyd K. Packer explained, ‘True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior. The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior.’ Ponder President Nelson’s words and change your life now by using the Topical Guide and Bible Dictionary to study scriptures about Anger, Gentleness, Meekness, Kindness, and Charity.

What Scripture Says About Anger

If you’re still not convinced, consider some of the following statements from scripture:

Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools, (Eccl. 7:9)

Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go, (Proverbs 22:24)

The slow to anger is better than the mighty, (Prov. 16:32)

Thy gentleness hath made me great, (2 Sam. 22:36)

Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye, (Matt. 7:12) (3 Ne. 14:12)

Be ye kind one to another, (Eph. 4:32)

Love one another, as I have loved you, (John 15:12)

No better dissertations could be discovered on motivational appropriate conflict management than Christ’s Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, His final counsel with His apostles the night before His suffering in Gethsemane and Crucifixion in John 13-17, or His counsel to the Prophet Joseph Smith while imprisoned in Liberty Jail in The Doctrine and Covenants 121: 33-46–– 

[Power or influence ought to be maintained] only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge . . . without hypocrisy, and without guile . . . then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God . . . The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means, it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

One might justify inappropriate behavior as “reproving betimes with sharpness,” but they would be deceiving themselves and others. President Faust makes it very clear in his experience “The Holy Ghost moves to reprove with sharpness only very rarely.” And, “any reproving should be done gently in an effort to convince the one being reproved that it is done in his own interest.” Another excellent Church resource clarifies appropriate synonyms for the words reproving, betimes, and sharpness.

And let’s not forget, even after ‘correcting gently before it is too late with clarity’ as prompted by the Spirit, the same scripture instructs to ‘then [show] forth afterward an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved.’ If reproachful instruction can’t end with sincere or unfeigned expressions of love on both sides, it’s being done wrong. Because, ‘he that preacheth and he that receiveth [by the Spirit of Truth], understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together . . . that which doth not edify is not of God’ (D&C 50: 22-23).

Consider a More Utilitarian Perspective

It seems like a tall order to create the sort of conversation described above, but consider this. Utilitarian Philosophy focuses on promoting behavior that maximizes the benefits of everyone involved versus doing what may seem obvious or attractive. As an example, if I were the manager of an underperforming employee and my interactions with this employee were often laden with awkwardness, then it would seem attractive to either fire this employee and find a new one or just ignore them entirely. It may also seem obvious to pull this employee aside and discuss ‘strategies’ for improving their weakest performance indicators. But are these the most effective ways of maximizing benefits for everyone involved?

As another example, yelling at or threatening children into obedience may seem obviously effective, especially if the two of you have a hard time understanding each other. Or, placating unruliness or abdicating appropriate discipline for a child’s disobedience may seem attractive. But are these the most effective ways of maximizing benefits for you, the child, and your relationship? Such behaviors lead to prolonged tension within family relationships and children who grow into adults without emotional resilience. An incredible and highly enjoyable read, Leadership and Self Deception promotes strategies that are just as effective in the home environment as they are in a business environment. Spoiler Alert! People respond the same at home, work, or school; everyone needs accountability to grow, and no one responds well to anger or shame.

• What do I really want?
• What is the most helpful thing I could do?

If you really want the current conflict to become productive, don’t just default to the attractive or obvious. Spock’s unique advantage is his holistic incorporation of human emotion with Vulcan logic. Elphaba’s magical power is harnessed by the control of her emotional impulses.  Whether a crew member of the USS Enterprise or magicking spells from the Gimmerie, gaining the power to defy gravity and go where none have gone before comes by harnessing passion; both are liberated in flight according to their emotional mastery.

What’s to Come?

The first three videos of this series lay foundations by exploring the internal state of a person in an argument. In our first episode, we focused on building the motivation to become a peacemaker and accepting personal responsibility. In this article’s episode, we’ve explored emotional control and particularly controlling anger. In the next episode, Freudian and Jungian psychology will help us take a trip inward to reflect on the word conflict itself. The episodes after that will explore a variety of interpersonal communication and problem-solving techniques for conducting and analyzing conflicts toward positive resolutions. We hope you join us for the journey.

The post The Art of Peacemaking: Controlling Anger by Bridging Logic and Emotion appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

We should defend the importance of the family as a stabilizing force in society—a spiritual and emotional respite. However, paradoxically, there is another argument for why we should be grateful for the influence of the family: there is no respite from your own big brother, and there is little stability in your relationship with your moody little sister.

Think back to your childhood. You hopefully have fond memories of laughter and play. I hope that those memories are the most vivid for you. However, for the sake of my argument, try to remember the reality of daily life with your family. Maybe your big brother ignored you, your sister was hyper-sensitive, or your dad was hard to please. But the reality of familial discord does not negate the good times. In fact, I argue that it makes them all the more miraculous.

But why would we want to defend families if this is the case? As we learn in Romans 5 and hear so often over the pulpit, suffering breeds character. “We rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope.”

Chesterton emphasizes the conflict implicit in family life not as a discouragement against family but as an enticement to those of us who genuinely want self-improvement, “The best way that a man could test his readiness to encounter the common variety of mankind (to test his goodness) would be to climb down a chimney into any house at random and get on as well as possible with the people inside. And this is essentially what each one of us did on the day that he was born.” 

Why Familial Loyalty is Crumbling

Modern thinkers often reject the family because of the conflict and clashing personalities that are so often found there. They say it thwarts happiness and dampens freedom. Many feel we should be able to choose our associations rather than have to deal with unfavorable family relations. This is why we see more people breaking away from family. Indeed, one in four adults now say they are estranged from a family member. A recent article in the New Yorker discusses the reasons why an increasing number of people are having “no contact” with their parents. This is due in large part to shifting political or religious ideals or the inability to get along. Rather than condemning this trend, the author seemed to conclude that there is no way out for many families. One secular estranged daughter said of her religious parents, “Reconciliation, for me, would mean them doing a bunch of work, and I don’t think they’re going to, so I just need to move forward like it’s not going to happen.” And so, the estranged move into like-minded communities, read their favorite political pundits, and become comfortable with their chosen clan. 

Family reconciliation demands work—work that is continual and difficult for all involved. Many don’t seem willing to make that sacrifice anymore. The Christian values of forgiveness and humility seem outdated and we would rather just have a life of ease. But a life that is surrounded only by people who make us comfortable is a small world indeed. As Chesterton says, “We make our friends, we make our enemies, but God makes our next-door neighbor … That is why the old religions and the old scriptural language showed so sharp a wisdom when they spoke, not of one’s duty toward humanity, but one’s duty to one’s neighbor.” 

“Progress” is one of our favorite words, but we just don’t hear much about “becoming a good person.” Yet, if we want progress, surely the only path toward it is for individuals to improve themselves and become virtuous. Throughout human history, the quest for “goodness” has been the driver of great minds as well as common men and women. Great thinkers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle spent their lives seeking to define and comprehend virtue and to teach us how to live a “good” life. Their intellectual descendants in philosophy, theology, and literature have long tried to work out the way to virtue. Guiding children onto the path of goodness was once the backbone of education. Plato even defined education this way, “Education is teaching our children to desire the right things.”

Our children are now being schooled without the benefit of McGuffey Readers. Many of their lessons would seem judgmental or overly prescriptive to our modern relativist viewpoint. School curricula rarely mention “virtue” or overcoming adversity but instead focus on achievement and happiness. The traditions and morals of our ancestors crumble, and children are left with endless choices and no clear expectations of life. Children unschooled in virtue may decide that the struggles of family life impede their achievement or happiness. Therefore, we should not be surprised by free-falling marriage and birth rates.

“There is no doubt that it is around the family and the home that all the greatest virtues, the most dominating virtues of human society, are created, strengthened, and maintained.” Winston Churchhill

As Christians, however, we seek after virtue, accept suffering as part of mortality, and desire much greater ambitions than a mortal life of comfort. We want a life that demands things of us, that stretches us—we want an adventure. Chesterton explains, 

Adventure is, by nature, a thing that comes to us. It is a thing that chooses us, not a thing that we choose. The supreme adventure is being born. There we do walk suddenly into a splendid and startling trap. There we do see something of which we have not dreamed before. Our father and mother do lie in wait for us and leap out on us, like brigands from a bush. Our uncle is a surprise. Our aunt is a bolt from the blue. When we step into the family, by the act of being born, we do step into a world which is incalculable, into a world which has its own strange laws, into a world which could do without us, into a world that we have not made. In other words, when we step into the family, we step into a fairytale.

If we take control over our lives, free ourselves of pesky relatives, and create a society for ourselves, we will block ourselves from any humbling relationships that aid our virtuous progression. As Chesterton says, we may create a society “for the purpose of guarding the solitary and sensitive individual from all experience of the bitter and bracing human compromises. It is, in the most literal sense of the words, a society for the prevention of Christian knowledge.” 

The “Thrownness” of the Family

German philosopher Martin Heidegger describes our birth into this world as being “thrown” into our lives. We didn’t choose the place or circumstances of our birth nor our relatives and culture. Although there are some theories that premortal souls may have had some choice in their ultimate destination, there is no clear doctrine on this topic. Therefore, we will assume that the ‘throwing’ was done by our Heavenly Father. Seeing that we are often thrown into situations that are difficult and with people with whom we don’t naturally get along, comfort doesn’t seem to be His goal for our lives. Instead, God wants us to become good, to prove we can take the life we are thrown into and turn it into a hero’s epic. 

The home is where most of our heroism must occur. There is a special kind of annoyance that happens in the home, a more potent offense and a more stinging rebuke than found anywhere else in the world. We could travel around the world among diverse cultures and never encounter anyone as incomprehensible as our own sister. We can seek and attain honor and glory on Wall Street but find no one whose opinion matters more to us than our own fastidious father. We may debate opposing ideologies throughout the nation but will find no one’s politics more upsetting than our own Uncle Bob.  

“The family is a good institution because it is uncongenial. It is wholesome precisely because it contains so many divergences and varieties. It is like a little kingdom and, like most other little kingdoms, is generally in a state of something resembling anarchy.” ~ G.K. Chesterton

Perhaps we listen to sweet and idyllic descriptions of the family and think our own family is unique in its chaos and conflict—it isn’t. But that’s okay.

Taking Heidegger’s concept, who has been ‘thrown’ at us that we must learn to deal with? Who were we ‘thrown’ at? More than likely, we were thrown some curve balls. Considering the shared genetics, environment, and culture, it is miraculous how different members of a family can be from one another. Perhaps this diversity was purposely orchestrated by a loving Heavenly Father who knows what we need to progress. 

It’s a sad irony that we would never have been as neglectful of our high-school teacher’s instructions as we were of our beloved mother’s. Our brother would never have treated his friend’s little sister the way he did his own. But, because we deeply loved our mother and, despite his denials, our big brother cherished his little sister—there was, and is, a persistent power present in the family sufficient to enable a deep and lasting change to our character. 

I remember well as a child that my best friend was my sister, who was two years older than me. She was also my worst enemy. She was sweet, quiet, and sensitive. I was overconfident, pushy, and insensitive. This led to some hardship. I remember feeling like she always thought the worst of me. She remembers my rudeness. Years into our adulthood, we would still get into arguments. But I have changed, and so has she. I am less brash and sarcastic than I used to be, and my sister is more resilient than she used to be. It seems reasonable to assume these changes came from varied life experiences, travels, or extensive reading of scripture, psychology, and philosophy. 

But honestly, I think the change came because of our relationship and the slow chipping away of each other’s rough edges. I began to choose not to say things because I didn’t want her to take it the wrong way. She chose to let things go. I believe I am a better person because I had to go through the difficulty of adapting to my sister. We got through our trying and wonderful childhood and are still best friends, but we are no longer worst enemies. 

If we believe this life is a grand adventure—a place to prove ourselves, develop ourselves, and prepare ourselves for even greater tests in life—what better place to become “good” than those places that God “throws” us? In the relationship we did not choose, we will find inconvenient people who help us stretch experiences and grow. The family may be the harshest and most demanding of all tests. 

Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations, written 2000 years ago, is full of a Roman emperor’s philosophical rumination on how to be a good man and how to deal stoically with our fellow humans. It’s almost humorous to read how the ruler of a huge empire, whose daily life was filled with conquering armies, political strife, and exotic adventures, has to repeatedly reassure himself he is capable of dealing with everyday interactions with family and associates. He writes, “When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. … And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands, and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower.”

Goodness is Built at Home

Of all the quests we may take, there is none more primed to lead us on the path of goodness than those inside the walls of our own homes. It is in our home that we become true heroes. It is in our unchosen environments that we test our virtues. If we want to prove ourselves as disciples of Christ, emissaries of love and forgiveness, we must succeed on the battlefield of our own home.

As a mother of five, it is easy for me to be profoundly grateful for my beautiful children and my life full of loving moments. The greatest joys in life come through my family as well as the greatest miseries and strife.  If I can, through the lack of peace and pleasantness, find reconciliation, patience, and love, perhaps I have found the path toward goodness and adventure.

If we ponder the many things we have to be grateful for this Thanksgiving, perhaps we could consider the hardships found in our own homes. Let’s pray for peace and work towards harmony. But let’s also teach our son that if he could just learn to get along with his little sister, ruling Rome would be easy.

Link to the essay for Heretics by G.K. Chesterton, which is quoted at length.

The post Gratitude for Our Turbulent Families appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

“This article was originally prepared for the National Security in an Era of Global Upheaval: Perspectives from Latter-day Saint Professionals Conference held March 3-4, 2023 in Provo, Utah. This paper will appear in an edited conference proceedings published by Brigham Young University Press. It is published here with permission from the editors of the volume.”

The ongoing (as of summer 2023) war in Ukraine has been framed variously as a challenge to Europe, to NATO, to democracy, to “the West,” to sovereignty, to multilateralism, to American commitments and resolve, to international peace and security, and to global order—not to mention the actual physical threat to millions of Ukrainian civilians and soldiers and hundreds of thousands of conscripted Russians. Far more than has been commonly appreciated, the war should also be understood as a significant challenge for Christians. I am not referring here to the conflict between the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, although that is substantial and was at least a stated factor contributing to Vladimir Putin’s justification for the invasion. Rather, the current war in Ukraine threatens to lay bare once again the apparent fecklessness of a Christian peace ethic in a “real world” characterized by brute force and naked aggression.¹

Advocates of Christian nonviolence are often met with some variation of the question, “What about Hitler?”—now updated to “What about Putin?”² In other words, how do all your lovely principles of peace and nonviolence stack up against an autocratic leader intent on violent conquest with apparently no concern for the resultant loss of life, physical and environmental destruction, and the host of other mass injustices incurred? Does Jesus have anything to say to Putin (or, for that matter, Volodymyr Zelensky and Joe Biden)? Or do we sideline Jesus, however temporarily and regretfully, and instead lift up Captain Moroni, Joan of Arc, Winston Churchill, and a host of Christian warriors throughout history as our true exemplars for this moment?

It has frankly been easy to be a proponent of nonviolence in my lifetime. Not culturally easy, particularly in the context of a Latter-day Saint culture in the Intermountain West that loves its guns and valorizes the stripling warriors over their pacifist parents. But the vast majority of armed conflicts around the world in recent decades have been nasty intrastate affairs, and in most of those cases, the motivations and tactics of the various antagonists have been dubious at best. At least since Vietnam, American military interventions in various parts of the world have typically failed to meet the widely agreed-upon criteria of a just war. Add to that the incredibly destructive power of modern weaponry, and war becomes increasingly morally untenable. Martin Luther King Jr. captured this view back in 1960:

While I was convinced during my student days of the power of nonviolence in group conflicts within nations, I was not yet convinced of its efficacy in conflicts between nations.  I felt that while war could never be a positive or absolute good, it could serve as a negative good in the sense of preventing the spread and growth of an evil force.  War, I felt, horrible as it is, might be preferable to surrender to a totalitarian system.  But more and more, I have come to the conclusion that the potential destructiveness of modern weapons of war totally rules out the possibility of war ever serving again as a negative good.⁶

In more recent years, an international group of Roman Catholic leaders, academics, and practitioners met in 2016 to reconsider their church’s longstanding commitment to just war theory as its principal ethical lens. Lamenting the ways that just war theory has not only “been used to endorse rather than prevent or limit war” but also “undermines the moral imperative to develop tools and capacities for nonviolent transformation of conflict,” the group called upon the Catholic Church to renounce its longtime commitment to just war and embrace instead a more consistent position of strict nonviolence. Even the “responsibility to protect” (or “R2P”) doctrine—developed by the international community in the early 2000s in response to their own failure to prevent or effectively intervene in the mass atrocities in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia during the previous decade—authorizes limited peacekeeping efforts that share more in common with policing than with an extension of nation-states’ authority to go to war. In short, while nonviolence has always been a minority position both among Latter-day Saints and within American culture more broadly, global events in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries made their own case that in today’s world, there is no such thing as an authentically just, let alone supposedly “good,” war.

Cue Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in March 2022, which confronted the world with an old-fashioned case of armed conflict across national borders with a clear aggressor using brute military force to seize territory or subdue a weaker neighbor. While Ukrainians scrambled to defend their country and flee to safety, intellectuals far removed from the actual conflict zone could coolly consider whether the various sides in this new conflict met the just war criteria developed over many centuries by Christian theologians such as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Francisco de Vitoria. As a reminder, the jus ad bellum criteria are commonly listed and described as follows:

• Just cause – There must be a just cause, such as safeguarding innocent life, preserving conditions for human existence, protecting human rights, or responding to egregious breaches of international law or foreign violence.
• Legitimate authority – War can only be declared by a governmental authority widely deemed to be legitimate and representative.
• Last resort – All realistic means of resolving the conflict using non-military efforts must be exhausted first. 
• Right intention – The honest purpose of the war must be to restore peace and justice, not for territorial conquest, political or economic domination, or other selfish reasons.
• Probability of success – The odds of success should compare favorably to the likely cost in human life.
• Proportionality – The good to be achieved by the war must clearly outweigh the inevitable damage and costs that come about in the prosecution of the war.

Any objective application of these criteria reveals Russia’s invasion to fail on every account other than legitimate authority. Speaking in terms of Russia’s involvement, this is a textbook example of an unjust war.

The Ukrainians have employed a wide variety of methods to resist the Russian onslaught. Particularly in the opening months of the conflict, local populations engaged in hundreds of seemingly spontaneous acts of nonviolent civil resistance, including public protest, noncooperation, and direct intervention. As peace researcher Felip Daza documented:

Even in traditionally pro-Russian Ukrainian regions such as Kherson, local residents blocked a Russian convoy and forced it to turn around. Citizens in Odessa built a wall of sandbags against a potential invasion through their beach. Residents in Lviv built anti-tank obstacles against the Russian invasion. The community of Podolianochka implemented a communication system to identify saboteurs in their neighborhood. When Russian forces kidnapped the mayor of Skadovsk, the public protested even though the Russian military threw tear gas grenades and fired weapons to disperse protesters. The mayor was released immediately after the protests.

“Ordinary” citizens have used nonviolent methods to promote Ukrainian patriotism, maintain social cohesion, create systems for the evacuation of noncombatants, provide counseling and psychosocial help for women and children and other groups affected by the war, and monitor and document war crimes committed by Russian troops.⁷

In the early weeks of the conflict, I cheered the stories of local citizens quietly removing or changing road signs to confuse invading convoys and Ukrainian grandmothers boldly shaming Russian soldiers. Nevertheless, I knew even at the time that these nonviolent tactics, however creative and inspiring, simply would not deter, let alone defeat, an autocrat like Putin, who seems dead-set on achieving his objectives regardless of the cost—to Ukrainians or even his own troops. It would be too cynical to say that the Ukrainians’ nonviolence has been ineffective or meaningless. Armed conflict is largely psychological, and both early and ongoing nonviolent resistance efforts have helped break the resolve and erode the myths upon which the Russian invasion was founded. The steadfastness of the Ukrainian leadership and people has perhaps been the nation’s greatest strength in countering Russia’s much larger and supposedly superior military force. But Ukraine has held out this long and stands a chance of not only surviving but possibly even reverting to something like the status quo ante bellum because grassroots nonviolence, strong political will, and international diplomacy have been effectively supplemented by the lethal use of guns, artillery, drones, tanks, and anti-aircraft and anti-missile defenses (supported by billions of dollars of military aid provided by Western governments). It is difficult to conceive of how Ukraine would have remained an independent nation had it pursued purely nonviolent means of resistance.

This places proponents of nonviolence in an awkward position. Can I say that it would have been better for Ukrainians not to take up arms in self-defense and simply to submit to Russian aggression? I can point to examples that support both the moral and strategic superiority of nonviolence in the face of overwhelming force. By courageously and nonviolently going out to meet the invading Lamanite army, the Anti-Nephi-Lehies did, in fact, protect their families. Even the tragic loss of over one thousand lives pales in comparison to the death tolls reported in typical Book of Mormon battles. An even more relevant example is the largely nonviolent Danish resistance to Nazi occupation during the Second World War. Unable to prevent the Germans from invading their country, Danes refused to simply capitulate and give the German occupiers what they wanted, which was a pliable population cowed into submissively providing food, manufactured goods, and materiel for the Nazi war machine:

Through symbolic and cultural protests, [Danes] asserted their right to govern their own lives, and that strengthened public morale—which inspired bolder resistance. Through strikes, defiance at work sites, and damage to physical property, nonviolent resisters attacked the economic interests of the invaders. In Denmark, through underground publishing, an alternate network of communication was established to counter the lies of the occupiers’ propaganda. By involving so many civilians in strikes, demonstrations, and other forms of opposition, Danish resisters forced the Germans to stop violent reprisals and suspend curfews. They denied the Nazis their prime goal, on which other objectives depended: making the fact of occupation normal.⁸

Through strategic noncooperation and nonviolent resistance, Denmark emerged from the war as one of the least damaged countries in Europe and, in 1945, was in the enviable position to export food to the rest of the continent. Through concerted action, Danes even saved most of their Jewish fellow citizens, evacuating over seven thousand to Sweden and losing less than five hundred during Nazi raids in October 1943.⁹

Both scripture and history, therefore, attest that self-defense can effectively take nonviolent forms. Social scientific research agrees. Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan have convincingly demonstrated that civil resistance campaigns around the world tended to be far more successful in the twentieth century when they pursued chiefly nonviolent strategies.¹⁰ Presumably, therefore, the Ukrainians might have followed a similar path as the Danes. But while the Danish noncooperation and nonviolent resistance movement was remarkably successful, we must admit that the country’s liberation was ultimately accomplished by Allied military might. Similarly, once they removed to the land of Jershon, the ongoing survival of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies became dependent on Nephite military protection, supported by the martial participation of some of their own sons. Yes, nonviolence can be strategically effective as well as morally admirable, but we also need to be honest about the ways it has often been deployed in at least tacit partnership with military ventures.

It is noteworthy that the declaration states that (presumably violent) self-defense is “justified.” This is a common enough term in these types of discussions that it could easily be ignored. I propose, however, that the term is an intentional echo of the language used by the Lord in an August 1833 revelation to Joseph Smith just as mob violence against the Saints was escalating in western Missouri.¹¹ This is the revelation that famously commands the Saints to “renounce war and proclaim peace,” putting the dictate in covenantal terms. It goes on to outline a divine ethic of how to respond to unprovoked violence. The revelation speaks first to individuals and families and secondly to nations. God expects his followers to exercise patience and respond nonviolently in the face of aggression. If they do so, choosing to “revile not . . . neither seek revenge” to the first provocation, God will reward them. If the attacks continue, the divine rewards for nonviolently bearing it with patience increase exponentially. The revelation is clearly informed by the higher law delivered by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, but it also allows for human frailty by providing a lesser alternative to nonviolent love and forbearance. In the face of repeated hostility, the Lord says the oft-injured party is now “justified” or excused if they respond in kind. The revelation’s clearly stated preference is for individuals to “spare” their enemies, but they are “justified” in their choice to use self-defensive violence in the face of a recalcitrant and insistent aggressor. Similar principles apply to communities and nations, though at a different scale. When an assault is imminent, the nation should “first lift a standard of peace” to their aggressor—not once, but three times. If those entreaties are rejected, then the beleaguered victims can bring their testimonies of suffering to the Lord, who will “justify them in going out to battle.” Significantly, this “justification before me” is not a blank check for unrestrained violence, even in self-defense. It applies only as long as the aggressors remain unrepentant. As soon as they cease the attack and seek mercy, the aggrieved party is commanded to extend forgiveness “as oft as thine enemy repenteth.” This is a stringent ethic that goes well beyond what is traditionally permitted by just war theory. Furthermore, in establishing remarkably similar standards at both the micro and macro level, the revelation implicitly rejects the argument advanced by Augustine and Reinhold Niebuhr (among others) that nation-states operate under a substantially different ethical paradigm than individual Christians.

It is worth lingering on the term “justified,” used so consistently by both the 1833 revelation and the 1835 declaration on government. In Christian theology stretching back to the apostle Paul, justification means to excuse or make righteous or just in the sight of God. If an attitude or action is already just, righteous, or holy—for instance, pure love for others—it does not need to be justified. Only actions or attitudes that fall short of a celestial standard (that is to say, most human actions and attitudes) require justification. Therefore, any time the Lord says that he will justify something, we should recognize that thing as being sinful or falling short of the glory of God. Sin itself is not justified, but through God’s grace and the transformative power of Christ’s atonement, the sinner can be made right.¹² The assurance of being made right by God lies at the very heart of Christianity. At the same time, the promise of justification constitutes neither a trivialization of nor an invitation to sin. Paul, the great exponent of the doctrine of justification, made this clear: “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid” (Romans 6:1- 2).

On this point, Latter-day Saint Christianity departs from the older Christian tradition. As outlined previously, Catholic just war theory offers several criteria that, if fulfilled, render a war “just” or righteous. On the other hand, with the August 1833 revelation and 1835 declaration on government as the most authoritative scriptural sources, Latter-day Saint theology says that even self-defensive violence can only be “justified” if it meets certain standards (which are stricter than the just war criteria); it is never rendered “just.” If we understand sin to be essentially a matter of any act that alienates a person from God or other human beings—thus undermining the two great commandments—then the taking of a human life, which by definition is alienation in the extreme, is always sinful. Nowhere in Restoration scripture is violence described (let alone theologized) as uplifting, ennobling, sanctifying, or exalting. There is no such thing as holy violence or holy war in Latter-day Saint theology. Even in its most understandable and defensible forms, violence can, at best, be “justified.”

This, I argue, is the substance of a Latter-day Saint Christian peace witness—even amid a clearly justified self-defensive war such as the one being fought by Ukraine. Violence is sin. War multiplies that sin exponentially such that it is the very thing that causes God to weep. (See Moses 7:28, 33.) The only response in the face of violence that requires no justification, as per the August 1833 revelation, is to “bear it patiently and revile not . . . neither seek revenge.” This is a hard teaching, but consistent with the other “hard sayings” of Jesus: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44; see also 3 Nephi 12:44). The same principles were reiterated by Paul in his letter to the early Christians in Rome: “Bless them which persecute you. . . . Recompense to no man evil for evil. . . . If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves. . . . Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:14-21).

A war that truly meets the standards of justification laid out in scripture, therefore, presents the Christian with a special kind of challenge, and I daresay temptation. Why? Because it may lead us to reason that a) because this war is justified, b) it is just, and therefore c) war can, in fact, be righteous. This is bad logic: b) and c) do not necessarily follow from a), especially considering the theology of justification laid out above. Nevertheless, the logic can seem right because it feels right to support those who wage war in self-defense. Yet it is precisely because their violence requires (and may receive) justification that we must hold on to the fact that it is at first and always sinful. Even self-defensive violence is a corruption of the love and affection that a fatherly God desires—and therefore commands—His children to cultivate. A justified war not only tempts us to ignore its original sin but also to overlook the fact that, in the course of battle, justified actors commit inexcusable acts. Let me be clear: there is no moral equivalency between atrocities committed to date by Russian and Ukrainian military forces, respectively; one can only hope that after the war’s end, Russian politicians, military commanders, and soldiers will be held accountable for their innumerable war crimes. Despite this obvious ethical imbalance, the fact is that the war has—as it always does and will—dragged Ukrainians down with it. Reliable reports suggest, for instance, that some Ukrainian forces have tortured Russian prisoners of war, that some Ukrainian troops summarily executed Russian officers, that some Ukrainian military tactics may have put civilians in danger, and that Ukrainian drones attacked Russian residential buildings with no military value. As the war drags on, no doubt additional atrocities and war crimes will accumulate on both sides. “The line between defensive violence and aggressive or retaliatory violence is a fine line indeed,” Martin Luther King Jr. observed.¹³ 

Furthermore, war perverts the notion that God is on our side by insinuating instead that God is only on my side. Both Russians and Ukrainians have promoted the blasphemy that God specially endorses their killing. Patriarch Kiril of the Russian Orthodox Church has blessed the invasion as “a struggle that has not a physical, but a metaphysical significance,” while a professionally produced video released by Ukraine’s top military commander showed troops praying that God would bless them “to destroy my enemies” and allow them to wreak “sacred revenge” on Russian troops. War is a totalizing logic that consumes even Christian theology, leaving only neutral parties such as Pope Francis to preach the truth: “Once upon a time, there was also talk in our churches of holy war or just war. Today we cannot speak like this. The Christian conscience has developed on the importance of peace.”

It is not just those actively prosecuting the war who are called to repentance. The war in Ukraine has led me to be more contrite. It has been too easy for me over the years to be smug, self-assured, arrogant, and judgmental in the supposed righteousness of my near-absolute nonviolent position. I have had to come to terms with what the revelations that I believe to be the word of God actually say—that there are, in fact, instances where self-defensive violence may be justified, if not preferred. From my supremely luxuriant position of safety and security, I have had to become humbler and more empathetic to those—past, present, and future—who commit justified violence on others’ behalf. Jesus’s call to nonviolence was never meant to be a moral bludgeon. It is, rather, an invitation into the life of a God who has “said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another.”

References:

1. My thanks to Matthew Bowman, Amanda Hendrix-Komoto, David Howlett, Melissa Inouye, Jeannie Johnson, Laurie Maffly-Kipp, David Pulsipher, and Jana Riess for their constructive comments on an earlier draft of this essay.  Of course, Christians are not the only people with a peace ethic, but my focus in this essay is on reading this war between two putatively Christian nations through a Christian peace ethic, and more specifically a Latter-day Saint one.

2. See Robert W. Brimlow, What about Hitler? Wrestling with Jesus’s Call to Nonviolence in an Evil World (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2006).

3. Patrick Q. Mason and J. David Pulsipher, Proclaim Peace: The Restoration’s Answer to an Age of Conflict (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, and Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2021).

4. Tertullian, Idolatry 19, p. 73, quoted in Lisa Sowle Cahill, Blessed Are the Peacemakers: Pacifism, Just War, and Peacebuilding (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2019), 77.

5. Russell M. Nelson, “The Power of Spiritual Momentum,” April 2022 General Conference

6.  Martin Luther King Jr., “Pilgrimage to Nonviolence,” in I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches that Changed the World, ed. James Melvin Washington (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), 60.

7.  Felip Daza, “Mapping Civil Resistance in Ukraine,” Peace Policy: Solutions to Violent Conflict, no. 54 (May 2023). See also Felip Daza, Ukrainian Nonviolent Civil Resistance in the Face of War: Analysis of Trends, Impacts and Challenges of Nonviolent Action in Ukraine between February and June 2022 (Barcelona: ICIP and Novact, 2022).

8.  Peter Ackerman and Jack DuVall, A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict (New York: Palgrave, 2000), 238.

9. Ibid., 224, 231.

10.  See Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011). Note that most of Chenoweth and Stephan’s case studies involve civil resistance in the context of intrastate conflicts, not foreign military invasion.

11. This argument follows the analysis in Proclaim Peace, chap. 6.

12. See Kenneth Appold, “Justification,” in The Cambridge Dictionary of Christian Theology, ed. Ian A. McFarland et al. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 257-59.

13. Martin Luther King Jr., “Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom,” in I Have a Dream, 130.

The post Rethinking Righteousness in the Shadow of War appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

In the face of opposition and antagonism, it can be easy to feel alone. We want Latter-day Saint creators around the world to know that you are not alone. We are here, and we invite you to join us in advancing the cause of Zion by striving to create content guided by the following ideals: 

• Love. The Savior Jesus Christ outlined in no uncertain terms what it means to be one of his disciples: “By this shall men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” We echo President Russell M. Nelson’s counsel that “Anger never persuades. Hostility builds no one. Contention never leads to inspired solutions. … [Christ’s] true disciples build, lift, encourage, persuade, and inspire—no matter how difficult the situation.” We strive to meet opposition with patience and respect instead of disdain and mockery. We recognize that discipleship is contingent, first and foremost, on loving others as Jesus loves us.
• Truth. We strive to create content that is accurate, honest, and in alignment with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ. We feel not only a desire but also a responsibility to share accurate information about our religion while also challenging misinformation in kind and productive ways. We believe in seeking knowledge and guidance through a range of epistemological tools, including academic scholarship and also divine revelation (see Doctrine and Covenants 88:118, Matthew 16:17).
• Unity. We seek conversations that foster mutual understanding and edification. Where disagreement arises, we aim to disagree well without seeking to compromise the dignity of those we disagree with. When we perceive we’ve been mistreated by others, we strive to respond with patience and with an attitude of reconciliation (see Matthew 18:15). This applies to interactions with nonmembers, former members, and our fellow members of the Church. We stand for the ethical treatment of all of God’s children and recognize that our wrestle is not against flesh and blood, “but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world. …” 
• Boldness. We strive to create content that lives up to the advice found in Alma 38:11-12, “See that ye are not lifted up unto pride; yea, see that ye do not boast in your own wisdom, nor of your much strength. Use boldness, but not overbearance; and also see that ye bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love. …” We do not believe that peacemaking and boldly standing up for what we believe to be right are mutually exclusive ideals. We strive to embody both.
• Faithfulness. We believe that Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer. We strive to create content that reflects faith in, and faithfulness to, Jesus Christ. We strive to follow His example and keep His commandments because we love Him (see John 14:15). We also believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ’s restored church in these latter days. We believe in the foundational truth claims of the Church. Our highest priority is to seek after and follow Jesus Christ, and we believe that the Church of Jesus Christ helps us to accomplish that.

This is not a list of attributes we pretend to have already mastered but rather a view of what we each aspire to work towards and become. We do not expect perfection of ourselves in this endeavor, but we do pledge sincere, repeated, and concerted effort until we might be made perfect in Christ. We are not official representatives of the Church of Jesus Christ, but we have covenanted at baptism to take upon ourselves the name of Christ. Thus, we will strive to humbly and confidently share the good news of the gospel far and wide, waiting for that fateful day when we hope to hear our Savior say, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.”

If you are a Latter-day Saint content creator and wish to add your name to this document, please visit this link.

David Snell                           C. D. Cunningham                        Ryan Robb

Dan Ellsworth                      BJ Spurlock                                   Bekka McLawhorn

Bridger Coburn                   Jennifer Roach                              Michael Bendall

Nathaniel Givens                 Ryan Sorensen                              Shima Baughman

Mimi Bascom                       Becky Squire                                  Christian McOmber

Kurt Francom                      Jeffrey Thayne                               Sara Phelps

Kyle Smith                           Michael Peterson                           Lynnette Sheppard

Kempe Nicoll                       Ashly Stone                                     Rachel Rhien Tucker

Carol Rice                            Daniel Smith                                  Ashley Getz

Pam Peebles                        Jasmin Rappleye                           Rachel Cushing

Kai Elkins                            Brian Arnett                                   Skyler Sorensen

Guy Johnson        *             Fred Zundel                                    Jennie Moss

Ari Coleman                        Jeff Roundy                                   Shannon Jones

Jacob Ryder                        Greg Matsen                                   Beth Martineau

Evan D. Wirig                     Sonrisa Hasselbach                       Lydia J. Wadsworth

Beth Martineau                  Greg Matsen                                    Kamden Hainsworth

Jeff Roundy                         Jennie Moss                                    Fred Zundel

Jessica Spackman               Derek Crimin                                 Matthew Sailors

Elissa Nysetvold                 Daniel Sorensen                            Priscilla Davis

Dawn Anderson                  Jenny Panemeno                          Rachel Snider

Shelbi Stanfill                      Todd Bruce                                    Megan Dahl

Nate Russell                         Mandy Davis                                 Austin Smoot

Kjersti Christensen             Jacob Roundy                              Jacob Crapo

Benjamin Pacini                  Christie Hurst                              Amanda Anderson

Amber Pearce                      Tyler Mercer                                 Kaari Lines

Tyler Mercer                        Abby Watson                                 Madison C. Packer

Samuel Serrano                  Linsie Draper                                 Joey Vogl

Bryan Dorman                    Eliza Sewell                                    Richard  Durrant

Sean & M’Shelle Dixon       Kyle Jacobs                                    Jackson Howell

Ryan Mercer                        Mike D. House                              Jeffrey Law

Dustin Moore                      Kary Ann Hoopes                         Marianne Pierce

Charles Neal                       Lauren Draney                             Shima B. Baughman

Ashli Carnicelli                   Sarah Cook                                    Sonrisa Hasselbach

Jerald Simon                       Carrie Yost                                     Dawn Anderson

Brandon Brooks                 Crystal Minnick                             Shannon Andrews

Elisabeth Child                  Mandy Davis                                  Alysha Collier

Erin Guy                              Charles Stanford                          Melissa Draper

Leticia Dada                      Lynnette Sheppard                        Lita Merrill

Arianna Mortensen          Rhonda Steed                                Javier P. Potzsch

The post A Clarion Call For Cyber-Disciples appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Let’s focus on just two of those synonyms—faithfulness and reliability. 

More than Belief

Fidelity to God includes or entails faithfulness to God. What does it mean to say that a woman is faithful to Deity? How do we describe a faithful man? What is it about a person of faith that stands out? Maybe it would be worthwhile, first of all, to discuss briefly what faith is not. 

Faith is not gullibility or falling for anything. Faithless people are sometimes quite critical of those who possess what they do not. They assume that people who live their lives by faith are naïve, easily swayed, simple-minded, and, in some cases, even dangerous. This is not faith. A faithful person is a thinking being, one who can judge, assess, discern, and reason, one who, for instance, can distinguish clearly between good and evil, light and darkness, right and wrong, important and unimportant. A faithful person does not fall prey to either the foolish or the perverse. Genuine faith can only be exercised in that which is true.

Faith is not the power of positive thinking, nor does it consist in willing something into existence. Obviously, it’s a good thing to be positive, to be upward-looking, to be optimistic about now and the future. One only has to spend a short time with a naysaying pessimist in order to appreciate being with someone whose words are affirming, enriching, and edifying. But faith is not the power of positive thinking. Nor can one with a positive attitude simply will things into existence.  

True faith does not rise or fall with physical, tangible evidence; it cannot be held hostage by the presence or absence of the latest scientific or archaeological discoveries. In speaking of historical analysis, Professor Patrick Mason has written that “there is nothing more unstable than basing one’s life and outlook purely on the latest scholarship, let alone one’s casual perusal of it. What appears to be solid is actually quite transient.” In other words, “scholarship makes for a fairly wobbly foundation upon which to build one’s most profound commitments. I can’t imagine a more maddening life than to rise each morning to consult the learned journals to see what one’s position de jour is.”

I served for a time as the department chair of one of the most brilliant and informed persons I have ever known. Professor Hugh W. Nibley at Brigham Young University was a beloved twentieth defender of the faith. During those years, I came to know something, not only about his mind (which was amazing) but also a great deal about his soul, a man of deep and abiding faith. “[T]he words of the prophets,” he stated, some three-quarters of a century ago, “cannot be held to the tentative and defective tests that men have devised for them. Science, philosophy, and common sense all have a right to their day in court. But the last word does not lie with them. Every time men in their wisdom have come forth with the last word, other words have promptly followed. The last word is a testimony … that comes only by direct revelation. Our Father in Heaven speaks it, and if it were in perfect agreement with the science of today, it would surely be out of line with the science of tomorrow. Let us not, therefore, seek to hold God to the learned opinions of the moment when He speaks the language of eternity.” 

In my forty years of teaching university students, serving many years in a pastoral capacity, and as a result of poring over holy scripture, I have come to believe that those who have faith in God have come to trust God. How does one come to trust the Almighty? How, in fact, do we come to trust a fellow mortal? For example, what does it mean to say that I trust my wife, Shauna? Well, to begin with, I trust her in the sense that I know she loves me, that she knows me well enough to understand my heart, my deepest desires, and longings. I trust her in that she knows, only too well, my weaknesses and my inclination to be less than I should be, and yet she regularly displays the patience and long-suffering that is so often required on her part. I trust her because she is ever ready and willing to forgive me. I trust her in that I know I can share my heaviest burdens, my darkest moments, and my lingering doubts and that she will think no less of me. Finally, I trust Shauna because I know that ours is a winning team, that our companionship blesses and elevates my life and makes me so much more, so much better than I would be on my own. Further, I have confidence in her in that I know she will always come through. And Heaven only knows how much I rely on her wisdom and judgment, her discernment, and her unending devotion and loyalty. And so it is with our trust in God. 

Reliability: A Measure of Fidelity to God

So to have faith in God, we must come to trust Him, including His purposes for us, even more than our hopes and dreams for ourselves. One religious leader, Neal A. Maxwell, put it this way: “Too often we construe faith in the Lord to mean only the acceptance of His existence, an acknowledgment that He is there. What is wanted, since He is there, is our trust in Him, including His plans for us. Let us not complain of large classes in this mortal school when, at the same time, we consistently decline His offers to tutor us privately.” And, of course, linked closely with trusting His plans for us is trusting in His timetable, which is often different than our own.  

Fidelity to God entails reliability on my part. As I grow in faith, I come more and more to trust God, but I also become a person who can be trusted by Him, one who is reliable and dependable. That means that I will be at my duty station when I am called upon to serve and will be available when the call comes to do the difficult or be inconvenienced. If a thousand people of various Christian faiths were asked to choose which of the many qualities and characteristics that Jesus of Nazareth demonstrated stands out to them, I would suppose that the large majority of that congregation of Christ-followers would reply, His love. And if there is one correct answer to that query, it would seem to be how much He loved people.

Some seven hundred years before the coming of Jesus, Isaiah preached and prophesied of a day like our own: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight!” In retrospect, I can look back on my past with deep appreciation, with fond gratitude for men and women of God who set a standard of goodness, an example of nobility toward God that seems more difficult to find in today’s world. That is, with my parents and loved ones, they taught me and showed me what God required of me and what He expected of me. They helped to form and shape my conscience and my spiritual sensibility, to be able to see things as they really are. 

Fidelity in a Changing World

Fidelity to God requires that those of us who love God—who treasure His word and are striving to live and abide by those words—stand up and speak out, let our voices be heard. Fidelity requires that we teach and testify of those absolute truths and absolute values that have made our nation great and good through the generations, but, sadly, truths and values that are steadily being pushed to the margins of an increasingly secular society. Our challenge, of course, is to assist those within our society as best we can, as lovingly but persuasively as we can, knowing full well that “if God be for us, who can be against us? Trusting in that sublime promise, we thereby position ourselves to hear, and hopefully for many others to hear, the quiet voice of the Lord whisper reassuringly and from time to time, “This is the way, walk ye in it.”

The post Shaping Souls: The Power and Purpose of Fidelity to God appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

I believe those warnings are merited—and that a general pattern of dying trust in America, as our staff argued a few weeks earlier, could prove disastrous long-term.  Seeing how people of faith were coming to embrace these widespread suspicions, I went so far as to share these cautions about rippling consequences openly with friends and neighbors in my rural community flying Trump flags on every street. I had been among those who were moved by Joe Biden’s remarks after the election and encouraged to hear appeals to healing. Yet I encouraged fellow believers to make their highest commitment not to what helps either party, but to the full truth—whatever it is.   

So, what is the truth about these election allegations, I wondered?  

I decided to study for myself concerns arising from election observers on the right. Unless you’re among the many whose partisan passions have already settled that question conclusively (“it was stolen” vs. “it was perfectly fair”), it’s frankly not so easy to discern what’s truly going on.  And what I read gave me pause, and made me think, “We’d better at least allow this process to play out.”

It wasn’t until December 12, 2000, after all, that the winner of the Bush v. Gore election was decided—well over a month after election day (and that was only a single state in dispute—not six).  Surely we can take the time as a nation to allow these legal questions to play out, as a way to ensure greater trust in the outcome?  

Not if we’re taking a cue from prominent voices at most national media outlets. Channeling the tenor of this reaction, Charles Blow called these legal challenges “Trump’s election tantrum” and Nicholas Kristoff argued the efforts were tantamount to “vandaliz[ing] our country.” Wolf Blitzer portrayed the legal efforts as reflecting a “disregard for democracy” and a willingness to “ignore the will of millions of Americans”—with Jesse Wegman characterizing them as “attacking our democracy.” Similarly, Bernie Sanders labeled them an “outrage” like we’ve never seen before that was “delegitimizing our electoral process and American democracy.”   

This certainly isn’t the first time we’ve seen calls for heightened scrutiny of election results, nor this kind of impassioned push-back after requests for that further scrutiny. After some called for recounts and protests after the 2016 presidential election, Kayleigh McEnany, then a CNN contributor, said in November, “You have people trying to delegitimize the President-elect of the United States right now, you have people out there that are calling for recounts that are unsubstantiated based on no evidence.” At the time, Rudy Giuliani described the calls for more scrutiny as “really not the right thing in a democracy.” And a spokesperson for the Trump campaign said: “Recount Ridiculousness! A generation of sore losers whines for a do-over,” with another campaign leader who labeled the appeals a “tantrum” saying, “I have to tell you, I believe the Democrats are behaving like the Grinch of Christmas.”  

Are these kinds of concerns (in either election) really about just being a “sore loser”?  And do these formal appeals and challenges really represent such a threat to America today? R. R. Reno, the editor of First Things, offers another perspective: “The litigation underway is not ‘corrosive to our institutions.’ The opposite is true. Lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and elsewhere appeal to the rule of law. They do not weaken or undermine it.”

Reno went on to suggest that “legal challenges are likely to strengthen rather than weaken our democracy” as they can help “shine a light on trouble spots in our electoral system and will motivate reforms.”

This is quite a contrast to the prevailing shock among pundits that Trump hasn’t immediately conceded—and suggestions that failing to do so represents an exceptional threat to democracy itself.  This is neither fair nor true, even if it’s understandable political rhetoric given the circumstances.  

Some of this is the President’s own fault, for not being more clear in his commitment to a peaceful transfer of power—and going so far as to suggest multiple times that “the only way we’re going to lose this election is if this election is rigged.” That attitude, to say the least, hasn’t set the stage for the most generous, fair-minded conversation about the vote as a nation.  

But not all that is wrong in the universe can be laid at the feet of Donald J. Trump. And whatever suspicion he has managed to fuel has been met—and raised—by his detractors.  For instance, Jennifer Rubin described Republican leadership this week as “anti-democratic, immoral, dishonest and dangerous” and claimed they were up to something “sinister” in these legal challenges. Namely, to “sow doubt about the legitimacy of our democracy—just as the Russians intend” and to “keep their base in a constant state of anger and crazed denial.”

Is that true, Jennifer?  Implying that half our nation’s leadership is trying to undermine democracy is a serious accusation—at least as serious as implying that Democratic leadership was abetting widespread fraud, as the President’s press secretary herself did this week. 

If we’re looking to preserve trust in the American process, these blistering, blanket accusations cannot be helping.  And if it’s not clear to partisans on both sides, both sides continue doing their part to further erode our essential trust.  While Republicans are raising their own concerns about electoral fairness right now, for instance, preceding the election there were also months of accusations from the left at what they claimed was “widespread voter suppression.” 

It’s not hard for many of us to see how this kind of back-and-forth suspicion could escalate to lethal levels for our country. Does that mean, therefore, that we should demand each side trust and accept election results—harboring no suspicion whatsoever? 

Good luck with that.  When was the last time someone demanded trust from you?  Especially when it comes to sincerely held questions (in any area), such forceful insistence rarely does more than driving concerns underground—and likely even exacerbating them.  

That’s why condemning those with questions about climate change as “deniers” has done little to move the discussion forward.  Likewise, portraying those with questions about prevailing public health dictates around COVID-19 as “denying science” or lampooning those with honest questions about vaccination mandates as crazy “anti-vaxxers,” has also served to entrench concerns and estrange us even further.

Trust grows in an atmosphere where concerns can be explored and heard—including when it comes to the election itself.  So, then, how are people to be reassured about the election?  Reno goes on to argue persuasively: 

Protracted litigation over vote counts in Philadelphia, Atlanta, and elsewhere will help prevent false conspiracy theories from overpowering the imaginations of partisans on the right. If lawyers debate in the sober precincts of America’s courtrooms, conservative opinion leaders will have a more detailed and firmer understanding of claims and counter-claims about cheating.

Utah’s Attorney General, Sean Reyes sees these legal proceedings as credible enough that he has taken personal leave to be able to support this formalized effort to gain clarity.  Yet in the neighboring state of Nevada, Attorney General Aaron Ford referred to them as “garbage.”

Rather than holding any merit, critics have repeatedly insisted that Team Trump’s concerns about the election are “baseless and dangerous.”  Jennifer Rubin described the allegations as “entirely based on speculation” arguing that “none of the allegations about excluded poll watchers have been supported by facts.” And the New York Times went so far as asserting that even after calling all the states, they had found “no evidence.” 

Yet just in the state of Michigan, 234 pages of sworn affidavits were announced by the White House this week. As a Trump campaign attorney said in a statement, “A sworn declaration from an eyewitness is the literal definition of evidence” pushing back on “those on the left and in other quarters that have been screaming that there’s no evidence.”  

It’s true that multiple post-election lawsuits have been tossed out. It’s also true that this is the perfect environment for heightened passions to play tricks on our minds—and lead people to see things that aren’t there.  

These same partisan passions, however, could also lead any of us to write off possibilities we don’t like—especially those which might threaten our Political Team. That seems true of both sides right now.    

Speaking for myself, I can sympathize with Trump critics so ready to move beyond him that anything standing in the way feels like a barrier and a distraction.  Yet it’s precisely because of this widespread fervor that some of the allegations of fraud seem plausible. As Reno puts it: 

Given the intensity of anti-Trump hysteria in our ruling class, I’m not inclined to disbelieve claims of cheating. It is imaginable that election officials in some jurisdictions felt they had permission—perhaps even a duty—to put a finger on the scale in Biden’s favor. Of course, that does not mean that illegal votes put Biden over the hump in the key battleground states.

It’s not more “empty speculation” that Reno is arguing for—but simply, the space and patience for the legal process to unfold:  “We need to calm down and allow the lawyers to make their cases in courtrooms.” 

All that being said, those highlighting some danger in this course are not wrong, especially if Republican leadership were to continue (beyond the outcome of these legal challenges) insisting on fraud into the new year in a way that undermines transition and trust long-term.   

But that’s not what is happening right now.  The calls being made are to clarify allegations in several key states.  As Mitt Romney and others have pointed out, these concerns can be resolved in the courts without writing off the entire election. 

Just as labeling the entire election as fraudulent steps beyond reality, to label any questions about the election as a threat to democracy seems equally unfair.    

If we’re looking for ways to build trust with the election—or any other issue— demanding trust won’t take us very far.  

Something else will:  patience and reaffirmed commitment to the constitutional system we’ve all agreed to uphold.

While yes, trust is crucial to cultivate and fight for in this American system, let’s also acknowledge that it’s possible to trust too much.  And perhaps that means there’s a healthy place for some suspicion and cynicism in our national discourse—at least a little.

Within the right boundaries, a little caution can help, not hurt us, in arriving at clarity and greater trust.  

So, let’s make space for it.  And stop condemning it outright—while recklessly dismissing those who harbor it as enemies of democracy. 

They’re not. As Joe Biden himself said beautifully, “to make progress, we have to stop treating our opponents as an enemy. They are not our enemies: They are Americans—they are Americans.”

The post The Problem with Demanding Trust appeared first on Public Square Magazine.