Download Print-Friendly Version

There’s a kind of disappointment that doesn’t arrive as tragedy. It arrives as delay: the diagnosis that lingers, the job search that won’t resolve, the prayer that feels like it hits a ceiling. You keep doing the next right thing—and nothing budges.

“Are you having a 3½ Moment?” It sounds baffling—until you are in one.

A 3½ Moment is my name for a familiar stretch of discipleship when life feels stalled: you’re doing what you know is right, but the relief doesn’t come. The problem lingers, and hope starts to feel naïve. 

In scripture, God often teaches through symbols. As Elder Orson F. Whitney, an early apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, observed, “God teaches with symbols; it is his favorite method of teaching.” 

One of the Bible’s most familiar symbols is 7—wholeness and completion. But a lesser-known number appears in stories of drought, scattering, and delayed rescue: 3½, half of seven. It often functions as a literary signal that deliverance is delayed—but the delay has a limit. Here’s what that pattern can teach us about our hardest chapters, and four ways to keep faith until God brings your “7.”

Seven: Scripture’s Symbol of Completion

The Bible trains us to notice the symbol 7. God created the heavens and earth in six days, and “he rested on the seventh day” (Genesis 2:2). The number 7 appears throughout the Bible as one of the most common symbols in scripture.

In scripture, the number 7 often refers to wholeness, completion, and perfection. The symbol 7 teaches us to trust that God’s promises will be fulfilled. It also reminds us to obey to completion. Naaman’s story makes the point almost painfully: the sixth dip looks indistinguishable from the seventh. Partial obedience can look reasonable—until the miracle arrives one step later. Joshua’s armies would have suffered complete defeat had they circled Jericho for six days before battle. Seven often appears as a symbol for completing a work.

Three and a Half: When Deliverance is Delayed

In Daniel and Revelation, we see these 3½ measures show up in apocalyptic settings—visions of oppression, exile, and persecution. They mark a period that is real and painful, but also limited: evil is permitted a season, then God intervenes. That 3½ symbol can also have personal meaning to us as a metaphor for our discipleship—what it feels like to live inside a promised ending that hasn’t arrived yet.

Note that recognizing the symbolic meaning of numbers in scriptures is safe spiritual territory, as opposed to the speculative and tangential work of occult numerology. One caution: apocalyptic numbers are rarely a stopwatch for predicting outcomes, and they aren’t a guarantee that God will resolve a specific hardship on our preferred schedule. Their gift is different: they insist that evil and suffering are not ultimate, and that God sets limits we cannot always see from inside the storm. 

The symbol 3½ is often expressed in different but equivalent forms: 3½ years; 42 months; 1,260 days; “a time, times, and half a time”; or three and a half days. Revelation uses these equivalent measures to describe a bounded period of tribulation for God’s people—long enough to be terrifying, short enough to be survivable because God remains sovereign.

The number 3½ is half of 7. That gives us a clue as to its meaning. Read alongside seven (completion), 3½ can be heard as the ‘incomplete’ half, an unfinished story. The texts are speaking first about communal suffering and divine deliverance; I’m using their repeated timeframe as a devotional lens for individual seasons that feel unfinished.

On a personal level, 3½ reminds us that we live in a fallen world, with seasons of opposition and adversity, which will resolve because of 7. For some, that glorious conclusion may arrive beyond mortality; the certainty of “7” rests in Christ’s Resurrection even when present circumstances do not change. But that promise assures that for even the most stubborn problems of mortality, an amazing conclusion is promised.

When Life Feels Stuck at 3½

Symbolically, 3½ can represent our own hard times and challenges, but it carries the understanding that all things can be perfected and brought to a resolution by Jesus Christ. The symbol 3½ teaches us to have divine hope in the eventual 7, to complete our work of keeping God’s commandments (D&C 11:20) and to joyfully look forward to God completing His work (Moses 1:39).

In hard times, it may feel as though the gospel plan isn’t working for us because we don’t appear to be succeeding in ways that we expect. These are moments when cynicism feels most plausible, and most costly. Many hard times can feel like a 3½ Moment, but a 3½ Moment is not the end of the story. It is only half of seven, a limited period of adversity before divine deliverance. Because 3½ is connected to 7, we have the assurance that our suffering and problems are temporary, as we look to Jesus Christ.

President Russell M. Nelson, the late president of The Church of Jesus Christ, once described the discipline this way: “Our focus must be riveted on the Savior and His gospel. It is mentally rigorous to strive to look unto Him in every thought. But, when we do, our doubts and fears flee.” 

To have its intended meaning, the symbol of 3½ must be connected to the symbol of 7. Similarly, to fulfill its intended purposes, we benefit when we connect our hard times to Jesus Christ.

In my own prayers, I’ve learned to ask for something simpler than an explanation: a sentence I can live on. “I can’t see the end yet. Help me be faithful in the middle. Help me take the next step.”

Wendell’s 3½ Moment

Wendell Jones and I previously served together in a bishopric, a congregation’s leadership. In 2022, Wendell was diagnosed with ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.

ALS is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that affects nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord. The disease has taken things from him in stages, but it hasn’t taken his posture toward life.

As he navigates this period, Wendell has a deep knowledge and testimony of the gospel plan that helps him maintain an eternal perspective about his life and his illness.

After his diagnosis, he logged miles on a two-wheeled bike to keep his strength. When that became unsafe, he switched to three wheels. Now he rides in a car—often in the passenger seat—so he can talk while someone else drives. It’s a small parable of discipleship: when one way of moving forward closes, you learn another.

My wife recently asked Wendell, “You are always so happy; how do you do it?” Wendell’s response was direct: “How could I not, when I think of everything that Jesus has done for me?”

Wendell has spent his adult life serving his parents and his large posterity. Now, in this season of life, he humbly allows them to serve him.

What Suffering Makes of Us

Alma 62:41 demonstrates the principle that the same difficulties will result in different outcomes. The Nephites had just finished a decade of war, witnessing and experiencing horrific atrocities. The Book of Mormon records that “because of the exceedingly great length of the war… many had become hardened… [and] many were softened because of their afflictions.” The same set of experiences led to opposite spiritual outcomes. What matters most in life is not the adversity faced, but the response.

There is nothing neutral with adversity. Adversity changes us, for better or worse.

Yet when hard times come, we may think:

• “What have I done to deserve this?”
• “Why is this happening to me, when I’m trying so hard to be good?”
• “Why is this problem lingering so long?”

The book of Alma teaches that “whosoever shall put their trust in God shall be supported in their trials, and their troubles, and their afflictions, and shall be lifted up at the last day” (Alma 36:3).

Expect Friction

How can difficult problems be a catalyst to make us better, not bitter? How can adversity become a 3½ Moment that is a stepping stone toward our 7, which is eternal life? I observed four practices in the example of Wendell, and in my own life. 

Author Dennis Wholey wrote, as shared by President Jeffrey R. Holland, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: “Expecting a trouble-free life because you are a good person is like expecting the bull not to charge you because you are a vegetarian.”

Even Jesus was made “perfect through sufferings” (Hebrews 2:10). Trials are not evidence that the plan is failing; often they are evidence that God’s plan for us is working.

Practice Gratitude Without Denial

I share a principle that has been meaningful to me. I’ve come to think of it as a kind of “eternal unfairness” principle. Each of us will be resurrected and can receive an immortal body, a gift made possible by the Atonement of Christ. We didn’t earn that. 

Jesus Christ bled “from every pore” (Mosiah 3:7; D&C 19:18) and suffered infinitely, so we have the gift of repentance and receive a remission of our sins. We didn’t earn that.

In Latter-day Saint belief, Jesus Christ, through the ordinances provided in temples, blesses us with eternal life and eternal families—an incomprehensible gift made possible as we receive the Atonement of Christ by making and keeping covenants. We didn’t earn that.

In things that matter most, remember: The deck is stacked—not against us, but in our favor! Life is truly “unfair” because of Jesus Christ. Aren’t we so grateful for it?

Let Trust Be Active

Elder Richard G. Scott, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, taught, “This life is an experience in profound trust—trust in Jesus Christ, trust in His teachings… To trust means to obey willingly without knowing the end from the beginning.” Trials can help us increase our trust in God: that He “shall consecrate thine afflictions for thy gain” (2 Nephi 2:2), and that “He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world” (2 Nephi 26:24).

Instead of asking, “Why is this happening to me?” we can ask, “Why is this happening for me?” What am I to learn? How can this problem help me increase my faith and trust in Jesus Christ? Nelson taught that we can “receive more faith by doing something that requires more faith.”

Turn Outward

Jesus taught by example that in times of adversity we should look outward and serve others. While on the cross, in His deepest agony and suffering, we see Jesus—astonishingly—arranging for the care of His mother:

“When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son. Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother” (John 19:26–27).

In times of adversity, our natural inclination is to focus inward. Instead, Jesus invites us to look outward to others, especially when we are experiencing personal challenges. This is a gospel paradox: “He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” (Matthew 10:39). Elder David A. Bednar, also an apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ, taught, “Character is demonstrated by looking and reaching outward when the natural and instinctive response is to be self-absorbed and turn inward.”

When those inevitable hard times come, we have a choice: we can be frustrated, grit our teeth, and suffer through it. Or we can see this problem that we would never choose as an opportunity. Your 3½ Moment does not define you, but it can refine you. Healing will come. All problems can be temporary on an eternal scale, as we strive to follow Jesus Christ. When you are in that 3½ Moment, remember: 7 is coming.

The post Your Hardest Season Might Be Exactly Half a Miracle appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

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.

Like—spiritual felt clean. No committees. No awkward handshakes. No side-eyes. No church drama. Just me, God, a little sunrise, maybe some music that makes your chest feel bigger than your problems. And if I’m being honest, that idea appealed to me for a reason: I learned early how to survive people, not trust them. I learned the value of a guarded heart. I could talk smooth, move careful, keep my circle tight. And when you’ve been burned enough times, anything that says “you don’t need anybody” starts sounding like freedom.

So yeah. Spirituality can seem better because it doesn’t require anyone but yourself.

It’s you and your thoughts. You and your intentions. You and your version of God—custom fit, no annoying humans included. Nothing messy. Nothing disappointing. Nothing to suggest anything is short of perfect. No one to hurt you. No one to do the unforgivable. 

But let me say this plain: religion is people. 

The difference between organized religion and spirituality is people. 

Saying we don’t agree with organized religion, but believe in a higher power, feels safe because it can never disappoint us. It suggests that our standards are too good, too pure to associate with the disaster of other people trying to connect with God. 

That part used to offend me, because I wanted my faith to feel pristine. I wanted God without the mess. I wanted the mountaintop without the climb. I wanted “the Spirit” without Sister So-and-So being petty, without Brother What’s-His-Name talking like he’s the CEO of righteousness, without somebody acting like their calling gives them the right to treat people like furniture. And I don’t want to undersell the problems of people. They aren’t just delightfully messy in a cute way you could still show on your Insta. This is pride, racism, abuse. Being around these people caused me real wounds. 

I wanted a relationship with God that didn’t come with… humans and the pain they cause.

But spirituality without others—if we’re keeping it all the way real—can turn kind of pointless.

Not because your inner life doesn’t matter. It matters. Deeply. Your private prayers, your healing, your introspection, the quiet work nobody claps for—that’s sacred.

Who cares if something feels pristine and perfect in your own brain if it never becomes love in the real world?

Because God—at least the God I’m trying to know—doesn’t just show up in the perfect parts of me. He pulls up in the spaces between people. In the friction. In the gap between your intentions and somebody else’s misunderstanding. In the moment you want to clap back but you choose peace. In the moment you could hate somebody, but you don’t. In the moment you could walk away, but you stay and you try again.

God often appears in the spaces made between people’s imperfections.

That’s why that scripture hits so hard. It’s basically a spiritual gut-check: “Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.”

People quote that like it’s a description—like, “Oh, if you don’t love everybody perfectly, you must not love God.” And that’s not how I hear it anymore. I hear it as a challenge. A mirror. A direction.

Because it’s so easy to love abstractions.

I can love “humanity.” I can love “the world.” I can love “people” in general. I can love “community” as a concept. I can love “God” in a poetic way—big, cosmic, clean, untouchable.

But loving real, flawed people? 

People who are rude. People who ignore you and judge you. People who switch up when they get a little authority. People who act holy but move sweaty. People who talk about grace and show none. People who are needy. People who are loud. People who are insecure and make you pay for it. People who remind you of the stuff you’re trying to outgrow. 

That’s where the work is.

So what the verse is saying—at least how it lands in me—is this: you can’t really claim love for God while refusing love for God’s kids. Not because God needs you to be fake-nice, but because love has to become practical or it’s just poetry.

If your love never leaves your mouth or your journal and touches another person’s life, it’s not love yet. It’s rehearsal.

And that’s why I respect the bluntness of Mosiah 2:17. It doesn’t romanticize it. It doesn’t leave it vague. It just puts it on the ground where we actually live: “When ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.”

That’s the whole thing. You want to love God? Love the people around you. It’s easy to love the thing you can’t see. But it’s not real, it’s not authentic, until you’re doing the work of loving the people you can.

And yes, it’s hard.

Not “hard” like a puzzle. Hard like weights. Hard like rehab. Hard like unlearning. Hard like swallowing your pride. Hard like choosing not to become the same kind of person who hurt you. Hard like doing kindness while your feelings are still catching up.

Because community will show you who you are.

Spirituality alone can let you curate yourself. Religion—with actual people—will expose you. It will bring out your impatience. Your need to be right. Your craving for recognition. Your tendency to withdraw. Your tendency to control. Your fear of being seen. Your old temper that’s “under control” until somebody disrespects you in a meeting. Your old mouth that’s “sanctified” until someone says something absolutely out of line. 

I’m saying this as someone who’s cleaned up a lot of my worst tendencies, but I still know exactly where they live. I know what version of me shows up when I feel dismissed. I know what version of me shows up when somebody tries to son me. I know what version of me shows up when I’m tired, underappreciated, and surrounded by people acting like their imperfections don’t stink.

And here’s the thing: the goal of religion was never to provide me a perfect experience.

Religion is not a luxury spa for the soul.

It’s a workshop.

It’s a space where God takes a bunch of broken, brilliant, annoying, beautiful humans and says, “Okay. Now learn to be family.”

That’s why the vision of “Zion” matters so much. Zion isn’t just a vibe. It’s not just “good energy.” Zion is a community reality—people becoming one, not by pretending they’re perfect, but by practicing love until it’s real. It’s the long, stubborn project of building a place where God can dwell because the people are learning to dwell together.

And you can’t build Zion alone.

Even if you’re the most spiritually advanced person on your block, you can’t build a community by yourself. You can’t practice “one another” in a mirror. You can’t “bear burdens” when you refuse to be burdened with people. You can’t learn forgiveness without somebody needing it from you. You can’t become gentle without having to handle sharp edges—yours and theirs.

So yeah, I get why folks bounce from religion to spirituality. I get why they say, “It’s just me and God.” I get why you think you’re too good, too pure, too smart for “organized religion.” Because people are exhausting. Church hurt is real. Hypocrisy is loud. Control shows up wearing a tie. Judgment can hide behind scripture. 

But I am here to say: don’t confuse the mess of people with the absence of God.

Sometimes, the mess is exactly where God is working.

Sometimes the whole point is that you learn to find Him there—inside the awkward conversations, the forgiveness you didn’t want to offer, the apology you didn’t want to make, the patience you didn’t think you had, the service you did quietly, the love you gave when you didn’t get love back.

Because anybody can love God when God stays an idea.

The question is: can you love God when God shows up as the person who annoys you? Or who disrespects the culture? Or who doesn’t know the norms? Or who wants you to stay in your place? 

That’s the challenge. Not a condemnation—an invitation.

And love does require contact with reality.

It requires other faces, other stories, other tempers, other needs.

It requires a “we.”

That’s what religion gives you—when it’s doing what it’s supposed to do. Not perfection. Practice. Not a flawless room. A refining fire.

And I’m starting to believe this: God doesn’t just save individuals. He builds a people.

So when I’m tempted to choose the clean version of faith—the version where it’s just me, my thoughts, my private peace—I try to remember: that’s not the whole assignment.

The whole assignment is to pursue God in the middle of the trouble.

In the middle of the awkward small talk.
In the middle of the misunderstood moments.
In the middle of the personalities.
In the middle of the inconvenient needs.
In the middle of my own ego getting exposed.

Because that’s where love becomes more than a concept.

That’s where spirituality becomes flesh and bone.

That’s where God—often quiet, often humble—shows up in the space between our imperfections and teaches us to call it holy.

The post The Problem With “Just Me and God” appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Marriage in America is in trouble. Rates of new marriages are at an all-time low, and record numbers of Americans have never been married. Many young people fear they will either never marry or, if they do, the marriage will end in divorce. Is there anything they can do to improve their chances of marital success? 

Thankfully, the answer is yes. Recent research from BYU’s Wheatley Institute shows that several practices within each spouse’s control contribute to stable marriages. I emphasize two of these: being fully committed to your spouse and participating in religious activities together.

Religion reinforces commitment in marriage by inspiring greater accountability. Many religions teach that marriage is more than just a civil agreement between two people—it includes a promise to God and each other to maintain the union. The more married couples prioritize each other and God, the more likely they are to stay married. When challenges arise, religious couples tend to believe they are accountable to God, not just their spouse. This elevated perspective encourages them to consider reconciliation over divorce. 

Religion also reinforces commitment by promoting honesty. Many religions charge their members to be upstanding individuals who are earnest and trustworthy. Honesty helps couples maintain complete fidelity to each other—helping them stay committed to each other and avoid divorce. 

Religion also offers quality recreational couple time through activities like scripture study, church attendance, and community outreach that reinforce the couple’s shared religious identity. These activities, offered by a shared religion, encourage healthier interactions between the couple and greater internalization of their shared religious beliefs. 

Being devoutly religious can also be protective against divorce. A 14-year Harvard University study reveals that couples who regularly attend religious services together are 50% less likely to get divorced. The Wheatley Institute has likewise shown that shared church attendance is linked to greater stability in a marriage. In turn, these religious couples report feeling greater meaning and purpose in their lives, as well as higher satisfaction and happiness in their marriage. Religion benefits relational commitment even further when shared religious practices are also observed in the home. 

Highly committed religious individuals are also less likely to cohabit before marriage, according to the 2020 Busby and Dollahite study. Contrary to popular belief, cohabitation does not lead to improved marital outcomes. Rather, cohabitation is a mark of lower commitment in a relationship. Cohabitation says, “I like you, but I still want to be able to walk out.” Couples who cohabit are more likely to dissolve the relationship before marriage or ultimately end their marriage in divorce, according to a 2022 study. Cohabitation fortifies a lack of commitment, as many cohabiting couples continually push marriage off further or indefinitely. 

Of course, not all religious people have successful marriages, and commitment takes great intention to maintain in the long run. But with so much concern about marriage among young people, it’s important to emphasize what is within their control. Through religion, couples can find greater strength in their marriage that fortifies their commitment to each other. While the risk of divorce can never be completely eliminated, religion paves the way for a lasting marriage with high commitment.

The post The “Me-First” Ethic Is Breaking Marriages Before They Begin 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

All participant names are pseudonyms.

C.S. Lewis wrote, “God is the only comfort; He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from.” These seemingly opposing views of God being a comforting friend, as well as a supreme authority and eternal judge, can be challenging to reconcile. 

We explored if and how different interpretations of God’s character reportedly influence family relationships. An exploration of the quote from Robert Ingersoll may bring some more insight: “It is difficult for a child to find a father in God unless the child first finds something of God in his father.” Ultimately, how someone views God may influence the relationship quality an individual has with their other family members.

We will cover the different views that came to light after in-depth interviews with about 200 religiously diverse families from our American Families of Faith Research Project. We discovered three ways that people tended to identify categories of attributes of God. The first was a belief that God was relational and that He truly was someone they confided in. The second perspective involved seeing God as the ultimate authority figure, a being to whom they were accountable. Thirdly, many reflected a view that combined perspectives 1 and 2 and portrayed a God who possessed both love and authority. We will explain each perspective in detail. 

Perspective 1: God is a Close Confidant 

Many of the participants (88%) expressed a sense of relationship with God. For many, this relationship was a sacred, intimate friendship—a friendship that often included God serving as a close confidant. 

Many participants seemed to convey the belief: “God is personally interested in and blesses my family.” Tucker, a Latter-day Saint father, said, 

We believe that our Heavenly Father is willing, able, and desires to help us in every decision we have to make in life. … We believe you can receive [help]. … [W]e believe that our Heavenly Father is more than happy to … put impressions in our heart [and] in our minds to give us direction. 

Another theme from participants was that they believed they could get help from God to help their families. When Angela, a Catholic mother, was asked about how God played a role in her parenting, she said, 

[I am] consoled by knowing the presence of God, God’s presence in my life. I’m not alone. I, as bad as I sometimes feel I am as a mother, or as a wife, [I still] feel like God’s presence is constant and steady, and God always loves me, and that’s consoling for me. 

In conjunction with helping their family, participants not only believed God was there, but that God was available to specifically help with their familial relationships. 

Emily, an Evangelical Christian wife and mother, shared how she turned to God when she felt at a loss as to how to help her children. 

Many times, you just have to pray…. For me, it’s a very personal thing. I can go to God and say, “I’m really concerned about this situation that this child is dealing with—help them.” I can intervene on their behalf before God, and He would work with the situation in their lives and help them. 

Participants’ reports of trusting God varied, but many reported that they trusted God to help them navigate their family relationships. Many participants’ accounts alluded to God as a source of healing and support. A Muslim wife and mother named Noor felt that God was a personal help to her. She said, 

I think many times when one of my children was very ill, I did personal supplication to Allah and … He … calmed me down and helped me through the situation. I believe that God really has helped me personally, and … that God has also helped the whole family. 

These families believed that God was personally interested in and blessed their families and that He would help and strengthen family relationships, including being a support and a healing balm. 

Perspective 2: God is an Authority Figure

Eighty-six percent of participants saw God as an authority figure. Not only was this perspective widely held, but it was also expressed at the frequency of about seven accounts per interview. Next, we explore participants’ reflections and insights on God as an authority figure. 

A common theme from the interviews was how vital it was for these families to submit to God’s will, even when challenging, in matters of marriage and family life. This submission requires humility and was well illustrated by Jimmy, an Evangelical Christian husband and father, who said, “The more I submit to God, the better husband I become.”

This submission to the Divine was reportedly a difficult and lifelong work. We again reference C.S. Lewis, who wrote, “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” 

Participants also found that believing that God had a plan for their family gave them purpose and hope amidst their rising challenges. Hannah, a Jewish wife and mother, shared how a challenge with her husband seemed to be a part of “Hashem’s [G-d’s]¹ plan” even when it was during a painful time in her life: 

But wasn’t this [hardship] actually, without our knowing it, all part of Hashem’s plan? … We didn’t like it. We suffered because we were unhappy, because we weren’t on the same path, right? But obviously this was how it was intended to work itself out, so that instead of you and me going divergent roads over it, we had to work together and find a place where we could be comfortable with each other and build a Jewish home together. 

From Hannah’s words, we can interpret that divine plans are sometimes clearer in retrospect than in the present. For many families we interviewed, these divine “plans” involved religious expectations, or commandments, which we will discuss next. 

Many of the religious individuals and families we interviewed felt a strong call, pull, or obligation to abide by the commandments or rules of God. Jake, an Evangelical Christian husband, said, “Obeying his [God’s] laws, or his commands, or his teachings, is very important to have a successful life and a family.” Participants from various branches of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity offered harmonizing views—acknowledging the authority of God, of good that came when this authority was honored, and of damage that tended to occur when it was not.

These AFF participants truly felt that when they submitted to God’s will and chose to follow His plan by keeping the commandments, they would be blessed. These beliefs comprise the viewpoint with God as an authority figure. We will now discuss how participants saw God as a friend and as an authority figure simultaneously. 

Perspective 3: God is an Authority Figure and a Close Confidant 

In brief review, 88% of participants spoke of God in warm, friendly, relational terms while 86% emphasized the authority of God. These two views of God were not viewed as conflicting or mutually exclusive. Indeed, about three-quarters of the families reflected both perspectives on God at some point in their interviews. In addition to this, however, we identified 202 accounts (in about 40% of the interviews) where participants referenced God as an authority figure and a close confidant within the same set of sentences. We will now delve into some of these “dualistic” instances. 

A recurring response from American Families of Faith participants that reflected both the “warm” role as God as friend and the “firm” role of God as the ultimate authority was a two-part belief that (1) God knows where families needed to be and (2) what they needed to be doing in their lives. Both aspects are illustrated by Yuusif, an Arab Muslim husband and father, who said, 

When you hear bad news, there is a prayer for it. When something good has happened, there is a prayer of thanks. Again, like I said: Decisions. Should I take this charge, or should I not? Should I move here, or should I not? Should I do this? So there are [many ways of] actual[ly] seeking guidance from God. 

Participants’ accounts regarding how they could trust God to help them in their relationships were different from seeing God as a close confidant, because rather than just having an interpersonal trust in God, they had trust in God’s authority. Benton, a Black Christian husband, spoke about what happened when he would do what God asked of him: 

I’m blessed with being able to supply enough for my family … but I think that [the] Lord gave me the talent that I have to be able to support my family with what I do in life, and then when He calls you to do something, like [volunteer] work that I do at the church, He’ll provide whatever you need, regardless of what it is. 

Benton had the view that God was someone who had the authority to ask him to do things, and also that God would graciously “provide whatever you need” to make those divine requests work together for the good of him and his family. Therefore, these “calls” from the Lord reportedly served as both authoritative demands and loving blessings.

Often, American Families of Faith participants spoke of having conversations with God through prayer about their family relationships. Many would address God as an authoritative, supreme being, but would also speak to Him as if He were a close confidant. Tara, a Christian wife and mother, explained:

I think we’re always asking for help and guidance in what we do with our kids and how we interact with them and what might be best for them. [It’s] just sort of a constant conversation with God. 

Only 79 families had accounts of experiences of God as both an authority figure and a close confidant in the same passage, but 156 families reported experiences with God as an authority figure and as a close confidant at different points throughout the interviews. This led us to conclude that a majority of the religiously devoted families interviewed had a holistic view of God that involved both a sense of loving relationship and a sense of potent ultimate authority. 

Takeaways

Dualistic perspectives of the Divine can affect parents’ own approaches with their children. For example, there are differences in “high authority figure” parenting versus “close-friend” parenting. A significant body of social science research indicates that optimal parenting often combines both relational warmth and relatively high expectations—in other words, both expecting the best from children and giving them the love “and” support to attain their best. Yet, authority and friendship occasionally combine in the need for chastening and correcting in loving ways.  

C.S. Lewis stated, “Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what He is doing. But presently, He starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably and does not seem to make sense. The explanation is that He is building quite a different house from the one you thought of—throwing out a new wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You thought you were being made into a decent little cottage: but He is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it Himself.”

As a heavenly parent, God has the power to alter our plans and replace them with divine plans. However, if we trust God as a friend, we can be confident that He will create lives for us that exceed our expectations, including guiding, challenging, and elevating us in our familial relationships.

Note:

(1) Orthodox Jews often use “G-d” rather than “God” to show respect for the name of God and, for the same reason, refer to God as “Hashem” (meaning “The Name”).

The post The Dual Role of God in Family Relationships appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

What is Conflict?

How would you define the word Conflict? What does conflict look like? What does conflict feel like? Taking only 1 minute to complete the following statements right now––before reading the rest of this article––will help avoid bias, creating a valuable opportunity for personal insight.

Conflict is . . .

Conflict looks like . . .

Conflict feels like . . .

Here, conflict is defined as when two or more opposing forces meet each other. But don’t toss out your definition yet. Understanding visual or verbal analogies used when describing the word can grant insight into an individual’s intrapersonal relationship with conflict. Positive and negative conflict associations equally have pros and cons. Adopting a “conflict is natural” perspective––which is neither positive nor negative––leads to highly productive conflict resolution. Understanding one’s current perspective of conflict and maturing it toward a “conflict is natural” perspective can help Christian disciples answer the call of “Peacemakers Needed.”

Conflict Associations

The video begins with a Rorschach-inspired inkblot. The seemingly random yet iconic inkblots of the Rorschach Test take root in Jung’s Word Association Test and Freud’s Free Association Technique. Each of the psychology practices endeavors to bridge the mystery of subconscious associations for conscious observation. For example, answers given to the statements at the beginning of the article can create the opportunity for the conscious self to observe subconscious associations with conflict. When exploring definitions, analogies, or sensations associated with conflict, consider the positive or negative nature of those associations. 

Negative associations typically characterize conflict as something repulsive or violent and to be avoided or discouraged. Examples from the video include rhinos charging each other, or the Earth covered and blown apart by explosions. One might picture two people verbally or physically fighting. Typically these scenarios have high or tense energy, but may also include feelings of isolation or fear motivating avoidance. If answers reveal a conflict perspective with negative associations this could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on the circumstance. These individuals are unlikely to engage in unnecessary conflict and make a significant effort to avoid negative outcomes when in a conflict. Sometimes, however, negative associations can lead people to shy away from necessary or productive conflicts, leading to hiding, isolation, or stagnation. For these people it’s important to remember not all conflicts end in pain, suffering, or destruction. Constructive conflict management can lead to peace, growth, and prosperity.

For Latter-day Saints, conflict is commonly associated with contention. In many cases, they are treated as synonyms. Having frequently facilitated discussions with Latter-day Saints regarding the theory of conflict management in educational and religious contexts, nearly every discussion includes the misquoted scripture “Contention is of the devil” (3 Nephi 11:29)––typifying a negative association. If any of them had a childhood like I did, they were probably repeatedly quoted that principle by a parent frustrated with their children’s bickering. And fair enough, the train of thought for this association is easy enough to follow:

The Devil is bad––Contention is of the Devil––Contention is bad––Contention comes from conflict––Conflict is bad.

This Transitive or Association Fallacy informs poor conflict management behavior typical of negative associations:

Shun the Devil––Contention is of the Devil––Shun Contention––Contention comes from conflict––Shun conflict. 

This paragraph could continue into its own article, and a future article will discuss the pros and cons of avoiding conflict and why it isn’t a one-size-fits-all conflict style. For now, it’s probably enough to point out that contention and conflict are not the same thing in Latter-day Saint doctrine (see TG Conflict versus TG Contention). Conflict is when two or more opposing forces meet each other. Contention comes from trying to resolve a conflict while motivated by anger. While all contention comes from conflict, not all conflict leads to contention.

The Farmer and His Horse

Indulge a Chinese fable first whispered to me in the backstage of a small theater several years ago by an older friend offering me perspective during a hard time. I was excited to hear the same story from Elder Garret W. Gong in his recent talk, All Things For Our Good. Just like all good fables, there may be differences in their telling and multitudes of meaningful interpretations. While trying to avoid forcing my take-away on you, I share the version as it was first told to me.

A farmer who lives on the frontier loses his horse to the wild.

His neighbors offer condolences.

While his father says, We’ll see.

The horse returns to the farmer, bringing with it a herd of horses.

The neighbors congratulate his fortune.

While his father says, We’ll see.

The farmer breaks his leg while riding a new horse.

His neighbors offer condolences.

While his father says, We’ll see.

War breaks out on the frontier.

The army does not recruit the farmer because his leg is broken.

The neighbors congratulate his fortune.

While his father says, We’ll see.

A Nature-al Perspective

A meditation of conflict associations may reveal a positive or negative subconscious bias. But there is a more productive conflict perspective. Conflict (just like rain, a natural phenomenon) can be thought of as either positive (like when a farmer needs more water) or negative (like when an outdoor dinner party gets rained on). However, consider how the management of the conflict can also be thought of as either negative (if the farmer drinks and gambles away his surplus profit) or positive (if the dinner guests dash inside and cozy up next to a fire). Consider these other analogies for conflicts observed in nature as used in the video;

• The biological differences of Male and Female
• Wood fueling a campfire
• The earth’s relationship with both the sun and the moon
• A wave washing up on a shore

Nature is full of conflict, yet it is neither positive nor negative. Conflict is just like nature; it is not the source of our positive or negative associations. “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” (Shakespeare in Hamlet 2.2).  Conflict is neither negative nor positive: conflict is natural. When adopting this perspective, instead of the conflict being positive or negative, it is our response to conflict––also known as conflict management––which becomes either poor (negative) or productive (positive). 

A Christian Application of the “Conflict Is Natural” Perspective

The Taijitu is a powerful symbol of the Eastern philosophy of Yin and Yang. It communicates at once both conflict and harmony and the reciprocal dependence of conflict upon harmony and harmony upon conflict; neither exists without the other. In a similar way, the Cross is a symbol of both suffering and exaltation and their mutual dependence; neither exists without the other. While both symbols have vastly more complex associations than these gross reductions, they may serve as effective visual analogies for the fundamental Latter-day Saint doctrine: “It must needs be that there is an opposition in all things” (2 Nephi 2:11). Individual agency is enabled through opposition (2 Nephi 2:16). As linked before, Conflict in the Topical Guide only refers to two other words: Opposition and Problem-Solving. “The Savior’s message is clear: His true disciples build, lift, encourage, persuade, and inspire—no matter how difficult the situation. True disciples of Jesus Christ are peacemakers” (President Russel M. Nelson). Letting go of negative or positive bias and embracing a ‘conflict is natural’ perspective enables peacemakers in productive conflict management by reinforcing individual agency.

Want more?

Check out and share all 12 videos from the Peacemaking Series, now available on YouTube, or read similar research, videos, and podcasts at thefamilyproclamation.org. Return to Public Square monthly for more articles expanding on the theories used to create each video.

The post Conflict is Natural: How We Mistake Discomfort for Destruction appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

The Public Square staff and friends learned much watching the October 2024 General Conference. Here are our main takeaways. What were yours?

CD Cunningham: Moving Beyond ‘What Works for Me’

It can be that one of the main obstacles to learning and growing from General Conference is an attitude that we will only accept those messages that “work for us.”

I was interested in how many of the messages we heard on the first day of the conference felt designed to rebut these attitudes—to help us be more open to the messages to come. 

In the first session, Elder David P. Homer emphasized that prioritizing God’s will requires trusting Him, even when His will contradicts popular opinion or our own judgment. He used the example of the Savior’s disciples who “walked away” because they “did not like what He said,” emphasizing that “it is easy for our pride to come between us and eternal truth.” He encouraged us to follow the example of those who remained faithful, trusting that God “has something better for us” if we “reach out to Him.”

Elder D. Todd Christofferson continued on this theme; he cautioned against “pursuing [our] own path without regard to divine direction,” likening it to choosing “I did it my way” instead of “I did it God’s way.” He stated that this applies even to inherently good things, like careers or caring for our physical bodies, which can become “weapons of rebellion” if they supersede God’s priorities in our lives. Instead of prioritizing our own desires, Elder Christofferson encourages us to “put the first commandment first in our lives” and allow our “love of God and our determination to serve Him” to guide our decisions.

In the final remark of the Saturday afternoon session, Elder Ulisses Soares brought the principle home. He pointed to the “growing trend” of “people becoming consumed with themselves and constantly proclaiming: ‘No matter what, I live my own truth, or I do what works for me.'” He warned that this mindset, while often framed as “authentic,” can actually hinder our spiritual progress and prevent us from obtaining “eternal life.” Instead, Elder Soares encourages us to follow the example of the Savior, who said, “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of [Him] that sent me.” He emphasizes that aligning our will with God’s is not about diminishing our individuality but rather about becoming “consecrated to the Lord” and allowing His will to become ours.

Hannah Rice: The Necessity of the Church

One clear theme stood out to me from the October 2024 General Conference: the essential role of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an organized, divinely appointed institution. This wasn’t just about the importance of personal spirituality, but about the need for a structured Church that helps us grow, stay anchored, and access the power of God.

I was moved by an assurance from David A. Bednar: The Church will never fall into apostasy on an institutional level. No matter what happens in the world or in our personal lives, the Church will remain strong, guided by divine authority and purpose.

President Russell M. Nelson posed a personal question: “To whom or what will I give my life?” The Church, with all its ordinances, covenants, and guidance, helps us answer that question. It points us to Christ and gives us the tools we need to follow Him. He is the One to whom we should give our lives. 

Instead of holding us down, our covenants with Him—like a kite string—allow us to soar, giving us stability in a world full of distractions and confusion, as Dallin H. Oaks suggested. The Church’s structure is that anchor-string which enables spiritual heights.

And as David L. Buckner reminded us: just showing up at church isn’t enough. Sitting in a pew doesn’t make you a Christian any more than sitting in a garage makes you a car. It’s living the gospel—actively applying the teachings of Christ’s Church—that makes the difference.

For me, this Conference reinforced just how essential the Church is in our path to the Savior. It’s not just a community or a collection of beliefs—it’s the divinely appointed organization that leads us to the full blessings of the gospel and helps us stay connected to God in a meaningful way.

Cassandra Hedelius: A Warm Welcome

I serve the young women in my ward, and we recently implemented the new guidance in the Church Handbook for the youth to welcome visitors and members as they arrive at Sacrament Meeting. My girls are outstanding and have risen to the occasion to fulfill this new responsibility, but I think some are a little hesitant or confused (as I absolutely would have been at that age). Why is this suddenly a thing? Why give such a task to possibly busy, tired, shy, inexperienced teenagers? Does it really matter whether people arriving at church receive eye contact, a smile, and a “welcome!” as they walk through the door?

These possible concerns from my young women weren’t on my mind when Elder Kearon took the stand, but as I listened, I quickly realized he was giving me all the answers. He reminded us he had once been a young investigator and new convert who knows first-hand the power of a sincere and joyful welcome. That experience and perspective fed his touchingly sincere enthusiasm that “we are members of the church of joy.” All of us, but particularly the youth stationed at the chapel doors, can seriously ponder Elder Kearon’s question: “How would He want each one of His children to be welcomed, cared for, nourished, and loved? How would He want us to feel when we come to be renewed through remembering and worshiping Him?”

I’ve never been a new convert, but I’ve had plenty of first days as a newly moved-in member of my new ward. Some of those Sundays were times in my life when I badly needed to feel known and loved. I’m excited for everyone arriving at church who is new, or investigating, or maybe just feels a little lost or overlooked, to see those beautiful youth with their bright eyes and shy smiles waiting at the doors, welcoming into the church of joy. I’m excited for the youth to carry out Elder Kearon’s counsel to welcome, care for, nourish, and love. It’s exciting to see the youth become more and more effective in the “Lord’s Battalion.”

Daniel Frost: Motivated Misunderstanding 

President Holland’s talk reminded me of the ever-present danger of resisting and misinterpreting what God is trying to tell us. Speaking of how some people see Jesus, President Holland said, “They’ve reduced his righteousness to mere prudishness, his justice to mere anger, his mercy to mere permissiveness.” Misunderstandings like these can be innocent, but often they are motivated. We do not want God to be certain way, so we imagine a god more to our own liking.  Our pride prevents us from perceiving the light God sends (John 3:18-21). President Holland taught, “We must not be guilty of such simplistic versions that conveniently ignore teachings we find uncomfortable.”

This thought reminded me of a poignant moment in Book VIII of Plato’s Republic. Here Socrates is telling how a person (and a city) can devolve from one kind of corruption to another. At one point, the “temple” of a young person’s soul is overwhelmed with unruly desires and the best parts of the soul are pushed out. When this happens, the person begins to call “anarchy liberty, and waste magnificence, and impudence courage.” Everything becomes distorted once the truth has been displaced and ignored. This corruption of perception may not be entirely intentional, but it is also not entirely innocent, either. Only by “hold[ing] fast to that which is good” (1 Thess 5:21) can we avoid the temptation of motivated misunderstanding.

Carol Rice: Songs of Hope

As someone who spends my days surrounded by words, I found many of the messages shared during this weekend’s General Conference particularly encouraging. I recognize that it’s not unique to feel as though they were crafted just for me. However, each speaker delivered the words I needed to hear—filled with hope, instruction, course correction, consistent comfort, and love.

The moments that especially touched my heart, however, were not conveyed through words but through song. The choir of children on Saturday afternoon performed one of our new hymns, “Gethsemane,” with poignant sincerity. Their pure voices delivered the message with remarkable gravity, resonating straight to my heart. The combination of the children’s innocence and the power of the music allowed me to truly feel the weight of what transpired in Gethsemane in a profoundly personal way. 

I worry for our children in today’s world, which can often seem so frightening. However, this moment brought me a sense of calm and reassurance. It reminded me that God knows and loves each child personally. I reflected on my recent study of 3 Nephi, where angels surrounded the children and ministered to them in the presence of Jesus Christ. I couldn’t help but imagine that angels were singing alongside those children. Perhaps they were there, encircled in fire; although I didn’t see it, the feeling was so profound that I wouldn’t be surprised if someone else did.

As the lyrics echoed, “The hardest thing that ever was done, / The greatest pain that ever was known,” I was reminded of the love and sacrifice that Jesus offered in Gethsemane—for me. “Gethsemane. Jesus loves me.”

Another new hymn performed was “Come, Lord Jesus.” Years ago, I had the incredible opportunity to be cast alongside my son, Andrew, in Savior of the World. Spending an entire holiday season traveling back and forth to Temple Square didn’t leave much time for anything else, but it remains one of my fondest memories, a season filled with a focus on the Savior and enriched by song and the promise that he will come again. Lately, I find myself singing “Come, Lord Jesus, Come” every single day. Hearing the choir sing it brought back all the feelings from that Christmas, but most especially to hear our prophet promise, in his closing remarks, that Jesus will indeed return.

It is humbling beyond words.

Brianna Holmes: Embracing the Steadfast Love of Christ

Elder Hirst’s talk on Saturday was quite remarkable to me. As I have gone back and relistened to it again and again, I am always struck by the simple and powerful way that he talks about our relationship with the Savior and our ability to feel His and God’s love for us. First, Elder Hirst emphasized that “I [can] glory in my Jesus.” While I recognize that He is the Savior of us all, we have the ability to have a unique, personal, loving relationship with Jesus Christ so that He becomes ours, each individually.

Additionally, we can understand that even when we do not feel divine love, that does not mean that it is actually beyond our reach. Elder Hirst aptly uses the mountains as evidence of the certainty of God’s love. In 3 Nephi 22:10, we read, “For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed, but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed.” God’s love is as steady and sturdy as the mountains, but even if they fall, we can be assured that His love will remain, regardless of whether we feel individually worthy of it. As Elder Hirst further commented, “We can disqualify brokenness in any way from denying us heavenly love.” 

Indeed, nothing can remove God’s love from us, and as we increase our ability to receive His love, our capacity to feel joy despite our circumstances will increase. As Elder Hirst commented, “Joy is our purpose and not the gift of our circumstance.”

Gale Boyd: From Hubris to Humility

Tracy Y. Browning, the Second Counselor in the Primary presidency of the Church, was my favorite speaker at this General Conference. I took an astronomy class at BYU way back in the 1960s. Our textbook portrayed the moon and Mars as known entities in our solar system, but the book became obsolete before class started when early orbital missions provided new information. I remembered sensing the hubris we humans tend to have that hopefully turns to humility when new truths present themselves.

Sister Browning described our discoveries at the edge of our solar system, which changed everything we know about Pluto (a former planet) and nearby bodies in space. She then counseled us on how to grow in faith by asking questions in humility. I have watched dear ones suffer from cognitive dissonance as they have accepted wrong information about the gospel and the Church. I hope they follow Sister Browning’s suggestions for finding real truth and peace and, in the meantime, to be able to have faith without knowing everything.

The post Beyond the Pulpit: Unpacking the Spiritual Gems of General Conference appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

The more time I spent on the course working on my putting and talking to God, the more I realized how golf can teach us to navigate the inevitable obstacles that life is going to throw at us. 

Lessons from the Rough 

Landing in the rough is inevitable, but there can be a lesson in everything. One particular day on the golf course, I was having a pretty bad round. Work was stressful, my relationships were suffering, and I set foot on the course, highly frustrated and tense. It was not long (only hole two, to be exact) before a poor shot landed me right in the rough.

The Rough: A Metaphor for Life’s Challenges 

No golfer wants to land in the rough because it can be a struggle to get out of. However, it can also be a powerful metaphor for the challenges of life and a lesson on how best to deal with unpredictable experiences. For instance, landing in the rough is never planned. You hit your shot to the best of your ability, but something else happens to veer it off course. It could be an error on your part, such as a miscalculated swing, or it could be attributed to some external circumstances like a change in the wind. 

In the same way, life’s rough can be as unpredictable as the golf course, loaded with obstacles that are not always immediately apparent and can be tough to navigate without losing something. And ultimately, we all end up in the rough at some point. 

Focus on the End Goal 

In golf, the key to navigating the rough is to focus on the green. Similarly, in life, it can be helpful to focus on where you want to be, not where you currently are. It can be hard to get out of the rough if that’s where your focus is. Your mindset towards and focus on your goals are essential to get your desired end result. This can be applied to anything in life. Whether you are struggling to find a job or experiencing relationship difficulties, you must look beyond the current circumstances of your life and strive to understand what needs to happen to achieve your desired goals. Focusing on the problem will only get you so far, whereas focusing on the solution can help you understand how to get to where you want to go. With this in mind, there are a few things that can help in that endeavor. 

Assessing the Situation 

As a golfer, you do not just walk up to the ball and take a swing. It is best to take a few moments to assess where the ball landed and how you should play it. Each circumstance is different. When faced with a rough moment in life, the same principle can apply. In this way, we can differentiate between focusing on the problem in unproductive ways and pondering the best course of action. Running up to our problems and taking a swing at them is often not the best solution. Taking a bit of time to evaluate the situation, understand the challenge, and decide on a course of action can be invaluable. 

Once you have assessed the situation, you can more adequately prepare to take the shot. Likewise, once you fully understand where you are at in life, taking steps to set yourself up for success can give you a boost. You can take the time to stop, breathe, and choose your action. You can seek guidance through prayer or find strength in scripture. In addition, choosing the right tools and seeking support can help you along the way. 

Choosing the Right Tools 

Additionally, there is no universal club to get out of the rough. What we use can depend on a number of other things. For instance, the distance to the green, the wind, the slope, and other factors will influence the approach a golfer takes to the challenge. In life, some ways of handling the rough are better than others, but there is no universal way to tackle them. Selecting the right tool by taking the time to adequately assess the situation can make or break your effort to get out of the rough and sail towards your goals.

Seeking Support 

Golfers who assume the caddie is simply there to carry their bags are potentially missing out on excellent advice and guidance. These quiet guides are loaded with wisdom and experience specific to the course, local weather, and other relevant information. In the same way, when you land in life’s rough, you can seek support. Mentors, family, friends, and faith communities could hold ideas, knowledge, and points of view that can help you see a way out of the rough that you may not have thought of on your own. 

During the Rough Time 

While the shot happens fast and does not always end in desirable circumstances, there is still a lot to be gained from the process. The following steps can help you orient yourself to a rough real-life situation. 

• Accept Your Situation: In golfing terms, play the ball as it lies! That means accepting current circumstances and adapting your actions to suit the situation. 
• Embrace the Process: Understand that difficulties happen. Bitterness serves no purpose, so embrace the rough patches and try to treat it as an opportunity to learn. 
• Stay Positive: Your attitude going through the rough can change the outcome. Check your attitude and fake it ‘til you make it if you have to! According to therapist Alison Seponara, a “short, powerful statement that allows you to consciously be in control of your thoughts” is an excellent tool. 
• Visualize: Have an idea of how you want your situation to go, and keep that focus as you go. In other words, “What you think about, you bring about!” 
• Take Your Time: Although we would all like to get out of the rough as fast as possible, taking your time allows you to do it right the first time. As the saying goes, “haste makes waste!”
• Forgive Yourself: Whether by your own mistakes or happenstance, difficulties are destined to happen in life. Placing blame, even on oneself, is not always the best way to move forward. You can allow yourself to be ‘human’ and recognize that negative experiences are a part of the process. 

After the Experience 

Once you’ve navigated the rough of life (or golf), you can seize the opportunity to learn. These specific steps may help you in moving forward. 

• Reflect and Learn: Analyze what worked and what did not, and learn for next time. We cannot learn the lessons of past experiences without first understanding them. From there, we can go out and improve what needs to be improved. 
• Express Gratitude: While it can be difficult to be grateful for the ‘rough,’ we can recognize the good that can come from it in a way that does not have to ignore the difficulties. However, gratitude can make it easier to navigate through. 
• Share your Experience: Offer encouragement to others going through the same thing as you. 
• Seek Continued Support: The rough will come again. Maintain your support system and nurture those relationships. 

It has taken me almost a lifetime of playing golf to understand that it can be an amazing metaphor for life. As golfing great Ben Hogan has said, “As you walk down the fairway of life, you must smell the roses, for you only get to play one round.” While I can find the overlaps with good times in life, I take comfort in knowing that when I’m struggling, I have a game plan and the perfect caddie guiding me through life—our Creator.

The post When Fairways Become Pathways: Lessons on Resilience from the Rough appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Yes, seriously. I never dreamed middle-aged moms’ coronary arteries suddenly shredding themselves was a thing, but apparently, it’s a thing. One moment, I was brushing my hair; the next moment, I collapsed, I couldn’t breathe or see, and my right arm went totally limp. My four little children were still in their beds, waiting for Mommy to come get them up. The fear they would find me dead is the most terrible thing I’ve ever felt.

Technology, wealth, and peace have insulated me from the tragedy that has been perfectly ordinary throughout human history. I felt like I owned my life as long as I did a pretty good job with it; I raise my kids pretty good, I live the gospel pretty good, and I don’t get in knife fights or hang glide or do drugs.

But now, my illusion of entitlement is shattered. I’ve no right to be here. I’m not entitled to be alive. I own nothing because the ancient wisdom was always true: The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away (but didn’t go through with it this time). Blessed be the name of the Lord.

I’m besotted with gratitude that He let me stay. There’s nothing like a brush with death to make you count your blessings. But I’m also reeling with dismay that it happened (and that it has an uncomfortably high chance of an encore). I guess I’m grieving my old illusion.

Maybe I’m the only one impertinent enough to imagine “How dare you, Sir” -ing the Almighty, but plenty of others have as good and better reasons to beat down the door at the heavenly Complaints Department. The longer I experience life as a mother, the more I can’t help crying when I read about mothers losing babies and babies losing mothers. I don’t dare read many headlines out of Israel, Yemen, or Sudan. I used to love visiting historic sites, but Alice Frary’s gravesite on Antelope Island wrecked me last summer. A friend my age who was born in a developing country told me both her and her brother’s names mean “good health.” Did it ever occur to you to name your children “good health” as a prayer they’d survive to adulthood?

We think we’re normal and boring. But a peaceful, prosperous life with my loving husband and children, growing old in good health, as a member of latter-day covenant Israel, is such an absurdly lucky stroke when considered in historical context that I might as well be a Powerball winner. There’s an entire Millennium coming just to give everyone else the chance to have the life I’m already living.

I’m grieving my old, uncomplicated outlook where I took for granted a seamless transition from a happy life to a happy eternity. Untimely death and tragic separation from my little kids, who need me so much, is too terrible to contemplate, but I have to. I thought I trusted the Lord, but I don’t really, not with them.

So I’m alive and grateful but suffering ongoing symptoms, a bit paranoid about a recurrence, and wrestling with a feeling of vexation with God (and sheepishness for being vexed with God). Happiness is not very high on my current list of feelings. It will be again, but it’s not right now.

What does God want?

Our society doesn’t care much about what God wants except to self-servingly proclaim God wants us to be happy.

It’s tempting to answer a different, much easier question—of course, God loves everyone just as much as everyone else, the unfortunate perhaps even more than the fortunate. But the actual question—how does God prioritize our happiness?—is difficult. The answer is that He does care, surely, but not necessarily in the way we’d ignorantly prefer. He weeps for us but seems more moved by our self-inflicted spiritual suffering than our hardships in life. There are plenty of miracles, but far more often, He allows events to take their course. The Savior came to earth to be one of us in order to suffer with us and succor us, not to bippidi-boppedi-boo our troubles away.

C.S. Lewis called it: “I’m not sure God wants us to be happy. I think he wants us to love and be loved. But we are like children, thinking our toys will make us happy and the whole world is our nursery. Something must drive us out of that nursery and into the lives of others, and that something is suffering.” Pain is instrumental, necessary. Hope in the Millennium and eventually the Celestial Kingdom is our comfort, not deliverance from difficulties now. God really will reunite families, give parents the chance to raise their children, allow those who didn’t have the chance in life to finally marry and have children, and wipe all tears from our eyes. But we have to wait for it.

Where wealth and technology make life Instagrammable and seemingly risk-free, we’re lulled by the flippant God wants us to be happy, or its dark corollary, any suffering proves there is no God because if there were a God He’d want us to be happy. The path from the first to the second, from flippant faith to angry atheism, is not long when pain interrupts an assumption of entitlement.

Instagram theologians, including many Christians who ought to know better, pile on even more flippant assertions: God wouldn’t want and God would never.

God wouldn’t want me to be alone.
God would never expect me to live inauthentically.
God wouldn’t want me to deny myself love.
God would never inspire His prophet to endorse a vaccine I oppose.

This is obvious nonsense to anyone who takes the scriptures seriously. We strive to follow a Savior who told us to take up our own crosses, to cut off our own hands, to observe our covenants by every sacrifice which the Lord shall command. The God who dragged our ancestors across a continent on foot and allowed horrific infant and maternal mortality rates isn’t going to re-write His commandments to ease modern woes.

In October, President Nelson urged us to “think Celestial.”

“When someone dies prematurely, think celestial …

“Consider the Lord’s response to Joseph Smith when he pleaded for relief in Liberty Jail. The Lord taught the Prophet that his inhumane treatment would give him experience and be for his good. “If thou endure it well,” the Lord promised, “God shall exalt thee on high.” The Lord was teaching Joseph to think celestial and to envision an eternal reward rather than focus on the excruciating difficulties of the day.”

If we don’t try to see from God’s eternal perspective, the sorrows meant to purify us will instead only fester. We’re here to be proven, much more than to be happy. We’re here to learn happiness on God’s terms, not ours.

What does God want? For us to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with Him. To be grateful for succor in times of hardship. To enjoy our blessings without feeling entitled to them. To choose difficult obedience over unscriptural platitudes about happiness that will inevitably turn to ashes.

To trust Him, though He slay us.

The post Motherhood, Mortality, and the Myth of Control appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Popular culture pervasively stereotypes the sex lives of married Christian couples. Because religious communities encourage sexual purity—chastity before marriage and fidelity in marriage—it’s not uncommon to see religion and sex painted into separate corners. Sex within marriage is often depicted as mundane compared to the enticing portrayal of passionate, “no-risk” sex during singlehood. When religiosity is added to the married mix, you’ve got the perfect media-framed picture of a dull or even non-existent sex life.  

Although pop culture continues to exploit religious, sexual stereotypes, the narrative is remarkably far from reality. Current nationally representative studies show that highly religious married couples are having significantly more satisfying sex than their less religious or secular peers. 

Painting Christian sexual restraint as negative, then, is a mischaracterization. Religiosity and sexuality are both major influential components of individual and relationship life and are divinely intended to harmonize. Christians celebrate sex as a gift from God as they honor His loving guidance to appreciate, fully embrace, and safeguard sexuality within marriage. 

What James E. Faust taught about Christianity generally certainly applies to a divine approach to sexual intimacy: “Many of [the rising generation] are brought up to think that goodness means repression. … But real Christians do not carry their religion [on their backs], their religion carries them. It is not weight, it is wings. … It makes life purposeful, hope real, [and] sacrifice worthwhile. … You can know a real Christian when you see him [or her] by [their] buoyancy.”

To fully enjoy sexuality in its beauty within marriage, we need to understand that God’s vision for sexuality is not just about when sex happens but why sex happens. Behavior that coincides with His vision (reverence and respect, including but much grander than abstaining from premarital sex) should be primarily motivated by the idea behind chastity—the celestial heart of the law—the preciousness and invaluable benefits of a sexual relationship found in a loving, committed marriage.

Sexual Sanctification

In a study on the role of religiosity on sexual satisfaction, Nathan Leonhardt and colleagues found that religiosity can have two paradoxical influences on people; religiosity can be conveyed or received in a way that produces sexual guilt, an attitude that can negatively influence sexual satisfaction, or it can instill sexual sanctification—the belief that the sexual bond between partners is sacred—an attitude that can powerfully and positively influence sexual satisfaction. When couples believe that sexuality is designed by God to help couples bond, experience pleasure, and enhance their commitment to each other and their family, religion is a positive force that increases sexual satisfaction for both women and men.

A report from the Wheatley Institution adds that the link between religiosity and sexual satisfaction in marriage is strengthened when partners are unified in religious practices at home. While perhaps not a common Valentine’s Day message, individuals who regularly attend church and regularly practice home worship together (e.g., prayer, scripture study, etc.) have significantly better levels of relationship quality, strong emotional closeness, and high sexual satisfaction. The report states, “This type of unity may help create a sort of spiritual intimacy that … greatly strengthens a couple’s sexual bond. Ultimately, loving and lasting relationships are ones where sexual intimacy is a meaningful physical manifestation of the emotional and spiritual intimacy shared between the partners.” 

People of faith understand that sexuality is much more than a matter of physicality. The sanctity of sexuality gives profound emotional and spiritual meaning to the sexual experience and leads to overall greater sexual satisfaction, higher marital satisfaction, and more frequent sex. 

Secure Attachment

Sexual intimacy can powerfully fortify couples by strengthening marital attachment. In family relationships, the attachment between a mother and child is a naturally strong, inseparable genetic bond. Spouses, however, must learn this bond and the relational virtues that nourish it. Spouses must choose daily to love, give, and receive strong connection and commitment. Secure attachment is consistently linked to higher relationship quality and is considered a foundational marker of marital health by many marriage and family therapists and scholars. Numerous elements in the design of human sexuality foster and help maintain this enduring attachment bond between spouses.

During sex, the brain releases its own natural aphrodisiac, oxytocin (often nicknamed the love hormone or cuddle chemical), which creates feelings of intimacy and connectedness for both husband and wife. The role of oxytocin, though, is not to heighten sexual arousal or pleasure but to confirm the relationship. The primarily male hormone vasopressin is also released, helping connect a man emotionally to his spouse. Vasopressin is associated with physical and emotional mobilization, which naturally drives men to provide and care for their spouses and children. Biology, then, tells a different story about men’s sexuality than the “emotionally uninvolved” stereotype. The unique bonding features of sexuality serve to strengthen the couple relationship as well as provide an optimal family foundation from which children can survive and thrive.

A Foundation of Trust

Secure attachment can only be cultivated in a relationship of trust, where each spouse is confident in the other’s intimate fidelity and dependability. Relationships grounded in such trust and security are happier, more stable, and more satisfying. There is no more intimate, vulnerable act than sexual intimacy—a symbol and expression of deep unity and trust on every level—physical, emotional, relational, and spiritual. Marital sexuality is a proving ground where husbands and wives entrust themselves to each other and ensure that the other feels understood, safe, accepted, and cared for. 

Research on optimal sexuality shows that “great sex” results from a foundation of trust, allowing partners to be vulnerable and emotionally authentic. The “best” physical intimacy begins with emotional and spiritual intimacy—not the other way around. When spouses share themselves emotionally and spiritually first, and when their vulnerability is met with safe holding by their partner, the context and experience of physical arousal are enhanced and enveloped in relational security. 

A Chance to Cherish Differences

Perhaps in no other sphere are differences between men and women more naturally apparent than in human sexuality. By nature, the sexual response thresholds of men and women are incongruent, meaning there tends to be a gap in the time needed for men and women to be aroused and then, in sexual intimacy itself, to move from arousal to orgasm. Although both men and women can experience the phases of desire, arousal, orgasm, and resolution, the timing and order can differ between spouses. As well, spouses can prefer different types of intimacy (emotional, physical, etc.), and it’s common for one spouse to desire a higher frequency of connection while the other is more concerned with the quality of connection—both being important and necessary for a healthy sexual relationship. 

Positively viewed, differences between husband and wife provide a kind of tension for growth. Providentially, sex releases endorphins which are essential to feeling good and lowering irritability, helping couples work through disagreements—including sexual differences—more lovingly and find common ground that works for both husband and wife. Sexual sharing is a natural context for couples to establish and strengthen a relational template of mutual giving and receiving; spouses learn about each other, appreciate the differences, and integrate them as part of their expression of love. The physical symbol of a couple coming together is a representation of their complementarity; with all their inherent differences, they belong perfectly and, in their sexual sharing, create a sexual and relational wholeness that is both intimate, sacred, and uniquely personal for each couple. 

Truly, it is not just dealing with differences but appreciation for the differences between men and women that creates sexual harmony. As one couple expressed: “He reminds us to connect physically, she reminds us to connect emotionally, and together we are a stronger couple.” Learning to appreciate and honor differences as an opportunity for connection rather than conflict has a natural spillover into all areas of the relationship. 

Strength in All Seasons

In committed marriages, couples discover that sexual sharing passes through different seasons of intimacy. No particular sexual season is better than the other, but each seems best in its respective time and place over the life cycle. (In early marriage, sex is one thing; in middle marriage, it changes some; in later marriage, it becomes something else.) In every season, sexuality can be wonderful and exactly what is wanted and needed for that season of the couple’s lives. Sexual activity retains benefits for all ages of adulthood, and research suggests that a satisfying sex life among married couples may, in fact, delay mortality. The fact that sexuality is malleable is certainly a genius of its design and evidence of its intended continuous benefit throughout an enduring marriage.

Throughout the seasons of a couple’s life, sexuality revitalizes passion for life and for each other. During certain phases of marriage and family life (e.g., pregnancy, childrearing, launching, empty nest, aging), couples will adapt and adjust—hopefully positively and playfully— in many ways. Necessary shifting from spontaneous to purposeful efforts to prioritize the couple’s sexual time in no way diminishes the emotional or passionate energy they’re able to share. Sexual passion stems from each person’s unique way of being and ability to express themselves and their interests to someone they care about. As each spouse continues to personally develop over a shared lifetime, sexuality has the potential for continuous enhancement through familiarity gained and an increasingly deepening relationship. 

Embracing God’s Vision for Sexuality 

Couple sexuality is a beneficial and integral part of marriage for people of faith. A divine and positive vision for sexuality in marriage can be a powerful motivator for one’s behavior to align with God’s direction both prior to and throughout marriage. How would individual and social attitudes about sexuality change based on the belief that sex is from God, not the world, and intended to wonderfully bless couples’ lives? 

Elder David A. Bednar summarized, “[Sexual intimacy] in mortality [is] one of the ultimate expressions of our divine nature and potential.” Embracing this vision, religious parents and couples can speak positively and sacredly about sexuality. Families can teach more about the blessings of bodies, the divinely orchestrated benefits of marital sex, and sexual expression throughout marriage based in mutuality, selflessness, and care. Individuals can prepare early for healthy sexual engagement in marriage by developing areas of physical, emotional, and spiritual health that contribute to sexual wholeness. With a more complete alignment of Christianity and marital sexuality, let us regard sexuality for what it is—a powerful, God-created way for husband and wife to flourish through soul-deep connection, belonging, and love.

The post A Match Made in Heaven: Uniting Christianity and Marital Sexuality appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

When was the last time you were reading the comments on a major story until you came across That Guy? You know, the unhinged one who unleashes a blistering tirade that includes all sorts of playground insults and things we were told in Kindergarten not to say … so much so that you think, “look how crazy this person is!”

Well, have you ever considered that they weren’t crazy? And that they may even be smarter than you think? 

Hear me out. Imagine you were really mad at some group about some issue (not so hard for Americans to imagine).  Let’s say, for instance, you’re a liberal furious at strong Trump supporters. So, you see an article written about a national political issue, with a lively discussion going on in the comments. And now comes the multiple choice pop quiz:  What would be the most effective way to rally people against the MAGA supporters you so vehemently oppose?   

A — Write an earnest comment outlining your concerns with that group’s perspective — and express another view you think is better?

B — Just write this instead: “Those godless Biden followers are all going to hell.  I, with my buddies, are stocking up weapons for the fight to come. True lovers of Americans will rally to our standard. It’s time for revolution — and so you better watch your back, you gay activists, evil BLM people — because we’re out to take back our country for the White Race.”

Which “rhetorical strategy” would be the most effective in rallying people to oppose Those People?  The answer is pretty obvious, don’t you think? 

Here’s the question that is far less obvious:  How would anyone even know that you were the real author of that comment?   

They mostly wouldn’t. Especially in our hyper-reactive American atmosphere right now, would it surprise anyone if the large majority of left-leaning readers took for granted that this hateful, bigoted (fabricated) comment came from a genuinely hateful, bigoted (conservative) heart? Why would they think otherwise? 

Especially because it’s so confirmatory of what they already believe. Don’t we all love to come across ‘red meat’ evidence of our deepest, most important convictions?  

That’s my own explanation for why the national media seems to love any story that implicates BYU as a bastion of racism … even if the evidence ends up being flimsy and limited.   

All right, so fair enough, we all recognize this tendency in our ready-to-pounce, explosively-angry country.  So then, what about someone truly, honestly wanting to know the truth … and starting to realize something fishy is going on? 

Watching for clues and patterns. In 1888, five women were tragically killed on the east side of London by someone who came to be known in newspapers as “Jack the Ripper” because of the particularly cruel ways in which these women were murdered.

Police couldn’t find him. And no one could figure out what was going on. It created a mass hysteria — with fear spreading more and more amidst the uncertainty. This desperation caused detectives to begin zeroing in on the details of how these murders were happening.

In particular, the brutal way these poor women’s throats were cut, with abdominal mutilations and the removal of internal organs following, led to a narrowed focus on butchers, slaughterers, surgeons, and physicians in the vicinity.  Furthermore, the concentration of the killings around weekends and public holidays, as well as within a short distance of each other, lead some to conclude the killer was locally employed.   

Although the villain’s identity was never fully proven, this became one of the earliest known examples of criminal profiling, wherein this careful attention to detail helped guide the investigation. 

Exactly one year before these murders started, Arthur Conan Doyle introduced Sherlock Holmes to the world. This now world-famous detective was quoted as saying in one of his cases, “It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important. Never trust to general impressions, my boy, but concentrate yourself upon details” (A Case of Identity, 1891). 

That, I would submit, is a central key in how you — and any of us — can begin to identify truth-tellers from propaganda artists — including and especially those masquerading online as an especially loathsome version of the group they hate the most.  

Spotting propaganda. In 1965, French sociologist Jacques Ellul outlined how to recognize propaganda in the classic text,  “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes.” These five qualities of all propaganda are especially helpful in identifying what is known as “gray” propaganda, where you don’t easily recognize the true source:

1. Dominating with pervasive and non-stop messaging

2. Delegitimizing and demonizing any opposition

3. Framing the conversation favorable to (only) one view 

4. Finessing the truth in various other ways

5. Bypassing rational discourse by invoking darker passions (e.g., fear or anger).  

When you hear “dominating with pervasive & non-stop messaging,” what does that bring to mind around us today? Compared with other truth-tellers, who may share their message with equal passion, a propagandist relies on overwhelming people. On that point, Ellul says:

Propaganda must be total. The propagandist must utilize all of the technical means at his disposal … successful propaganda will occupy every moment of the individual’s life: through posters and loudspeakers when he is out walking, through radio and newspapersat home, through meetings and movies in the evening. The individual must not be allowed to recover, to collect himself, to remain untouched by propaganda during any relatively long period. … It is based on slow, constant impregnation (emphasis my own).

Slow, constant impregnation. Occupy every moment. Not allowed to recover. Sound familiar?

Bypassing rational discourse through fear or anger. None of this is aimed at simply teaching or enlightening people. As Jacques Ellul elaborates:

The aim of modern propaganda is no longer to modify ideas, but to provoke action. It is no longer to change adherence to a doctrine, but to make the individual cling irrationally to a process of action. It is no longer to lead to a choice, but to loosen the reflexes. It is no longer to transform an opinion, but to arouse an active and mythical belief.

Goading people into certain kinds of actions (and inaction) rather than helping them think more clearly, is what a propagandist wants. In fact, you can summarize all five of those characteristics in one way. You will know when you’ve spotted a propagandist masquerading as a truth-teller because the fruit of their sharing will be to silence others and to distort, divert, and deform healthy dialogue in some way. 

Profile of a Propagandist. Let’s break that down more clearly, into a simple profile you can use to discern any online commentary that comes from a legit propaganda artist. Pay attention to when someone is …

 1. Saying SO much that it drowns out other voices

2. Saying things to make others seem illegitimate

3. Saying things to make himself or herself unquestionable

4. Saying things that are demonstrably untrue

5. Saying things to “stir people up” in anger or fear 

In sum, be on the lookout for what we might call pervasive rhetorical aggression — reflecting a concerted campaign to fight honest conversation. As Jacques Ellul underscores, “To be effective, propaganda cannot be concerned with detail. … Propaganda ceases where simple dialogue begins … it does not tolerate discussion; by its very nature, it excludes contradiction and discussion.”

Is that clear enough?  To really tighten the picture further, let’s talk about a fair control group — which is key in scientific research to establish the truth further. Many others are also passionate and sharing things — including passionate activists and missionaries for different faiths. 

Profile of a truth-teller. In contrast to the profile of a propagandist above, here are some characteristics to identify someone telling the truth passionately and honestly: 

1. Saying lots of stuff, but not in an attempt to drown out those who disagree

2. Saying things to promote a message while holding space for questions

3. Not saying things to intentionally delegitimize others 

4. Not saying things that are demonstrably untrue

5. Not saying things to merely “rile people up”

In summary, truth-telling always helps to cultivate a healthy dialogue space, in sharp contrast with those generating propaganda, who have no such interest. 

Telling the difference:  Wildebeest or a Lion? And the cool thing is you can tell the difference between these two. Just like on an African safari, you look out and say, “those are the wildebeests,” and “those are the elephants,” and “those are the lions.” They all eat things and walk on four legs. But they are different beasts. Discernible. Detectable. And differentiable. 

Even if they look mostly the same!  If you see this furry predator with stripes, it’s probably a tiger. But if you spot a predator with a mane and no stripes, it’s probably a lion.

Paying attention to details, these things become predictable. When you spot something fishy online, try honing in on these same five questions — assessing whether this person is … 

1. Trying to drown others out in passionate sharing?

2. Trying to delegitimize those with different views?

3. Trying to close down the space for those raising sincere questions?

4. Trying to stay as accurate and factual as possible?

5. Trying to promote rational, thoughtful exchange?

When you get to this level of granularity, it starts to get pretty black or white. That is, you are either …

1. Drowning others out or making space for them

2.Delegitimizing others … or engaging them

3. Cutting off people with sincere questions … or hearing them out

4. Staying as accurate as possible … or not

5. Promoting thoughtful exchange … or not

You can be one of these or the other — but you can’t really be both!  And by running text through this test, you can tell the difference. As Douglas Adams parodies in his book Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency, “If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands.”

Which brings us back to the example we began with, where someone is pretending to be someone else online — as a way to make them look repulsive and terrible. How much are we being played by propagandists?

Those who study cyberbullying recognize the similarity to a common bullying technique called “frapping,” where the bully impersonates someone else by logging into their social media account, using a screen name similar to the victim’s, and creating a new account pretending to be the victim. The bully then engages in inappropriate behavior to make the other person look bad. One study found that among teens who admitted to cyberbullying,  5% had created a fake profile online and used it to annoy or upset another person.

Being vigilant and courageous.  We’re experiencing a bit of a ‘Knives Out’ moment at our magazine, directed at me in particular. Some are good faith critiques, while others are clearly not — reflecting something else. In addition, there are a growing amount of salacious, outrageous lies being promoted online about us.  

We expect all of this to continue as we wade into some very sensitive and important conversations in the weeks ahead. We’re not doing any of this to be popular — and know well that if we wanted to be liked online, we’d be pursuing a very different strategy. When it comes to followers, our ultimate concern is only with One — the same who once warned his followers, “If the world hates you, remember that it hated me first.”

Our hope is that others looking on will be discerning when they see accusations being made of us as a team. These criteria above may not provide definitive proof that someone is being fake and disingenuous. If someone’s really good at it, they’ll probably be able to fool most people. The ultimate test of lies is a more internal, “embodied” test. As Joseph Smith once put it, “truth tastes good.” Just as we know how rotten food tastes when it first goes into your mouth, we can detect when something rotten comes to our attention. And we can tell when something beautiful does too. “Oh wow, that feels so right … yum!”

Don’t underestimate what this internal confirmation of truth can tell us. As Moroni testifies anciently, “by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.”

Do you know what this feels like inside? It’s sweet and peaceful — unmistakably so. Different than mere head harmony, this is the kind of gut-deep peace that is impossible to shake.  When you feel that, you can then follow the Buddha’s dictum, to simply “follow the peace.” Along the way, let’s keep our eyes out for these details.  Speaking through Sherlock Holmes, Arthur Conan Doyle writes, “On the contrary, Watson, you can see everything. You fail, however, to reason from what you see. You are too timid in drawing your inferences” (“The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle,” 1892). 

With the help of the Spirit and our own watchful attention to these kinds of details, may we do our best to see everything we need to see — and spot those attempting to make us see things that are false. 

The post Truth teller vs. Propagandist: How to Tell the Difference appeared first on Public Square Magazine.