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?

Dignity-honoring leadership sounds like speaking to the whole country, not just to your coalition. It looks like leaders who are willing to correct their own side when they dehumanize. It shows up when a leader refuses to reduce millions of Americans to a single insult, even when that insult would play well on social media. In recent memory, one Republican example often referenced is John McCain’s moment on the campaign trail in 2008 when a supporter tried to portray Barack Obama as dangerous and illegitimate—and McCain publicly corrected her, insisting Obama was a decent person with whom he disagreed. After the attack against an Orlando nightclub, Barack Obama resisted the urge to paint the attack as “us against them” saying instead, “This could have been any one of our communities.”

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-honoring leadership acknowledges strong emotions and even legitimate errors while lowering the temperature, increasing unity both within your coalition and between coalitions. Both parties occasionally fall short on this front. As a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton dismissed her opponents as a “basket of deplorables.” Meanwhile, Republicans chanted “own the libs,” lumping everyone who disagreed with their party into a single stereotype.

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.

This principle does not deny wrongdoing. It insists that human change is more likely when we appeal to what is best in people. You change people by introducing them to their goodness rather than demeaning them or their allies. Perceiving and appreciating the dignity of others often triggers in them a positive realignment with their truest authentic self.

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.

 

This article is part of a four‑part series that draws from insights in our forthcoming book, Exemplary, Strong Black Marriages & Families (Routledge, in press).

For decades, African American leaders and scholars have echoed Proverbs 17:22 that “a merry heart doeth good like a medicine.” Consider W.E.B. Du Bois, the first African American to earn a Ph.D. from Harvard and cofounder of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, who famously said, “I am especially glad of the divine gift of laughter: it has made the world human and lovable, despite all its pain and wrong.” Civil Rights hero Martin Luther King, Jr. is often quoted as having said, “It is cheerful to God when you rejoice or laugh from the bottom of your heart.” Indeed, African Americans have long used humor to cope with the ills of slavery and the unfairness of discriminatory practices. Research suggests that humor can fortify racial identity and cultivate optimism, hope, and resilience among Black Americans. Yet, humor seems to contribute even more than this.

We interviewed 46 Black married couples, nominated by their clergy as exemplary. Our American Families of Faith research team found that positive humor contributes to strong marriages and families in vital ways. In this article, we highlight three types of humor featured in exemplary Black families. 

Humor in Coping with Racism

Using humor to cope with racism (and other forms of stress) was common among the exemplary Black families we interviewed. Dean, a Catholic husband, said: 

Blatant racism happens to this day. We talk about it with each other. We use humor as a way to deal with it, as a coping mechanism. You can either cry or laugh. We know who we are, what we are, and Whose we are … [God’s].

Gwen, a quick‑witted and candid wife, explained with a twinkle in her eye how she turned the hurt of racism over to God and trusted that justice would someday be fulfilled. Glimpses of her humorous attitude were apparent:

[The] bottom line was we both knew that [changing the heart of a certain person at my work] was a job for God. … I just said to the Lord, “You just need to help me with this, because this person has a problem.” … So, I think the Lord just … whooped them up a little bit and then kicked them out! (Laughter) So, it was just one of those things where, yes, you will encounter [racism], and I know I will, until Jesus comes and gets me out of here. But … I can’t become bitter about it … because God is not going to put up with that. So, if they want to spend eternity in hell burning … because they won’t accept me, because my color is a little different than theirs, then that’s their problem. So, I have to just rest in the Lord on that one. 

Joelle, a Christian wife, also discussed racism:

To me, it’s not personal, it’s their ignorance. I have never doubted who I am or how important I am and how much I deserve to be on this earth. See, they’re wrong for misunderstanding, and I really believe that God loves me the most. (Laughter) 

Humor was a coping device for racism and other pain points, but humor was also used as a positive lever for navigating and strengthening the marriage relationship.

Humor in Marriage

After being prompted for advice they would give to other African American couples, Amber and Duane both talked about the importance of humor. Amber listed four tips for a successful marriage: communicate, be equally yoked, forgive, and keep a sense of humor. Duane concurred, that a “good sense of humor [is important] … for it to be a good marriage.”

Many participant couples shared humor-laced stories that highlighted how they used laughter to help their marriages flourish. Gwen said,

[I]f there’s something [a wife] needs to say to [her husband], … she should do so when things are calm. … Perhaps it’s a screen door that’s quite annoying because all he has to do is just repair it quickly with the screwdriver, something which she doesn’t know [how to do], and she tells him the first time about it, and he doesn’t do anything. Then, any other time she thinks about it, she needs to tell God, because God will whoop him up. (Laughter) … God can let him have it.

An African Methodist wife from Massachusetts named Joann said:

[L]et me just deal with God and wait for Him to change Gary over to my point of view, which is the correct point of view. …[B]ut usually when I’m waiting for God to change Gary, then [God] will be changing me! [God is] sneaky.  

Annie and her husband Al shared how humor and having fun were crucial to their marriage. 

Annie: You have to … make a decision to love and have fun. See, I was determined that this house was going to have some fun and that we were going to laugh and … be happy. Not only was I going to be happy, but we were going to be happy. Everyone was going to be happy. At the beginning, I had to [help] make Al be happy. ‘Cause you weren’t used to being happy. [Don’t] you think, [Al]?

Al: [No]. That’s why I married you. … I consciously made a decision [that] she’s going to bring joy into my life. [I decided], I can’t let her get away.

Al and Annie shared the following moment elsewhere during their interview:

Al: This woman is strong, resolute, focused … .  [S]piritually [and] physically, she’s been there. She’s been there. A great comfort. A great thing for a marriage.

Annie: Like old shoes. (Laughter)  

Al: [No], like a mighty mountain. A towering edifice —  a little … more grandiose than an old shoe. [To the interviewer:  [It ain’t all been] fairy-tale perfect, but we got 30 years in, … [and we’re] still smiling about it.”

Annie: [We are] still laughing, [and I am] still laughing at him. He cracks [me] up!

Several couples also shared warm sentiments while teasing each other. Joann, an African Methodist, described how their marriage has gotten better as time has gone on: “Things change; we are not the same people that we were when we were married. … [Actually], I think he’s gotten a lot better. [Thank heaven] (Laughter).” In like manner, Jefferson, a Christian husband from Louisiana shared, “We are each other’s friends. And, believe me, she advise[s] me every day, whether I want it or not. (Laughter)” Our participant couples repeatedly noted that they found joy in playfully teasing and sharing laughter with those they love. This reportedly held true in parenting as well as in marriage. 

Humor in Parenting

The use of humor among participants was not confined to the marriage relationship; many families also showed humor in their interactions with their children. Jefferson, a Christian father from Louisiana, shared the following story of his responsibilities as a father: 

We had three girls [in a row and] after we decided to have another child, I told my wife, “If this child is a boy, you don’t have anything to worry about. … I’ll do the … midnight feeding and change and wash the diapers.” Back then, we had cloth diapers. And sure enough, along came Shaun, and I had forgotten that I had made this promise. … But believe me, [Sierra] didn’t! She said, “‘Your baby is crying in there … . It’s time to feed [him] and change the diapers!”’ 

Jason, a Baptist father from Georgia, was asked if his children had influenced his religious involvement, he joked, “Some of them keep us on our knees (laughter)!”

Joann and Gary, who were also interviewed with their teenage daughter, Jasmine, shared a humorous moment when Gary discussed how his religious views and parenting were entwined:

Gary: [There] will be times when we’ll have a blow [up], and Jasmine will come up later and just say, ‘I’m sorry, Dad.’ And, probably not as often as I should, I’ll go down and tell her, ‘Yeah, I blew it.’ But … I always believe that God has created a wonderful child, and He may not yell at her, so He wants me to.

Jasmine (daughter): Yeah, right!

Joann (wife): I don’t think that’s in the Bible (Laughter).

Jasmine: No, that’s the “Gary” Revised Version.

Humor in Religion

Many families conveyed that parenting, humor, and (often) religion worked together for a healthy family life. Jason said: 

I believe Romans 8:28: “All things work together for good for those who love God and are called according to his purpose.” … Then, I’ve got to see that there is some good in this stress. So, I try to find the good in it, and [I ask], “Okay God, what are you trying to tell me in this?” More often than not, the simple message is, “You forgot, and you needed to be reminded.” [And I say], “‘Well, Lord, couldn’t you have been a little more subtle?”’ 

Joelle explained that she prayed about everything, even picking good oranges at the grocery store. She shared: 

My mother-in-law, before she passed, she used to laugh at me and say, “You know why God answers your prayers [so fast]? Just so he can have a moment of silence. Because you pray about everything!” (Laughter) 

James, whose beloved wife Betsy was struck by a drunk driver and was in a coma for several weeks, was able to express humor in the face of life’s pain. After the accident, Betsy “flatlined” and was resuscitated 13 times. Following this ordeal, which ended in Betsy’s miraculous improvement that eventually allowed her to return home in James’ care, he said, “At least I know my wife ain’t no cat, because a cat only has nine lives.” For nearly 19 years since the accident, James has provided full-service care for Betsy, who lost both of her legs in the accident. For James, humor and an indomitable will and faith have lifted heavy loads that self-pity could not budge.

We conclude with a report that seems to capture the ebullience, the faith, the passion, and the shared joy of life amongst our interviewees. Destiny, a Christian wife from Oregon, served up this gem eliciting explosive laughter and delight from her husband:

He is my lover and he’s an awesome lover. [Laughter] … And our children, we always said to them … “If you want to know what’s going on [in our bedroom], Mama and Daddy are just keeping Jesus happy.”

Bonding Humor as Healing Medicine

To date, our American Families of Faith research team has identified and published studies on numerous strengths in the exemplary Black families we have interviewed including faith, prayer, unity, egalitarianism, and serving others. The present study adds positive humor or “bonding humor” to the list. Some forms of humor (e.g., profane humor, ill-intentioned sarcasm) are explicitly incongruent with many religious beliefs and principles, but the exemplary couples who taught us present evidence that religion and positive humor can both play important and vital roles in building strong marriages and families. Hearkening back to Proverbs, these strong Black families echoed the value of that healing medicine to address life’s challenges in their words and lived experiences. Their examples offer much to contemplate.

 

Download Print-Friendly Version

If you were to ask Jesus today, “Are you a Republican or a Democrat?” He might simply kneel, draw something in the dust, and tell a story instead. It was never His way to choose sides on worldly matters like we do. He saw through every label, every flag, every slogan. To Him, the question was never Who do you support? But rather, whom do you love?

Today, politics has become a new form of faith. It shapes our values, friendships, and even our sense of identity. We divide the world into saints and sinners, heroes and villains, based on who supports our side. We often begin with our political tribe and then justify it with faith.

Christ invites the reverse: start with love, truth, mercy, and justice — then observe what’s left. This book begins with a simple but uncomfortable question: How does your political party stack up against one thing and one thing only? Love.

That’s not a trick question, and it’s not meant to shame anyone. It’s an invitation to hold our politics up to the light of Christ’s teachings — the ones about mercy, humility, forgiveness, and service. To see what survives that light, and what doesn’t.

Does your party honor the dignity of others? Reduce suffering or fear? Does it build reconciliation or division?

Would Jesus recognize love in it?

This isn’t sentimental romantic love. The love Jesus practiced was fierce, demanding, and often politically inconvenient. It challenged both Rome’s empire and Israel’s hierarchy. It refused to hate the oppressor, yet also refused to excuse injustice. It spoke truth to power and washed the feet of enemies.

So if love is the standard by which Christ measured everything, then love must also be the measure by which we examine our own public life: our policies, our priorities, our party platforms.

When Jesus spoke of loving your neighbor as yourself, he wasn’t just suggesting a simple slogan—he was establishing a revolutionary way for people to connect that goes beyond party lines and policy fights. Yet today, we find ourselves more divided than ever, with each side claiming moral superiority while often ignoring the core message of love that Christ emphasized.

Consider the immigration debate. Rather than viewing it through the lens of partisan talking points, what if we examined it through Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan? The story doesn’t ask us to determine the legal status of the injured man or debate border security policies. Instead, it challenges us to see the humanity in those who are different from ourselves and to respond with compassion.

This is not to suggest that complex political issues have simple solutions. They almost never do. Instead, it’s about approaching these challenges with the right heart and perspective. Christ’s emphasis on love wasn’t just about personal relationships—it was about transforming how we approach every aspect of human society, including governance.

What would our political landscape look like if we truly filtered our policy preferences through the lens of Christ’s love? How might our approach to partisan politics shift if we prioritized His teachings over party loyalty?

The Heart Before the Flag: Christ’s Radical Political Vision

Jesus—supporter and champion of good; protector of the weak; defender of life, justice, and liberty; leader of compassion and Savior for all. He is our blueprint.

Jesus was a radical and a revolutionary in the truest sense—not because He sought to overthrow governments, but because He sought to overturn hearts. He confronted hypocrisy with truth, power with humility, and hatred with love. When He entered the temple and overturned the tables of the money changers (Matthew 21:12–13), He was declaring that greed and exploitation have no place in the house of God.

His message was not about allegiance to a nation or party: it was about allegiance to truth, mercy, and the intrinsic worth of every person.

In our modern political landscape, where outrage often replaces empathy and loyalty to tribe surpasses loyalty to truth, the teachings of Jesus remain as revolutionary as ever. He reminds us that power is meant for service, not self-preservation; that greatness is measured not by control, but by compassion. Love, as He lived it, is not weak or naive—it is the most disruptive force imaginable.

It breaks down divisions, exposes hypocrisy, and reorders our priorities toward justice and mercy. When we apply His radical vision to our politics, we are invited to see opponents not as enemies to be defeated, but as neighbors to be loved. Only then can we begin to heal what power alone cannot fix.

Jesus spoke more about love than any other commandment because love is the engine of transformation. Love can make you think, see, and live differently. It is not abstract sentiment, but the most powerful political and spiritual force on earth.

Love doesn’t just tell you; love shows you. Love breaks down the limits of mind and heart, calling us to see even our enemies as children of God. In that radical reordering of priorities, Christ offered not just salvation for the soul, but a model for how humanity might truly live in justice and peace.

“Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.”- 1 John 4:8

A Kingdom Not of This World: Beyond Red and Blue —The Way of the Cross

The Way of the Cross in modern life means carrying the weight of reconciliation. It means standing in places of tension—between rich and poor, conservative and progressive, believer and skeptic—and refusing to walk away.

To bear the cross is to absorb hostility without returning it, and to love without condition, even when that love is mocked as weakness. Public witness no longer looks like shouting from platforms; it looks like quiet courage in workplaces, schools, local communities – and online.

The Quiet Work of Repentance

How can we begin to undue the division that has been manufactured by politicians over not just decades, but hundreds of years? Political idolatry is not undone by argument, but by repentance — a turning of the heart. That repentance might look like listening before judging, or admitting that a policy we once defended actually causes harm. Or refusing to share a post that fuels contempt instead of compassion.

Repentance is not weakness; it’s freedom. And it releases us from the emotional leash of the outrage machine. It lets love, not loyalty, guide our conscience.

The Politics of the Heart

In today’s marketplace of political ideas, where power and influence are traded like precious commodities, Jesus’s revolutionary message of love stands as a stark contradiction to conventional wisdom. His teachings weren’t just spiritual insights but radical political statements that challenged the very foundation of how human beings organize themselves and relate to one another.

Today, this message remains just as disruptive. Imagine if our political conversations started not with who deserves to win, but with who most needs to be heard. Imagine if policy debates were guided by empathy instead of ideology. The teachings of Christ challenge both the left and the right, progressives and conservatives alike, not to adopt “Christian politics,” but to judge every platform and policy by the standard of love. In doing so, we rediscover that politics at its best is not a fight for dominance, but an act of service—a reflection of divine love in the public square.

The Seduction of Certainty

Every party claims moral high ground. Each says it stands for justice, freedom, or compassion. But certainty can become its own idol. When we believe our side is always right, we stop listening, stop learning, and stop loving.

The prophets spoke truth even to their own kings. Nathan confronted David. Amos challenged Israel’s elite. John the Baptist rebuked Herod. Love demands that same courage today: the willingness to hold our own side accountable.

In our age, courage rarely looks like standing before a throne; more often, it looks like standing in a comment section. It’s resisting the easy applause of our tribe and speaking words that make both sides uncomfortable, or refusing to share the meme that distorts the truth, even when it flatters our position. It’s saying, “That’s not right,” when our own side crosses a moral line.

Jesus also reminds us that before we criticize another political party, movement, or leader, we must first confront the faults within our own. Accountability begins with humility: the humility to admit that no political tribe owns virtue, that truth cannot be reduced to a platform, and that love sometimes requires dissent.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will seeclearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” – Matthew 7:3–5

This teaching reminds us to examine ourselves before judging others — to practice self-awareness and humility.

Silence in the face of deceit is not peacekeeping; it is complicity. True love tells the truth, even when it costs us our sense of belonging. To love truth more than victory is to worship God more than ideology. 

In the end, Christ will not ask how we voted, but how we loved each other. He will not count our party victories, but our acts of mercy. And if our politics have hardened us to compassion, it may not be our country that needs revival — it may be our hearts.

Ask yourself: Do I equate faithfulness with winning, or with serving? In my community, what would it look like to lead from the cross instead of the throne?

If my party demands allegiance, does it also demand compassion? Do its policies reflect service, humility, and care for the least — or do they mirror Caesar’s hunger for dominance?

Does my loyalty to this party make me more loving toward those who disagree with me? Do I defend truth, even when it costs my side a win? Am I more excited to see mercy triumph than to see my party prevail?

Love has never needed permission to begin. It only needs participants. Every act of kindness is a policy of grace; every word of truth is a campaign for peace.

So go into your world—not to conquer, but to care. Not to shout, but to shine. And remember: the Kingdom is already among us, growing wherever love dares to act.

That is the true revolution.

That is the politics of Christ.

That is the politics of love.

That is how love reigns.

That is how heaven transforms history.

 

 

Download Print-Friendly Version

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

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

How did we arrive at our current state? Many factors contribute, but one of the most important is a media environment that profits from division. Most modern media outlets focus on messaging that is designed to divide. Individuals and corporations have found that outrage and division sell, and they enrich themselves through contention. Naturally, “they,” our political enemies, are painted in apocalyptic terms, while “we” are simply trying to do what is obviously good and right.  But as author Arthur Brooks points out, divisive framing serves the interests of the outrage artists: “As satisfying as it can feel to hear that your foes are irredeemable, stupid and deviant, remember: When you find yourself hating something, someone is making money or winning elections or getting more famous and powerful.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few examples of the 109 areas of agreement include:

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

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

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

When we listen to the plentiful voices of division and engage in arguments instead of solutions-oriented conversations, we fail in our duty to be peacemakers. Many see peacemaking as disagreeing more peacefully or respectfully, but it can be more. True peacemaking is not merely agreeing to disagree, but working together to find inspired solutions. In many cases, there is no need to disagree because there is already a consensus among the majority of our fellow Americans. Peacemaking starts by resetting our perspective and realizing that we do share common ground on many serious issues.

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

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

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

We must also vote for and politically support those leaders who are working for a consensus and reject those who sow contention. We should avoid voting for candidates who do not share our peacemaking values. We must require that our elected leaders represent their constituents, and not just their party. In a letter from 2023, the First Presidency of the Church counseled:

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

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

 

Download Print-Friendly Version

Ward and stake choirs do far more than make music; they help shape a healthy Latter‑day Saint culture.

Of course, when it comes to choir, we immediately think of the tremendous impact of The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square. But members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have also created the powerhouse 5,000-strong Millennial Choirs and Orchestras across the Western U.S., and there are regional choirs in places like the Washington, D.C. Temple Visitors’ Center. However, at the level of local wards (congregations) and stakes (local congregation groups), choirs serve unique functions that go beyond the public performance of music. They contribute to an ideal church culture by building unity and social capital, modeling male-female harmony, opening opportunities for outreach, and teaching skills of belonging. 

How Choirs Help Build Culture

In every Latter-day Saint congregation, culture is a two-part challenge. The first part tends to get the most focus with the question: “How do we distinguish between the gospel and church culture?” The concern is that some members may get caught up in cultural expectations—such as the style of our church activities, dress standards, and more—to a degree that those expectations are seen to have the same authority and seriousness as divine commandments.

With the other challenge, we ask a different question: “How can we create a healthy ward culture?” In a healthy ward culture, church members feel loved and valued. They feel unity even amid their diverse life experiences. They feel supported in difficult situations. All of that is made possible as, together, they feel connected to God.

Unity & Social Capital. The ideal ward culture does not just happen on its own, however. It takes members who are willing to get out of their comfort zones and do difficult things. It requires patience and a willingness to let things go, as we experience interpersonal “fenderbenders” in our callings and activities. It requires constant attention to what is most important in our church experience, and constant discipline in managing lesser priorities. In wards that feel “ideal,” we typically find some number of devout, converted members who are relentless about teaching and modeling a healthy church culture. In moments when we glimpse that ideal, it really is a glimpse of heaven on earth.

It is a surprising experience because it is not natural. Our normal human tendencies are toward comparison, competition, and conflict. We default to those tendencies unless we develop the ability to transcend them. Much of the conflict we see around us in society comes from a lack of experiences of transcendence, and this can sometimes extend to the Church.

Within the context of church, our activities—and especially our service—lead us to develop social capital, a shared sense that we contribute to each other’s well-being. Service projects are notably effective for developing unity and social capital, and this is also true of choir activities. Choirs are contexts for personal development, joy, fun, and transcendence.

Male-Female Harmony. Choirs also serve another important purpose. Throughout history, one of the most persistent sources of frustration has been the ongoing tension between men and women. In recent decades, the feminist movement has been met with the emergence of the “manosphere,” a collection of online spaces and content creators that claim to promote and defend male perspectives. Together, these two movements often diminish and denigrate one another. The conflict between these ideological online extremes is often presented as the only possible reality for men and women.

Choirs present a different and more hopeful view of reality, where male and female exist in harmony and produce a combination of beauty, strength, and transcendence. In the work of The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square, the world sees hundreds of men and women joining together in an ideal ordering and blending of male and female strengths. My personal favorite of their performances is of Carl Nygard’s piece, “God So Loved the World,” based on John chapter 3:16-17. In the chorus, the women’s voices soar in a way that men’s voices cannot, creating the sense of astonishment that should be our response to the power of that passage of scripture.

Likewise, in The Tabernacle Choir’s arrangement of “Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing,” The men’s voices begin the second verse a cappella, highlighting the unique character of the male voice to convey the poetry of commitment and devotion. Whenever I sing in church in a men’s ensemble, we hear expressions of gratitude from women in the ward. I suspect this gratitude reflects the experience of seeing male energy channeled into something good and noble, in contrast with so much of the negative male behavior we often witness in the world. Choirs allow for clear public demonstrations of Christlike manhood. 

The Tabernacle Choir is one of the world’s greatest models of how feminine and masculine gifts and voices work together to produce experiences where the harmonious sum is far greater than the individual parts. The musical value of the choir is extraordinary, but there is also profound symbolic value in what the choir does, modeling for the world the power of complementarity. The Tabernacle Choir is uniquely great, but there are also smaller, more local examples of what is possible to experience.

Outreach & Community Bridges. When I was called as a ward choir director earlier this year, the outreach potential immediately came to mind. In my calling, I hope to see struggling youth and other ward members find strength and renewal in choir. I hope to see all Latter-day Saints participate in choir. I would love to see members of our community, people not of our faith, sing with our ward choir. I would love for our community to feel comfortable asking our ward or stake choirs to serve by joining in community events or funerals, beyond the doors of our church buildings. Many people who participate in high school and college choirs leave their choir experiences behind as they move through life, and, similar to how Latter-day Saints are viewed with family history, I would love for members of our community with past experiences in choirs to see Latter-day Saint buildings as centers of excellence offering opportunities to once again experience the joy of singing in a choir.

Belonging and Connection. Former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy wrote a book called Together, where he explained that a lack of human connection has become in our time a pervasive public health crisis. With technology allowing us to narrow our interpersonal interactions to people who are just like us, many of us are missing out on the benefits of regular interaction with people who experience the world differently than we do. This can happen even among people sitting together in church meetings. To a great extent, connection and belonging require skills that can be taught and practiced. Participation in a choir is an ideal context for the development of those skills.

Much recent research suggests that participation in community choirs uniquely accelerates social bonding and reduces loneliness.

A Case Study

In my stake in Virginia, we do a community Christmas choir event every year that brings together our stake choir with members of our community for a beautiful experience of worship. In 2025, we decided to do a similar kind of program for Easter, and a member of our stake offered for the event an original a capella choir composition called “Intercessor,” based on the text of Isaiah 53.

I immediately jumped at the opportunity to participate, as Isaiah 53 is my favorite chapter in all of scripture. The composer, Savannah Turk, assembled sixteen people to learn and perform the piece, and it was the hardest vocal part I have ever learned. The piece includes a number of dissonant chords, which can be difficult for most amateur choirs, but because Isaiah 53 is written with the intent to convey painful irony in the suffering of the innocent Messiah, I could see how dissonance is a good approach for expressing that irony in music. All of the effort was worth it, as “Intercessor” provided a transcendent musical experience that became central to our Easter event. “Intercessor” was so spiritually rich for those of us who participated that I helped to create a separate recording of our amateur choir performing it, in the hopes that other choirs will become familiar with its powerfully unique approach.

When it comes to sacred music, we are spoiled with an abundance of music for Christmas, and much less for Easter. I hope to see Latter-day Saint composers rise to the challenge like Savannah Turk did with “Intercessor,” and create new compositions that can become sacred Easter standards like “This is the Christ” and our more recent “Gethsemane.”

I observed another valuable lesson with our Easter program that helps illustrate the power of our choirs. Among our performers were Latter-day Saints, including those who were less active, and singers from our community who are not of our faith. All joined together and contributed to one of the most spiritually rich expressions of worship I have ever experienced. Ward and stake choirs can be outward-facing means to develop wonderful community relationships beyond our normal Latter-day Saint circles.

In closing, I recall Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, the president of the Church’s second presiding body, speaking in April 2017 General Conference talk “Songs Sung and Unsung.” There, to teach foundational principles of diversity and belonging in the Church, Elder Holland used the metaphor of a choir:

… remember it is by divine design that not all the voices in God’s choir are the same. It takes variety—sopranos and altos, baritones and basses—to make rich music. To borrow a line quoted in the cheery correspondence of two remarkable Latter-day Saint women, “All God’s critters got a place in the choir.” When we disparage our uniqueness … we lose the richness of tone and timbre that God intended when He created a world of diversity.

Now, this is not to say that everyone in this divine chorus can simply start shouting his or her own personal oratorio! Diversity is not cacophony, and choirs do require discipline … but once we have accepted divinely revealed lyrics and harmonious orchestration composed before the world was, then our Heavenly Father delights to have us sing in our own voice, not someone else’s …

Don’t demean your worth or denigrate your contribution. Above all, don’t abandon your role in the chorus. Why? Because you are unique; you are irreplaceable. The loss of even one voice diminishes every other singer in this great mortal choir of ours, including the loss of those who feel they are on the margins of society or the margins of the Church.

While Elder Holland was using choir as a metaphor, he was also teaching some valuable principles that go beyond metaphor into our experience of the Church. In that spirit, I invite ward and stake choir leaders to raise our sights. Choir is not about doing something musically dazzling, or reliving the glory days of our musical-performer past. In choir, we have the opportunity to do things that are much more significant—to teach gospel doctrines, develop interpersonal skills, cultivate unity amid diversity, build bridges, and heal cynicism in the hearts of our choir members and our congregations. In allowing others to participate in the leadership of our choirs—even in the selection and conducting of music—we help to infuse their experience of the gospel with growth and joy. We teach them that they are empowered to elevate their church experience.

Finally, if you are a member of the Church and can participate in a choir, hopefully, this essay has opened your mind to the benefits of doing so. From my personal experience, I wholeheartedly invite you to make that commitment.

Download Print-Friendly Version

All American Families of Faith participant names are pseudonyms to protect identity.

For many immersed in 21st-century culture, the idea of repentance may be jarringly akin to “shaming,” guilt-tripping, or fear-based condemnation. These connotations suggest links to depression, anxiety, and relational struggles and strife.  

In sharp contrast, however, many of the roughly 200 wives and husbands we interviewed in our American Families of Faith project—people with religious and relational strengths—discussed repentance as personal transformative change that has strengthened or even saved their marriage, their parent-child relationships, or both. For them, repentance is not a dark night of the soul, but the dawn of a better day for them and their loved ones. 

Jesus’ parable of the Prodigal Son opens with the words: “A certain man had two sons” (Luke 15:11). We learn that one of the two sons wanted to be finished with his life at home and requested “his portion” of his inheritance. 

The son wandered far from his father’s home and values, and gloried for a time in unfettered hedonism. The inheritance, however, was soon squandered, and when a famine hit, the prodigal son was reduced to caring for swine, the filthiest of animals in Jewish tradition. At rock bottom, the consequences of the wayward son’s foolish choices led him to think back on his father and filled him with a desire, or at least a desperation, to return home. 

As the father watched the road, he hoped that one day his son would come back to him, and “while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him” (Luke 15:20, NIV). His son, with a humble heart, pleaded, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son” (Luke 15:18-21, NIV). 

Instead, the father asked his servants to bring the finest robe, a ring, and shoes to clothe his son, then ordered a feast to celebrate his return.

As in the story of the Prodigal Son, in the American Families of Faith project, we have found instances of families being reunited, restored, preserved, and strengthened through acts of repentance. Personal transformative changes tend to have positive relational consequences. A close exploration of participants’ responses helped us to understand the processes and power of repentance among diverse Christian, Jewish, and Muslim families. 

The families’ recurring references, discussions, and explanations of repentance and forgiveness were particularly noteworthy given that we asked no direct questions about repentance and forgiveness. These insights emerged as participants shared the key practices and principles they embraced to become the type of family their respective clergy deemed strongest and most exemplary in their faith community.

Reasons for Repentance

Among participants, three main reasons were offered regarding the desire to repent. The first and primary reason for making difficult changes was having faith and a relationship with God. Charles, an Orthodox Christian father, said, “The desire to be with God, to be able to speak to Him, brings one to repentance and toward better action.” 

Similarly, Rachel, an Orthodox Jewish wife, related:

When you become more closely acquainted with Hashem¹ and … what His expectations are, you come to a realization that what you yourself want is not the most paramount thing on earth. … My goal [and] my purpose is to live a more Jewish life; not to live a more self-fulfilling life in the sense of material stuff … [and] egotistical things. 

A second motivating force or influence toward repentance and forgiveness is religious practices and rituals. These sacred practices reportedly reminded individuals of their spiritual beliefs and motivated them to consider how they could improve their behavior. Tyra, an African American Baptist wife, said of her husband of about two decades,

I’m sure to get on his nerves. He gets on my nerves … [but] we’re able to go to Bible study and go to Sunday service, and we’re going to hear something. God is always going to bring a word back to our [remembrance] that’s going to make us realize and ask Him for forgiveness, and we [then] come back and ask each other for forgiveness. 

We found similar narratives surrounding parent-child relationships, where the parents were inspired to repent and change because of their children. Such changes included improving dietary intake in ways that were health-conscious, religiously driven, or both. Changes also included increasing religious involvement, “walking the walk” to avoid hypocrisy, and striving to better “practice what you preach.” Indeed, an overarching lesson that emerged from the strong families we interviewed was a conviction that “Our behavior is permission to others to behave similarly … but it is more than that. It is an invitation to do so.”² To summarize the leading motivations for repentance, parents changed for God, they changed because of their religion, and they changed for their family members.

Steps for Repentance

American Families of Faith participants discussed various processes involved in repentance. First, one recurring idea was that repentance is a daily process that must be repeated often. Brent, a Jehovah’s Witness husband, said, “We’re constantly praying to God for forgiveness.”

Other instances of repentance occurred as couples worked together. Tanner, an Orthodox Christian husband, said, “I was not very religious when I first met [my wife] Amy, but she got me thinking about it. … I hadn’t really had any experience in the church for probably 15 years … but she made it an important thing to explore.” 

Several couples stressed the importance of patience with others as you are striving to be better. An African American Christian wife named Joelle determined that she would help her husband in his own faith journey, even if it took time. She recalled,

Even though I was on fire for God and I had made some changes in my life … my husband loves to [go to clubs] … and so I would still go with him. And you know, I think a lot of times women make that mistake, they become so self-righteous. … [But] until he was ready … [I believed] it was up to God to make the changes in him, that it wasn’t up to me. … And when he had begun to make changes, I just stepped it up a bit. … [It] was a matter of matching my steps with his steps so that we were still in harmony. 

This idea of growing together was echoed in the words of Quon, an Asian Christian husband, who said, “Sometimes she was ahead, sometimes I was ahead, and we encouraged each other to grow in the Lord together.” Likewise, Ramzi, a Muslim husband, shared, 

Our being together has influenced our progression in the faith. … Sometimes, I become lazy with some of the aspects of religion, then she reminds me, “[Y]ou are slacking off …” [For example], you are slacking off with your prayers, and you need to do them on time. So definitely, being together has helped us progress in our faith gradually. 

Husbands from various backgrounds noted that their wives helped them to stay on track. They also found vital actions of repentance during their relational struggles and conflicts that helped them to recognize the need for repentance.

Resources to Aid in Repentance 

There were two resources that participants mentioned as especially helpful in efforts to make constructive changes and repent. The first resource was having a belief in and a relationship with God, gaining strength through seeking divine assistance and grace. Christi, a Hispanic Christian mother, illustrated how she used this resource:

Only through my faith, that’s the only way [I was able to change], because … I just enjoyed smoking marijuana, that was just a part of my [life]. … There are [old friends], who are still smoking it, who can’t believe [that I’ve quit]. … Everything around my faith is positive for our marriage because it [helps us do what] we need to do. 

Not only did participants reportedly employ their faith and belief in God to change their individual behaviors, but faith was also central in helping to change the behaviors in their relationships. Ali, an Arab American Muslim father, said, “If we can’t get along, we [have] got to ask for God’s assistance. … We have to beg Him for His help and His aid, we have to receive His [guidance].” 

A second recurring resource we identified among participants’ responses in helping them make personal changes was various forms of religious practice and worship, including both public and private practices. 

Attending church was an example mentioned by Sophie, a Presbyterian wife who said, “Our practice of going to church on Sunday … reminds me of those things [I should be doing], [and] literally, I feel transformed within the hour, that I can actually do it.” 

Another example was from Yuusif, an Arab American Muslim father, who expressed: 

[The] five prayer times are basically reminders for Muslims [as to what] they should be doing. … You are alive to have a better afterlife, and to do that is to please God, and the way to please God is to praise God and ask for forgiveness for whatever you have done wrong. … People who do [these prayers] will be better people, better human beings. … Personally, it does affect me, and I would say my family [too], that it reminds us what the priority is. 

Other religious resources mentioned included studying sacred texts, seeking the support of one’s faith community, sacraments, fasting, the observance of High Holy Days and Shabbat (for many Jews), and the month of Ramadan (for many Muslims).  

How Repentance Strengthens Relationships with Others and God

There were many reports of positive outcomes for families and individuals that came from repentance. Many said repentance led them to have a better connection or relationship with God.  Timony, an Evangelical Christian husband, said, “As we invite Him into our life and He forgives our sins … He changes us and makes us more like Him, and the desire of our hearts changes and we develop friendship with God. I mean, that’s amazing!”  

There were also many positive family outcomes from repentance. Like the statement in The Family: A Proclamation to the World³ which states that “Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness …,” we found that repentance helped strengthen family relationships. Felipe, a Hispanic Catholic husband and father, explained, 

There have been so many times … our children have tried to do things that we haven’t taught them to do, but then when you come to them and say, ‘Hey, remember what the Bible says, you shouldn’t be doing that.’ And then, it is like they wake up again, and they say, ‘Alright, I was doing bad.’ And that happens many times. And the same for others, and adults, you know? … [Correcting] things like that make[s] your family life much better. 

Similarly, Sandra, an Orthodox Christian mother, said that a key for her family “to help avoid or reduce conflict, whether in the family or the marriage, is … frequent forgiveness and confession. And having those things is what keeps us, the kids and the parents together.” Reports like those from Sandra and Felipe indicated that repentance helped create peace in the family.  

Finally, when peace was disturbed or destroyed, repentance helped reduce and resolve marital conflict. Jian, an Asian Christian wife, said, “When we had some disagreements, we prayed together, confessed our sins before God, and learned to forgive each other.” 

Repentance also helped participants to develop habits and virtues that made it easier to reduce and resolve marital conflict. Dustin, an Episcopal husband, said that they had learned: “We are capable of looking at ourselves and seeing and being able to admit that we’re wrong. I do think that a religious background and a belief in God have an effect on that.” 

In summary, repentance creates and maintains peace, but when peace is fractured, it is also repentance that helps to restore peace. 

Repentance is often misunderstood as a term associated with shame and punishment, but for the families of faith we interviewed, it was honored as a powerful resource that promotes both personal and relational transformation. 

We can all relate to the spiritual or relational weight we may feel when we have committed a mistake, but like the Prodigal Son, we can repent and come back to our better selves. The families we interviewed remind us that as we do so, not only are we healed, but our relationships can be as well.

Personal and Relational Processes of Repentance in Religious Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Families

Notes:

1. Hashem (meaning “The Name”) is how many Orthodox Jews refer to God in order to honor the name of God.

2. Marks, L. D., & Dollahite, D. C. (2017). Religion and families. Routledge. (Direct quote from p. 250).

3. A statement of the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

Download Print-Friendly Version</a

Most people instinctively lean on one or two ways of handling conflict: a favorite approach and a fallback when the first doesn’t work. Yet there are five conflict management styles, and all five are necessary in fostering healthy relationships. The challenge is learning to use the right style at the right time. Which styles do you default to? And which should you start implementing?

This article is part of a series pairing short, humorous videos created by TheFamilyProclamation.Org with articles published by Public Square offering deeper explorations of the theory and doctrine of Peacemaking. Each installment pairs academic theory with Christian teachings for resolving everyday disagreements.

Today’s video shows examples of using all five conflict management styles when there are two people, but only one slice of pizza left. 

The five styles introduced here are based on the Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument: Oblige, Promote, Collaborate, Compromise, and Avoid. It’s helpful to consider the five styles based on people’s needs: your needs and the needs of others. And, the amount of time and effort each style takes. The consequence of unmet needs either in oneself or others is the strong negative emotion of resentment. No one style is inherently right or wrong. The key lies in discerning which approach fits the situation.

Oblige

Obliging means yielding to another’s needs. When the issue matters more to them than to oneself, in conflict theory, it reflects a low concern for personal needs and a high concern for others’ needs. This style can de-escalate tensions, promote gratitude, and acknowledge the importance of another’s perspective. However, overuse may neglect essential personal needs.

A scriptural example comes from Abraham and Lot in Genesis 13. When their herdsmen quarreled over land, Abraham obliged: “Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee … for we be brethren … If thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.” Lot chose the fertile Jordan Valley, while Abraham accepted the less desirable land. Abraham’s willingness to accommodate preserved peace between their households.

In the 1840s, a devastating blight destroyed Ireland’s potato crops, leading to mass starvation and disease. The U.S. government took direct action. President James K. Polk ordered the naval vessel USS Jamestown to be filled with provisions and sent to Ireland in 1847. This was followed by widespread public fundraising and additional aid from the government. The U.S. decision was driven by empathy for the suffering Irish population, many of whom had emigrated to America. The action was taken with no expectation of political or financial compensation. While it did strengthen the relationship, the United States’ response to the Irish Potato Famine was an obliging act motivated by a sense of goodwill and compassion.

Pros: Defuses tension quickly; communicates care for the other’s perspective; allows movement forward when personal cost is minor.

Cons: Can create resentment if personal needs are repeatedly ignored; risks imbalance in relationships; may enable others’ selfishness.

Iconic statement: “This matters more to you than to me—take it.”

Promote

Promoting involves asserting one’s own needs. When the issue is of high importance personally but less critical for others, in conflict theory, this reflects a high concern for personal self-needs and a lower concern for others’. Used wisely, it preserves integrity, sets boundaries, respect, and prevents neglect of essential personal responsibilities.

Scripture records Esther as a profound example. When the Jews of Persia faced extermination, Esther risked her life by approaching King Ahasuerus unbidden. “If I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:16). Her boldness in promoting her people’s survival turned the tide of history.

In modern history, Susan B. Anthony exemplified this style through tireless advocacy for women’s suffrage. Willing to endure arrest and ridicule, she insisted, “Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less.” By promoting her cause with unrelenting persistence, she advanced the rights of countless women.

Pros: Safeguards essential personal needs; establishes clear boundaries; brings neglected issues to light.

Cons: Can appear and even become domineering; risks escalating conflict; may undermine relationships if used unnecessarily.

Iconic statement: “This matters deeply to me—I must stand for it.”

Collaborating

Collaborating seeks solutions that fully meet the needs of all parties. In theory, it reflects a high concern for both self and others. It is the most time-intensive and demanding style, but also the one most likely to generate durable, creative, and mutually satisfying resolutions.

A scriptural example appears in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), where early Christians debated whether Gentile converts must keep the law of Moses. Through deliberation and testimony, leaders forged a collaborative solution: Gentiles would not be required to keep the full law but were asked to respect certain practices for the sake of unity. This preserved inclusion without dissolving moral standards.

In history, Nelson Mandela exemplified collaboration during South Africa’s transition away from apartheid. Instead of seeking revenge, his inclusive multiracial leadership in the African National Congress, personal mentorship of Springbok rugby captain Francois Pienaar, and his willingness to work with political rivals Mandela established a democratic framework, preventing civil war and opening a path toward reconciliation.

Pros: Builds trust; generates creative solutions; addresses the deepest needs of all parties.

Cons: Requires significant time and energy; can stall if parties are unwilling; may be impractical in urgent conflicts.

Iconic statement: “Let’s stay at the table until we find a solution that works for all of us.”

Compromising

Compromising involves each party yielding part of their needs to reach a middle ground. In theory, it balances moderate concern for self and others. It does not produce perfect satisfaction but provides workable solutions when time is short or stakes are moderate.

A scriptural example appears in the division of land among Israel’s tribes. The tribe of Reuben and Gad requested land east of the Jordan, which initially angered Moses. A compromise was reached: they could settle eastward provided their soldiers helped the other tribes secure their inheritance west of the Jordan (Numbers 32).

In history, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 illustrates this principle. Balancing free and slave states preserved the fragile union for a time, though deeper moral questions remained unresolved.

Pros: Creates quick, workable solutions; is often perceived as “fair”; avoids stalemates; spreads sacrifice across parties.

Cons: Often leaves no one fully satisfied; can defer deeper issues; risks fostering half-measures instead of real resolution.

Iconic statement: “I’ll give some, you give some, and we’ll both move forward.”

Avoiding

Avoiding means stepping away from conflict altogether, either by deferring, delaying, or disengaging. In theory, it reflects low concern for the needs of both self and others in the conflict. Avoidance may preserve peace when the issue is trivial, the relationship is distant or unimportant, or when emotions are too high for productive discussion. But, avoidance risks creating resentment if used habitually in close or necessary relationships.

Scripture shows Jesus withdrawing after intense disputes with religious leaders: “And Jesus went about Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him” (John 7:1). His withdrawal shows discernment for choosing the right moment to disengage. But on another occasion, when confronted by opponents trying to trap him with a question about paying taxes to Caesar, Jesus asked to see a coin and noted that it bore Caesar’s image. He then responded, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.” Though He engaged with those promoting a conflict, this encounter is still an example of conflict avoidance because Jesus shifted the conversation to a moral lesson rather than engaging in the political debate his opponents intended.

As president, George Washington witnessed the growing animosity between factions, which he feared would destroy the republic from within. Instead of staying in office to fight the factions, Washington retired, setting a critical precedent for a peaceful transfer of power. By doing so, he removed his unifying but also polarizing presence, forcing the political system to mature on its own. His farewell address served as a final, non-partisan warning. George Washington’s retirement is an example of avoidance, as he intentionally disengaged from political power to prevent the young nation from being torn apart by deepening partisan conflict. By contrast, Mahatma Gandhi continually engaged in politics utilizing strategic avoidance through nonviolent resistance. By refusing to meet violence with violence, he avoided direct clashes while still advancing his cause, exhausting the will of his opponents without reciprocating hostility.

Pros: Allows time for cooling off; prevents escalation over trivial matters; creates space for reflection.

Cons: Can leave problems unresolved; risks long-term resentment; may erode trust if avoidance becomes habitual.

Iconic statement: “This conflict doesn’t need to be fought right now.”

“O Be Wise”

We may be particularly gifted or prone to using one or two of the styles, but no single style is sufficient for every situation. Scripture and history affirm that wisdom lies not in clinging to one or two styles but in discerning which approach serves the moment best. Some say knowledge comes from facts, but wisdom comes from experience. Learn from the experience of others and, in counsel with God, discern which style to resolve every conflict in life. Conflict is inevitable, but considering the full range of conflict styles transforms disagreements into robust opportunities for growth, justice, and deeper connection: don’t just default to one or two styles. So even though we may be “as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Matthew 10).

Download Print-Friendly Version

When President Russell M. Nelson passed away, I felt both grief and gratitude. He was a prophet whose warmth and vision expanded my understanding of the Savior. When President Dallin H. Oaks stood at the pulpit during General Conference and spoke tenderly of his “dear friend” President Nelson—his voice catching with emotion as he recalled learning of Christ through him—I saw a man feeling the full weight of both loss and legacy. It was the first conference he attended without the companion apostle who had served alongside him for decades.

I know the anticipation of his presumed imminent ascendancy to the Presidency of the Church has some feeling joy and excitement, while others feel anxiety or frustration. That tender moment when President Oaks opened his heart as he opened General Conference sets the tone for how I want to invite you to approach him as the probable new leader of the Church: with empathy, curiosity, and a willingness to see not only his divinely-appointed office but his humanity.

A Ministry of Law and Love

These stories and insights show how President Oaks’ seriousness about sacred things reflects not coldness but reverence. They flow naturally from his lifelong effort to balance love and law—firm in conviction yet humble enough to be guided by the Spirit.

Throughout his academic, professional, and religious pursuits, President Oaks has wrestled with the same paradox he invites us to confront: how to combine uncompromising truth with unconstrained love. In his many addresses on Love and Law, he insists that divine commandments and divine compassion are not enemies. “We must be soft on people,” he said once, “but firm on principles.”

When his critics accuse him of harshness, they often stop reading before they reach the part where he pleads with us to treat each other tenderly. It’s true: it is all too easy to call out sin. It is far harder to move beyond professing love to practicing it—leaning in, reaching out, and staying committed without reservation. Yet that is exactly what he asks of us—and what he tries, however imperfectly, to model himself.

These glimpses into his private spirituality show how his devotion to divine law deepens, not diminishes, his capacity for love. A poignant anecdote from Richard Turley’s biography of him adds further insight. Early in his calling as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, he gave a 45-minute talk to a local congregation in New Zealand that was peppered with personal stories and humorous asides. The audience ate it up (as I would have), but he later recorded in his journal feeling rebuked by the Spirit (“never do that again”), warning him to focus more on preaching and testifying of Jesus Christ.

His current wife, Sister Kristen Oaks, remarked to Turley that one of his daughters said to him, “Daddy, you look like you are mad sometimes when you speak.” But Sister Oaks explains, “he was never angry or irritated, just somber as he shared sacred truths.”  It seems like in President Oaks, we have the inspired leader the Lord needs us to have, even if we may not always realize it or appreciate it.

The Purpose of a General Authority

President Oaks once explained, “As a General Authority, it is my responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions.” He was describing not cold detachment but duty—the call to declare doctrine broadly and trust members to apply it individually; in the same address, he quotes Joseph Smith: “I teach [people] correct principles and they govern themselves.” I believe the perceived firmness we sometimes hear in his addresses grows out of that stewardship, not a lack of compassion. In private, he is always described as gentle, personal, approachable, even playful, and cracking jokes. (When my friend met him at his local Church meeting, he introduced himself as “Brother Oaks.”) I think understanding this difference between his public General Authority ministry and his personal ministry “to the one” helps us broaden our perspectives and judgments about him.

Seeing Beyond the Headlines

President Oaks’ comments about sexual and gender minorities have often stirred controversy. Some hear his warnings about “gender confusion” as a lack of understanding or criticism of people. But careful attention to his words suggests otherwise.

When he says Satan “seeks to confuse gender,” he is describing what he perceives as a distortion of divine order—the blurring of sacred distinctions between male and female, husband and wife. I do not read those words as condemning (or dismissing the experiences of) those who feel same-sex attraction or experience gender incongruence. When he speaks like this, I believe he is expressing doctrinal and civilizational concern, not concerns or condemnations of individuals.

That distinction matters. It may not erase the pain some have felt from his words, but it clarifies the intent behind them: to preserve a pattern he believes God established, not to belittle the people he knows God cherishes.

Private Encounters of Warmth and Humor

Those who have met him describe a different side than his public reputation, as stern, aloof, and detached. One of my friends, a man who experiences same-sex attraction, met privately with President Oaks years ago. He expected formality; what he got was warmth and humor. President Oaks cracked jokes, asked penetrating questions, and listened with real interest. Another friend saw him after a controversial address and mentioned the online uproar. President Oaks simply smiled and said he paid no attention to it before asking for personal details about my friend, wanting to get to know my friend, rather than (as I likely would have) getting distracted by and sucked into the drama about himself. His focus on what truly mattered in that moment struck me—it wasn’t indifference, but a refusal to let outrage define his ministry, or allow controversy to detract from connection with the person in front of him.

Recall that other incident when he visited my other friend’s downtown ward: he introduced himself not as “Elder Oaks,” but as “Brother Oaks.” That single word change encompasses a world of meaning. It said, in effect, I am one of you. He did the same thing when he visited my Stake a few years ago—showing that this is not a one‑time gesture but a pattern of humility. Whatever else one may think of his expository style, humility is part of his discipleship.

Stories of Compassion and Bridge‑Building

One of President Oaks’ relatives and a friend of mine within the North Star community (an LDS-focused ministry for sexual and gender minorities and their families) once shared a moment that beautifully captures his heart. In 2019, at a family reunion, this friend’s gay son and his husband attended–though a bit hesitantly. President Oaks, then in his mid‑eighties, went out of his way to greet this family. With unmistakable kindness, he warmly greeted the son and his husband. That simple act sent a clear message to everyone there: we can always choose to be kind, loving, and welcoming—no matter what.

This North Star friend also recalled that an attorney involved in the Utah “Fairness for All” legislation described how pivotal President Oaks’ behind‑the‑scenes efforts had been. And those efforts did not stop in Utah. People close to the process of the federal Respect for Marriage Act confirm that he worked relentlessly—quietly but personally—to safeguard both religious liberty and LGBT dignity. His conviction was steady: religious freedom and civil respect can and must coexist. I can confirm this—I heard the same thing from more than one employee at Church Headquarters. 

The pattern continues with those who are on the margins of church membership and belonging. I know the person with same-sex attraction President Oaks mentioned in his beautiful talk, “He Heals the Heavy Laden.” He told me that both before and long after that talk, President Oaks frequently reached out and offered support to him.

Similarly, I know of another person who struggles with persistent gender dysphoria and hears from President Oaks often, asking questions and offering support and encouragement. 

These two examples also suggest that those who assume President Oaks is unaware of the personal and private pain experienced by sexual and gender minorities—and that if he knew more, he would speak differently—may want to reconsider that assumption.

A Broader Pattern of Growth and Change

Prophetic callings often bring new emphases. Ezra Taft Benson was famous as a fierce anti‑communist throughout the time he was an apostle. Yet, once he was ordained President, he became the prophet of “flooding the earth with the Book of Mormon” and warning about pride. I cannot predict what themes President Oaks will be inspired to emphasize as president, but we should not assume that the themes he has dwelt upon during his apostleship will extend to his presidency. His legal mind may still prize order, but his heart, refined by years of listening to those who hurt, seems relentlessly focused on healing and unity. Whatever happens, his record shows consistency in one thing: he deeply and lovingly respects people, even when he cannot agree with them.

A Personal Connection to the Family-Centered Gospel

In his concluding remarks at the October 2025 General Conference, President Oaks emotionally recounted the pain and grief he experienced as a young boy upon learning from his Grandfather Harris that his father had died of tuberculosis. Fleeing to his room, he collapsed on his bedside and cried out to God. This personal tragedy gave President Oaks a firsthand understanding of the profound impact on children when families are fragmented. He acknowledges that few families fully embody the ideals presented in the Proclamation on the Family, often due to circumstances outside our control. However, his own experience as a suddenly fatherless child highlights the suffering that arises when those ideals are not achieved. That burden is primarily borne by the most vulnerable—our children. It is likely that his own experience of fatherlessness has made the ideals expressed in the Proclamation, particularly the statement that “children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother,” especially meaningful to him.

An Invitation to a Fresh Start

Some may still struggle with his tone or with the weight of his words—both past and their fears of his future words. That is understandable. I get it. I have been pricked by his words more than once myself. But perhaps the challenge is not to turn away from him, but to walk beside him—to practice the same discipline he preaches: loving without surrendering conviction, and holding conviction without losing love. When I’ve tried to do that with his words or other leaders’ words, the spiritual struggle has always been worth it.

Even if you feel he has not always struck the perfect balance, that there are things you feel he shouldn’t have said, isn’t this still a worthwhile quest he has set before us? To offer others the same grace, patience, and curiosity we hope to receive from others? And if you’ve struggled with him personally, maybe, just maybe, that is something worth trying with him as well?

If, as I expect, President Oaks will soon rise to lead the Church, then we will also have the chance to rise a level as well. To accept the challenge he’s set before us, to prove that disciples of Christ can hold truth and tenderness in the same outstretched hands, that we can disagree with courage, clarity, and love. I pray we will enter this new season of the Church not with fear or cynicism, but with faith: faith that God can continue to work through imperfect servants to do perfecting work. I know He has done that with me, and I am very far from perfect. If we can try to trust that divine pattern, then perhaps, under President Oaks’ leadership, we will all have opportunities to increase our ability to love boldly, speak truly, and walk humbly before our Heavenly Father.

Further Reading

For those who would like to explore more of President Oaks’ compassionate and faith‑filled teachings, consider reading or watching these talks:

1. He Heals the Heavy Laden (October 2006) – A deeply empathetic message about how the Savior heals our burdens and sorrows.
2. Love and Law (October 2009) – His foundational statement on how divine commandments and divine compassion work together.
3. The Paradox of Love and Law (BYU–Idaho Devotional) – A more conversational address on the same theme, rich with examples of humility and understanding.
4. Love Is the Great Commandment and the Law Is the Great Framework (October 2024) – His most recent treatment of this balance, emphasizing empathy and faith.
5. Helping the Poor and Distressed (October 2022) – Focused on compassion, ministering, and the Christian call to lift the vulnerable.
6. Always Remember Him (April 1988) – An early talk reflecting his tenderness and reverence for the Savior’s atonement.

 

Download Print-Friendly Version

A few weeks before his death, President Russel M. Nelson of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published an editorial in TIME magazine. In it, he wrote: “Imagine how different our world could be if more of us were peacemakers—building bridges of understanding rather than walls of prejudice—especially with those who may see the world differently than we do.” Sadly, much of the world is not heeding this call. Mass shootings, arson, politically motivated murder, war, and genocide are all too common.  Our world is full of turmoil and conflict. But it doesn’t have to be this way. As President Nelson taught in April 2023, 

Contention reinforces the false notion that confrontation is the way to resolve differences; but it never is. Contention is a choice. Peacemaking is a choice. You have your agency to choose contention or reconciliation. I urge you to choose to be a peacemaker, now and always.

As we mourn his passing, we want to reflect on these teachings and what it means to be a peacemaker. The word itself is interesting. “Peace” can mean more than an absence of conflict; it can also mean a state of harmony, wholeness, and stillness. The word President Nelson emphasizes is not peace-experiencer, peace-taker, or peace-enjoyer. The word is peacemaker. A maker is someone who uses effort and intention to create, to build. 

Lessons from Bosnia & Herzegovina

Brigham Young University’s School of Family Life has hosted a five-week study abroad program in central southern Europe for the last two years. One thing the program covers is how war and trauma impact human development. The two of us had the privilege of attending as a co-director (Alex Jensen) and as a student (AnnMarie Sandridge). The program is life-changing: faculty and students leave with a deeper connection to the Savior and an increased ability to see the suffering of others through Christ’s eyes.

As part of the program, we spent nearly two weeks in Sarajevo, the capital city of Bosnia & Herzegovina. Sarajevo is a beautiful city, nestled in a little valley surrounded by large green mountains. In 1984, those mountains were the host to the Olympic Games. During the Sarajevo Olympic Games, the citizens played a particularly important role in modeling international unity. Sarajevo did not have enough accommodation to host all the athletes, press, and tourists. In response, thousands of local citizens opened their homes to provide places for people to eat, sleep, and stay. In that moment, the city of Sarajevo was a beacon of making peace.

Eight years after hosting the Olympics, the city of Sarajevo became a symbol of the consequences of hate, intolerance, and contention. In March 1992, the Republic of Bosnia & Herzegovina declared independence from the fragmenting country of Yugoslavia. The move to independence brought simmering religious and ethnic tensions to the surface. The country fell into a brutal civil war, and the city of Sarajevo was put under siege for nearly 3 years and 11 months. More than 11,000 people would die in this city alone. Hundreds of thousands would frequently suffer without running water, electricity, heat, and sufficient food.

In addition to the millions of bullets, an estimated 500,000 grenades, mortars, and bombs were fired into the city from the surrounding mountains over the course of the siege, bringing terror, death, and destruction. In cities surrounding Sarajevo, Bosnian Muslims were raped, tortured, and killed in a cultural and ethnic genocide. Across the country, approximately 100,000 people were killed during the Bosnian war and genocide, resulting in some of the worst atrocities committed in Europe since World War II.    

Given the experiences the people in the city endured, you would expect to find a people full of hatred and a desire for vengeance. Undoubtedly, some feel this way, but many do not. Our group spent time with many people who, despite going through the horrors of the siege, have become peacemakers. Their examples provide shining examples of President Nelson’s teachings. Below, we share three specific ways the people of Sarajevo taught us about being peacemakers.  

Let God Prevail

First, the people of Sarajevo taught us the importance of worshipping God sincerely and letting God prevail in their lives. Nearly half of the population of Bosnia & Herzegovina is Muslim. During our time in Sarajevo, we visited many mosques, including attending the call to prayers and visiting with worshippers following the prayers.

A consistent theme we heard was that before the war, God was not present in their lives. During the conflict, however, they learned to lean on God—to actively worship Him, and let Him prevail. In turning to God, they connected with peace that could exist regardless of the circumstances around them. Through God, they found healing and stillness. It was inspiring to hear from many who have maintained that faith after the war and continue to pursue a sincere worship of God. President Nelson expounded this principle by emphasizing “the joy we feel has little to do with the circumstances of our lives and everything to do with the focus of our lives.” Peacemaking happens as we sincerely worship and let God prevail.

Beauty for Ashes

The second lesson we learned was to choose to see the good in bad situations – in other words, to see the ways God can make beauty from ashes and give the oil of joy from mourning (Isaiah 61:3). A small street in Sarajevo has been home to generations of coppersmiths. These smiths produce beautiful tableware, drinkware, spice grinders, and other decorative items. During and immediately after the siege, copper was hard to source. It made it hard for them to make a living and provide for their families. When the siege ended, the coppersmiths scoured the mountains around the city, collecting the casings from grenades as well as artillery and tank ordnance. They took the casings and made them into exquisite works of art.

One coppersmith told us that it brought him peace. He was able to provide for his family because he saw the beauty in things that were designed for killing. Despite being wounded in the siege and losing several friends, he smiles when he says, “I am a happy man. I have my family, I have enough, and we are at peace.” The coppersmiths taught us to see the beauty in everything around us, even the ashes.

Peace is not Passive

The last and perhaps most important lesson the people of Sarajevo taught us was that peace is not passive. We spent time with multiple men who were sent to fight on the front lines of the siege as teenagers or young adults. In each instance, the front line was only one, two, or three miles from their homes. They were sent off with little to no training, and in many cases, unarmed. The unarmed soldiers carved sticks into the rough shape of a weapon to appear armed. Each man lost friends and family in the fighting. 

One man told us that following the war, he was bitter and angry. His thirst for vengeance was destroying him from within. In this state, he came across an organization that brought veterans of the war together—veterans from each side of the conflict. People would come share their stories, listen, and learn from one another—regardless of the social divisions that may have contributed to the war. At first, it was painful and even angering, but he kept attending. At one point, he realized, “these people are just like me.” Today, he calls some of them his friends.

He stressed to our group, “Peace is not passive.” If we want peace within ourselves and peace in our communities, we have to get outside of ourselves and engage with others —especially those who are different from us. It is easy to see others as enemies when we do not understand them. When we are willing to be with others and sincerely listen to them, we come to understand them more as the Savior does and to love them as He does.

These men modeled for us the truth taught by Nephi, the Lord “inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi, 26:33). If God invites all to come unto him, perhaps like these men from Sarajevo, we should not turn our hearts away from those different from ourselves: the rich, the poor, the conservative, the liberal, the heterosexual, the homosexual, the single, the married, the able bodied, the disabled, the citizen, the immigrant, the friend, the enemy—the children of God.  

As we honor the life and passing of Russell M. Nelson, we hope that we can heed his call to be more like the Savior Jesus Christ and work toward becoming peacemakers. We are grateful for the people of Sarajevo who opened their hearts to us and shared their stories of making peace. May we each learn to turn to God and worship Him more fully, see the beauty in the ashes, and actively make peace by connecting on a personal level with those who are different from ourselves.

Download Print-Friendly Version

President Russell M. Nelson passed away Saturday evening at age 101. News of his death reached Latter-day Saints worldwide even as many of us were preparing for Sunday worship. Hours later, our community woke to shocking reports from Grand Blanc Township, Michigan, where a gunman rammed a meetinghouse of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, opened fire, and set the building ablaze. Early counts vary—as is common in breaking news—and investigators are still determining a motive.

These two headlines—one of a prophet’s passing, another of senseless violence—land side by side with painful irony. Only weeks ago, President Nelson offered what now reads like a valedictory charge in TIME: “We All Deserve Dignity and Respect.” He called the world to remember two enduring truths: the divine worth of every person and the duty to love our neighbors with compassion. That was his last public message to the broader world; it is also the right response to the spirit of our age.

We strive for radical civility and moral clarity following Christ. That is our commitment at Public Square, and we try to keep, especially on days like this.

The Prophet’s Consistent Plea

President Nelson’s ministry consistently pressed toward peacemaking. In April 2023 he pled, “I urge you to choose to be a peacemaker, now and always.” That appeal was not sentimental; it was covenantal—an invitation to practice the discipline of charity in a time addicted to outrage.

His TIME essay extended that same ethic beyond our chapels to the public square. He grounded dignity in divine identity and insisted that respect for persons should govern our speech and our politics. In a moment when “extremism” can be weaponized to mean “whoever strongly disagrees with me,” President Nelson re-centered the term where it belongs: dehumanization that licenses contempt, and—at its ugliest edge—violence. 

Peace Without Evasion

Peacemaking is not evasion; it is the discipline of rejecting contention while standing firm in truth. Few voices have framed this more clearly than President Dallin H. Oaks, who served alongside Nelson in the Church’s presiding body, the First Presidency. Oaks has asked forthrightly what followers of Christ “should teach and do in this time of toxic communications,” and answered by calling us to mirror the Savior’s way as peacemakers. His counsel does not retreat from moral conviction; it refuses to let bitterness be our strategy.

For Latter-day Saints, this is more than conflict-avoidance. It is anchored in scripture’s warning that “contention is not of [Christ], but is of the devil” (see 3 Nephi 11:29–30). The covenant path trains our tongues and tempers—not to silence our witness, but to purify it.

By that standard, moral clarity requires us to name the Michigan attack for what it is. Driving a truck into a house of worship, firing on congregants, and torching a sacred space desecrates everything the restored gospel teaches about the sanctity of life, the dignity of worship, and the inviolable worth of souls. Whatever investigators eventually conclude about motive, such violence is the opposite of discipleship and the antithesis of President Nelson’s final public appeal. Reports are still being updated; early accounts indicate multiple victims and a deceased assailant. We mourn with those who mourn and condemn the assault without reservation.

“Extremism” has become a catch-all for people we don’t like. That linguistic slippage is its own kind of problem. When we say extremism, we mean the posture—on right or left—that justifies contempt, licenses cruelty, and treats persons as obstacles. This mentality thrives on apocalyptic rhetoric, algorithmic outrage, and the narcotic of group purity. It confuses zeal with righteousness and mistake-making neighbors with existential enemies.

The restored gospel offers a counter-formation. Covenants teach us to see persons first, to confess the limits of our knowledge, and to prefer persuasion over coercion. That is why President Nelson’s repeated focus on dignity, respect, and peacemaking should not be read as soft-pedaling doctrine. It is a strategy for faithful influence in a pluralistic nation—one that refuses false choices between courage and charity.

What Peacemaking Looks Like Right Now

On a day of grief and anger, what can ordinary believers do that is not merely performative?

• Pray by name. Pray for those killed and wounded in Michigan, for families newly navigating trauma, for first responders, and for local Church leaders shepherding devastated congregations. If you are nearby, listen for concrete needs—meals, blood donations, childcare, transportation—and meet them quietly. (Details are still emerging; follow local guidance.)
• Refuse contempt. In your home, group chats, and timelines, retire the demeaning one-liners. President Oaks warned about “toxic communications”; treat them as a spiritual hazard.
• Tell the truth, tenderly. Truth without love can become a cudgel; love without truth becomes sentimentality. The Savior calls us to both. President Nelson modeled that balance in his final essay and throughout his ministry.
• Practice presence. Visit a neighbor who grieves. Check on the Latter-day Saints—and the Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, and Jews—down the street. A community that shows up is a community that heals.
• Break bread across difference. Host a meal with someone whose yard sign irritated you last cycle. Eat, listen, and learn. The table is where enemies become neighbors and neighbors become friends.

A Closing Appeal

President Nelson’s final public word to the world was peace rooted in divine worth. Even as we mourn his passing—and the violence visited upon a Latter-day Saint congregation in Michigan—we can honor both moments by the way we live the next one.

So we ask, as a staff and as fellow disciples: Please join us in thoughtful prayer. Gather your families and your congregations. Kneel together tonight. Pray for the wounded and their caregivers. Pray for the bereaved. Pray for the Michigan Saints who will rebuild a chapel and, more importantly, a sense of safety. Pray for the perpetrators’ family, too, who now carry a different kind of grief.

And then break bread with your perceived enemies. Pull up an extra chair. Learn a name. Hear a story. In a season when extremism shouts, let our witness be the quiet, stubborn courage of peacemakers. That was the prophet’s parting invitation. May it be ours.

Editorial updated as of September 29, 2025; facts in the Michigan incident remain preliminary and may change as authorities release confirmed totals.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Sunday’s episode of Music & the Spoken Word, the weekly broadcast of The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square, included the following description of the late President Russell M. Nelson. Nelson served as the 17th president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until his passing on the evening of September 27, 2025:

“President Nelson met with kings and presidents, queens and princesses. But he also knew and loved the common person. He was their friend.”

As I heard those words, they felt less like a description and more like a reminder of things I’ve seen and felt myself.

I think first of my son, who was living in Vietnam when Nelson announced he would visit Ho Chi Minh City. My son grew up in Utah, where news of the Church and its leaders is always close at hand. But in Vietnam, it was different. Latter-day Saints there had not had a president of the Church of Jesus Christ visit in a generation. The visit was new and almost unimaginable. What touched my son most was not simply that he would see the prophet again, but that his friends in Vietnam would. The effort Nelson made to go there said to them more than words could: “You matter. You are not forgotten.”

I think too of a moment during Nelson’s Pacific ministry tour when he met a man named Mateo Lautaimi. Mateo had recently lost his wife, and his home had been destroyed by a cyclone. Nelson paused, listened, and in a private pastoral moment, told him simply, “Your wife is smiling at us.” Those were not the words of a visiting dignitary, but of a man willing to step into another’s grief and offer comfort.

Another story comes from Susan Cunningham, who met Nelson during a visit to San Antonio, Texas. 

“My husband served as the stake Young Men president, so he attended the leadership session of the stake conference the day before. After a general session, everyone was invited to come and meet him. I went up. 

“I had felt loved and cared for by his message, but I assumed that he was just doing this to be polite, because people get excited about being with an apostle. But I didn’t think there was any chance he would ever remember me. 

“When I got to the front, he took my hand and asked my name. I confess my first thought was, ‘Why does he care what my name is? He’ll never see me again.’ There must have been more than a hundred people in line, but when I said my name, he responded, ‘Are you the wife of the stake Young Men president?’ He knew our family well enough to recognize who I was just from my last name.”

There are countless other examples—some well known, many tucked quietly into people’s private memories. Early in his ministry as president of the Church, he traveled not only to Vietnam but also to Kenya, Zimbabwe, India, and other countries where Latter-day Saints had rarely seen church leadership before. For them, his presence was more than ceremonial. It was a way of saying, “The Lord sees you here, too.”

Before becoming president of the Church of Jesus Christ, Nelson was a heart surgeon. In the operating room, there was no such thing as “the crowd.” There was one patient, one fragile heart, one life in need of his complete focus. That way of seeing carried into his ministry. In his role, he never seemed to be speaking only to the masses. His words found individual hearts. He traveled to distant places for small congregations, paused to comfort one grieving father, and called others by name.

Perhaps the most poignant example came as he approached his 100th birthday. Instead of asking for gifts or honors, Nelson gave an invitation. He called it “99+1.” He asked each of us to think of someone who might feel lost or alone and to reach out—just as the Savior taught in the parable of the ninety-nine and the one. It was a birthday celebration not centered on himself, but on turning hearts outward. Even at 99 years old, he was still teaching us the pattern of his life: to remember the one.

When my son watched Latter-day Saints in Vietnam rejoice at Nelson’s visit, when Lautaimi felt comfort after his devastating loss, and Susan felt seen, the message was the same: President Nelson remembered the one. And in doing so, he showed us how to be like Christ.