Many things are moving in the right direction. Since the birth of classical liberalism, global poverty has plummeted from near 80% to under 9%, life expectancy has more than doubled, and violent crime is at historic lows. Religious liberty protections in the United States are stronger than virtually anywhere in human history.

But other things are breaking. Teen depression and anxiety rates have doubled since 2010. Marriage rates have fallen nearly 60% since 1970. Birth rates have cratered below replacement levels. Community bonds are dissolving. Loneliness has become epidemic. Political polarization has intensified to levels not seen since the Civil War era.

The family, the fundamental unit of society, struggles to survive in a culture that treats it as optional at best and oppressive at worst. Meaning structures that sustained civilization for millennia are weakening or disappearing entirely.

Secular liberalism promised neutral public spaces where diverse communities could coexist peacefully, but in practice those “neutral” spaces often became vehicles for harmful ideologies hostile to traditional religion and the virtue that flows from it. Public schools teach gender theory as settled science. Corporate HR departments enforce progressive orthodoxy. Administrative agencies regulate religious institutions. The state did not remain neutral. It just changed which comprehensive vision it enforces.

So the question religious conservatives are asking is reasonable: If secular institutions have failed to form virtue and preserve what matters most, shouldn’t we use government to restore what is being lost?

I understand this impulse. I share the alarm.

But as a Latter-day Saint, I believe we should take a different path. Coercion can never produce true goodness; it can only compel outward behavior. If we want to build a better society and protect our way of life in the long term, a more liberty-centric approach to cultural change is the best path forward.

Liberty as a Familiar Alternative

This does not mean abandoning virtue, family, or community. It means getting government out of domains where it has failed and trusting voluntary institutions to do the work that actually transforms lives. This approach has two complementary commitments:

First, protect liberty fiercely in the public sphere. Limit what government controls. Prevent majorities from using state power to enforce their vision on minorities. Ensure that families, churches, communities, and voluntary associations have the freedom to operate according to their values without government either forcing them to compromise those values or forcing others to adopt them.

Second, fight the battle for virtue in the private sphere. Build families so strong that people want to emulate them. Create churches so compelling that people choose to join them. Demonstrate through your life that virtue produces joy, meaning, and flourishing. Compete and win in a marketplace of free thought and association. We should not use state power to mandate virtue. We should prove through voluntary excellence that our way of life produces human flourishing and invite others to join us freely.

For Latter-day Saints specifically, this should feel natural. We are a tiny religious minority that thrives when government protects our liberty to worship, organize, build institutions, and live according to our values. We suffer when majorities use state power to enforce their vision of righteousness.

The liberty we preserve for others to make decisions we disagree with is the same liberty that protects our ability to live our peculiar religion. Liberty is not just morally right. It is the most durable protection we can give to our way of life. It is also where our theology points.  

Liberty in God’s Plan

The most fundamental question in Latter-day Saint theology is also the most politically relevant: What is the purpose of existence?

We believe humans can become divine beings. If the purpose of existence is transformation into beings with infinite potential, then moral agency is not optional—it is the necessary mechanism by which transformation happens.

The War in Heaven expands our understanding of this. In the premortal council, Lucifer promised to save everyone by eliminating agency entirely. God rejected this plan—not because it would not produce behavioral compliance, but because it would destroy what He is trying to create: beings capable of independent righteousness. God chose agency knowing some would fail because the alternative would destroy the very purpose of existence. 

That answer is not emotionally satisfying. Liberty is costly. But if God chose agency despite its risks, we cannot justify using coercion to produce virtue.

Our scripture shows us how the righteous should tolerate error. Alma 30:7-11 describes Nephite prophets facing false teachers willfully corrupting souls. God’s command? They are explicitly forbidden from using law to control religious belief: “there was no law against a man’s belief.” Here God refused to let even His prophet use state power to create forced virtue.

Doctrine and Covenants 121 makes this structural: “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.” Notice: “can or ought.” Not just “should not”—cannot. Coercion breaks divine authority. This is not a temporary accommodation for mortality. It reveals something eternal about righteous power.

Living prophets affirm this often. In his October 2025 General Conference address, Elder David A. Bednar taught about the “eternal importance of moral agency” which he defined as “the divinely designed power of independent action that empowers us as God’s children to become agents to act and not simply objects to be acted upon.” 

And in prior times of cultural turmoil, prophets have made it clear this extends to the political. President Ezra Taft Benson warned: “one of Lucifer’s primary strategies has been to restrict our agency through the power of earthly governments.” He did not isolate left-wing tyranny, but any use of state power to coerce private virtue.

Our history teaches the same lesson. For our entire history, we have been a religious minority headquartered in a Christian majority nation. When Christian majorities wielded state power to enforce their vision of virtue, we were often the targets. Missouri’s governor ordered our “extermination.” Joseph and Hyrum were murdered by a mob that believed they were defending Christian civilization. This was state power wielded by Christians convinced their religious vision justified coercion. When we are tempted to use government to restore virtue, we should remember we know exactly what that looks like from the other side.

The Risks of Reaching for State Power

Reaching for state power instead carries serious risks. First, you hand those with views opposed to yours the blueprint. Every tool you build, every precedent you establish, every expansion of government power you create to enforce your values becomes available to your opponents when they win elections. And they will win elections.

You might establish laws promoting traditional marriage. They will use the same state machinery to enforce gender ideology in schools. You might require religious education in public schools. They will mandate intersectional social justice curriculum. The power does not stay in your hands. It transfers. And when it does, you will face the very machinery you have built to advance their values.

Second, you teach the next generation that politics determines virtue. Once you establish that state power is the proper tool for cultural formation, the only question becomes: who has more votes? 

Third, you signal that voluntary persuasion is not sufficient. If Christianity truly produces human flourishing, why do you need state enforcement?

The gospel succeeds through attraction, not compulsion. People become Christians because they encounter Christ and recognize Him as the source of life abundant. They join churches because they see communities living with joy, purpose, and love that they want for themselves.

When you reach for state power to enforce religious values, you are announcing that attraction is not working. You are saying your faith cannot compete on its merits in a free marketplace of ideas. That is spiritually devastating. If we really believed that truth freely chosen would prevail, we would not need state coercion.

All of this is to render unto Caesar what is God’s.

The Path Forward

We are facing real and serious problems. The concerns driving religious conservatives toward government solutions are legitimate and urgent. 

But Latter-day Saints have unique resources to see why that response is both theologically wrong and strategically unwise.

Our theology teaches that transformation requires freely chosen action, not coerced compliance. Our scripture commands tolerance even of false teachers. Our prophets warn against restricting agency through government. Our history shows what happens when Christian majorities wield state power to enforce virtue.

Let’s build the Kingdom of God through persuasion, not coercion. Let the state protect rights while God transforms lives through voluntary institutions. Compete in the marketplace of ideas with confidence that truth, freely chosen, will prevail.

God chose liberty over guaranteed outcomes in the War in Heaven because agency matters more than safety and freedom matters more than forced righteousness. As Latter-day Saints, we should understand why that choice was right and why we must make it in our politics today.

Let’s start rendering unto God what is God’s.

The post Caesar’s Dues appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

If you want critical movie acclaim, there’s a reliable formula: tell a love story backward.

Start in the wreckage. Someone has cheated. Someone has checked out. The husband drinks too much, the wife works too much, and there’s a dead-eyed distance until one of them says something like, “I don’t think I’m in love anymore.”

Then cut to an earlier version of the same couple—young, magnetic, and unmistakably “in love.” They have a meet-cute, an immediate connection, a spontaneous slow dance. Cue the sweeping wedding montage, the surprise pregnancy, the tiny apartment made romantic with twinkle lights. We’re asked to believe this is what good married love is: intensity, spontaneity, romance.

Cut forward again, and we get the discovery, the confession, the paperwork, the sad soundtrack. The same question hangs over every scene, “How did we get from there to here?”

Outside the prestige marriage-in-freefall genre, the state of marriage on screen isn’t exactly hopeful. In early 2025, Millers in Marriage arrived as a relationship drama about three adult siblings orbiting dissatisfaction, infidelity, and divorce-adjacent choices. Later that year, Splitsville took the modern “maybe monogamy is the problem” premise and detonated it into chaos: a dissolving marriage collides with a supposedly successful open relationship, and it works out for no one. 

Isn’t it time for a new marriage story?

The thing about the marriage-falling-apart stories is that they’re often very good. The best of them are relatable in some small way to even the happiest of married couples. They treat the couple with a thoughtfulness and nuance that’s usually left out of the lighthearted rom-com genre. 

Marriage isn’t easy, and storytellers shouldn’t pretend it is. But something has gone very wrong when the most talented writers, directors, and actors are exclusively drawn to the most melancholic stories, while stories about strong and happy marriages and families are left to the realm of low-budget holiday made-for-TV movies.  Hollywood has gotten very good at depicting marital conflict and very bad at depicting marital repair. This repair is so often possible when marriage is viewed as a sacred covenant rather than a means of amusement and pleasure, something to be discarded when it ceases to serve that purpose.’

It doesn’t have to be this way.

Not long ago, a mainstream network drama gave viewers a marriage with real stress but no contempt and conflict without the constant threat of betrayal. Friday Night Lights wasn’t a story about perfect people. It was a story about people under pressure—career pressure, parenting pressure, community pressure—and a marriage that didn’t evaporate the moment it stopped feeling effortless.

Why does it matter if healthy marriages are portrayed on screen? It matters because we are formed by the stories we binge, quote, and internalize. Young people, who increasingly spend their waking hours on screens, have decreasing interest in marriage and family. This is great cause for concern, especially for people of faith who believe that marriage and family are central to God’s plan. Proverbs teaches, “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he.” Who are we shaping ourselves and our children to be if so much of our media sows cynicism and discontent about marriage? 

My favorite movie about love—a true bright spot for marriage in movies—is Rob Reiner’s When Harry Met Sally…. What makes it quietly profound isn’t only the central story of two friends falling in love. It’s the way the film is stitched together with documentary-style interviews of elderly couples telling the stories of how they met.

The couples on screen are actors. But the stories are drawn from interviews gathered during the writing process—real people’s memories shaped into monologues, then performed with ordinary tenderness. The movie opens with a sweet elderly couple sitting on a couch, with the husband relaying this story: 

I was sitting with my friend Arthur Kornblum, in a restaurant … And this beautiful girl walked in and I turned to Arthur, and I said Arthur, you see that girl? I’m going to marry her. And two weeks later we were married. And it’s over fifty years later and we are still married.

Later in the movie, another husband shares:

A man came to me and say, “I find a nice girl for you. She lives in the next village, and she is ready for marriage.” We were not supposed to meet until the wedding. But I wanted to make sure. So I sneak into her village, hid behind a tree, watch her washing the clothes. I think if I don’t like the way she looks, I don’t marry her. But she look really nice to me. So I say okay to the man. We get married. We married for 55 years.

These vignettes are not “prestige tragedy.” They don’t build toward an award-worthy implosion. They’re small and human, sometimes funny, and improbable. They’re often surprisingly plain. 

Perhaps we are beginning to see a correction. Chloé Zhao, one of the best working directors today, crafts one of the year’s best movies around the theme of marriage repair and reconciliation in her Oscar-nominated film “Hamnet.” Other Best Picture-nominated films, such as “Train Dreams” and “Sinners” also show marriages strained and repaired. These films are showing a better, more interesting way forward. We have plenty of conflict, realism, and cynicism. What we need is repair.

If you can only imagine love as a feeling you either have or don’t, then the moment the feeling dips, the story is basically over. But if love is also a practice—something you learn, fail at, return to, choose over and over again, and grow into—then marriage doesn’t have to be filmed as either a fairy tale or a tragedy.

Which brings me back to Valentine’s Day. We need better marriage stories that are honest about difficulty and honest about endurance: depictions of husbands and wives who don’t merely “stay together” but learn how to turn back toward each other again and again until the ordinary becomes, in its own way, extraordinary.

The post A New Marriage Story appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

2024 was one of the best years in recent memory for family films. 2025 didn’t have as much to offer, but there were certainly plenty of great films to watch as a family—you just had to know where to look. Many of the best were under the radar or had small releases, which means many families still have the opportunity to experience them together. 

A few films didn’t quite make the cut, but are worth mentioning: Zootopia 2 — more beautiful but less creative and morally sound than Zootopia 1, Unbreakable Boy — a heartwarming based-on-a-true-story film that goes a bit too sappy, and The Colors Within — a beautiful piece of visual poetry with a metaphor a bit too on the nose.

But here, in my opinion, are the ten best movies of the year and where to find them.

9 & 10. ‘Minecraft’ & ‘Dog Man’

I wanted to include both films here to round out the list. Neither is particularly memorable, and certainly they aren’t trying to be important. But they do prove that silliness is its own kind of virtue and that you can genuinely entertain without trying to import ideology to children. Sometimes something that can make you giggle and cheer for 90 minutes is precisely good enough. 

How to watch Minecraft: Streaming on HBO Max 

How to watch Dog Man: Streaming on Netflix

8. ‘Paddington in Peru’

Paddington the bear embodies kindness, manners, and goodness. So whether you’re the grown-up laughing at the misadventures of the adorable cub, or a kid learning from his example, the franchise is a gold mine for families. The latest adventure doesn’t quite reach the peaks of the previous two installments, but the delightful additions of Olivia Colman and Antonio Banderas keep the film a lively adventure.

How to watch: Streaming on Netflix

7. ‘The Legend of Ochi’

The Legend of Ochi invites kids and adults into a hand-crafted fairy tale where courage looks like listening to the creatures everyone else is afraid of. With the old-school puppetry and throwback plot, the film feels like an 80s adventure. There is some distrust of authority that comes with the genre, but overall, the film gently nudges viewers toward curiosity, compassion, and making the big, hard choices.

How to watch: Streaming on HBO Max

6. ‘KPop Demon Hunters’

The surprise hit of 2025 KPop Demon Hunters has proven its entertainment chops for kids. This is not a film that can stand on its own; there are a few mixed moral messages about identity formation and shame that you’ll want to talk through with kids. But the thrust of the film about fighting real evil and self-sacrifice as a weighty moral good is worth cheering for. And it even has some meaningful things to say about redemptive vs. toxic empathy, an important counter-cultural lesson. 

How to watch: Streaming on Netflix

5. ‘In Your Dreams’ 

In Your Dreams uses its wild, anything-can-happen dream world to tell a surprisingly grounded story about kids learning they can’t wish their family into perfection. The movie keeps turning the fun imagery and gags back toward a deeper lesson about choosing real, imperfect love over fantasy and control. The villain isn’t just a monster but the temptation to live in a world where nothing is hard and no one ever disappoints you, and the film clearly labels that as a trap rather than a goal. This is a rare contemporary film about divorce that, in the end, rejects divorce and pursues forgiveness and hard work instead. 

How to watch: Streaming on Netflix

4. ‘The Day The Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie’

The first fully hand-drawn Looney Tunes feature gives Daffy and Porky a world-saving alien-invasion plot that stays gloriously zany while quietly celebrating friendship and responsibility. Amid the bubblegum-factory chaos and a few genuinely creepy B-movie-style moments, the heart of the story is two screw-ups learning to have each other’s backs and to use their oddball gifts for something bigger than themselves. For families who miss old-school cartoons that are silly first and never push the boundaries, this is a blast.

How to watch: Streaming on HBO Max

3. ‘Ne Zha 2’

Ne Zha 2 takes all its record-breaking hype and actually delivers a mythic family story about courage, costly love, and refusing to treat whole peoples as disposable. With Ne Zha and his dragon friend Ao Bing literally sharing one fragile body, the movie keeps turning its huge battles and wild visuals back toward loyalty, repentance, and parents who are willing to suffer rather than abandon their son. It is intense and unapologetically rooted in Chinese mythology, but for families willing to go big and talk afterward, this is one of the richest animated adventures of the year. 

How to watch: Streaming on HBO Max

2. ‘Arco’

Arco begins with a rainbow-suited boy falling out of a peaceful far future into a battered 2075, and turns that simple sci-fi hook into a quietly moving story about friendship, responsibility, and the kind of world we are handing to our children. Iris and her robot caretaker Mikki take this stranger in and, as they race to send him home, the film keeps tying its gorgeous future-shock imagery back to small acts of hospitality, courage, and care for a damaged Earth instead of despair or blame. It is hopeful without being naïve, warning kids about what might come while insisting that love of neighbor and creation can still bend the story in a better direction.

How to watch: Limited Release in Theaters

1. ‘Little Amélie or the Character of Rain’

Little Amélie or the Character of Rain quietly follows a little girl in 1960s Japan as she slowly wakes up to the world around her. We see everything from her small point of view as she tastes new foods, plays by the water, and tries to make sense of big things like war, loss, and God with the help of the adults who love her. (The answers are grounded in Japanese spiritualism, not Christian theology.) The film is gentle, slow, and often very funny in tiny ways, but it treats a young child’s heart and questions with real respect, showing how family love and simple daily joys can teach humility and gratitude. It is one of the year’s rare animated films that truly honors childhood as a sacred season rather than a marketing demographic, which is why it tops this year’s list.

How to watch: Limited Release in Theaters

The post The Best Family Movies of 2025 Came From the Margins, Not the Mainstream appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

This article marks the twelfth and final article in the Peacemaking Series. In 2023, the late Prophet, President Russell M. Nelson, issued the call, Peacemakers Needed. TheFamilyProclamation.org answered this call by producing 12 playful, 1 to 2-minute videos teaching principles and tactics for Peacemaking. While secular in their content, each video was directly inspired by the principles taught in President Nelson’s talk. When writing each script, the creators presented scholarly theories from the fields of psychology, philosophy, conflict resolution, and communication, which would help support an individual trying to integrate President Nelson’s message into their personal and professional relationships. Public Square Magazine published this 12-part article series as an opportunity to exhibit the research that supported the content of each video. Each article acts as a companion piece for one video from the series.

Questions for Conflict

The final video in the series presents a list of “Questions for Conflict.” Each question references principles taught in the previous videos. The intention is that an individual who has watched all the videos can quickly view this last video to help them remember what they have learned. The questions aren’t a test; they help guide an individual’s thinking as they consider the course of action they ought to take when trying to make a conflict more peaceful.

In similar fashion, this companion article lists the link to each video in the series, the link to its companion article, the main ideas taught in that video and article, and then the action question from the resource video above. Our intention with this article’s brevity and organization is that it may become a simple reference guide, something easily bookmarked for quick access, sharable with friends or family; an aid for creating more peace while navigating social conflicts in life, for inspiring “love one toward another” and to go “about doing good” (1 Thessalonians 3 and Acts 10). God bless us all as we grow in our discipleship of “The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9).

Controlling Anger

The Art of Peacemaking: Controlling Anger by Bridging Logic and Emotion

Main Idea: When anger or other strong emotions surge, they can hijack our judgment, pushing us toward reactions that harm understanding and connection. By pausing to breathe deeply, we slow the body’s adrenaline response, give our rational mind time to catch up, and create space to act with clarity, patience, and purpose instead of hostility.

Question: Should I take a few deep breaths?

Conflict Is Natural

Conflict is Natural: How We Mistake Discomfort for Destruction

Main Idea: Conflict is when two or more opposing forces meet each other, and our personal associations with that word—whether positive or negative—reveal how we understand and respond to disagreement. By maturing those associations toward a “conflict is natural” perspective, we learn to see conflict not as something to fear or even like, but as an inevitable process toward discovering balance, harmony, and productive solutions.

Question: What good can come from this conflict?

Semantic Ambiguity

From Babel to the UN: How Semantic Confusion Undermines Peace—and the Radical Power of Clarity

Main Idea: Many disagreements begin with semantic ambiguity—the confusion that arises when a word carries multiple meanings and each person assumes their own definition is shared by everyone else. To resolve such confusion, take time to unpack the word by asking, “What do you mean by that?” This simple act builds the communication foundation for genuine peace through clarity.

Question: Are any of the words we’re using ambiguous?

Positive Gossip

What If Gossip Isn’t a Sin—But a Skill in Peacemaking?

Main Idea: Gossip––any conversation about someone who is not present—is a pervasive part of human communication, and it can be either negative, focusing on the faults of others, which spreads harm, or positive, celebrating others’ virtues and reinforcing unity. Intentionally pivoting from negative to positive gossip by asking questions that encourage empathy fosters compassion, strengthens relationships, and transforms ordinary conversation into a constructive force for understanding and social unity.

Question: Have I acknowledged this person’s strengths?

Bridges of Understanding

The Complex Art of Christian Kindness: Building Bridges

Main Idea: Conflicts often arise not because people truly disagree, but because people misunderstand one another’s perspectives. The solution is to ask sincere questions motivated by genuine curiosity and the desire for positive connection—turning toward “bids.” This builds understanding, fosters goodwill, and allows people to navigate differing perspectives without compromising personal standards.

Question: Do I sincerely believe this person knows something I don’t?

Disagreements Bring Balance

Disagreements Bring Balance: When Silence Isn’t Peace

Main Idea: Many people avoid speaking up in disagreements out of fear of rocking the boat, being judged, or creating conflict, yet this silence often limits perspective, stifles collaboration, and diminishes relational authenticity. By embracing vocal disagreement through empathy, curiosity, and structured techniques—such as using “I statements,” talking in parts, asking clarifying questions, and restating others’ perspectives—individuals can take responsibility for expressing their own views and create deeper connections.

Question: Have I expressed every part of myself honestly?

Forgiveness

 You Don’t Need to Feel Forgiving to Forgive

Main Idea: The experience of personal betrayal often leaves lasting pain, presenting a tension between holding onto anger or extending forgiveness, a choice that affects both the offender and the offended. Forgiveness is an active, deliberate process practiced through steps like naming the hurt, imagining dialogue with the offender, switching perspectives, and then choosing between anger and forgiveness. Even without trust, apology, or change from the other person, one can cultivate compassion, emotional healing, and freedom for oneself.

Questions: Why am I hurting? Why might they be hurting? Am I choosing to give them anger or forgiveness?

Save the Relationship!

Disagreement: Three Steps toward Relationship Conservation

Main Idea: Even minor disagreements, if mishandled, can threaten the very heart of a relationship, causing lasting damage. By following the three-step approach—first separating the conflict from the relationship, next resuscitating the bond with gratitude and repair attempts, and finally addressing the deeper needs behind the disagreement—relationships can be preserved, strengthened, and transformed into opportunities for understanding and growth.

Questions: Have I separated the relationship from the conflict? How can I “resuscitate” the relationship? How can I address their deeper needs?

Conflict Styles

Why Winning Doesn’t Make You Right: Five Conflict Styles

Main Idea: Disagreements are inevitable, and no single approach suffices for every conflict; understanding the five conflict management styles—Oblige, Promote, Collaborate, Compromise, and Avoid—helps prevent resentment. Discern the needs of yourself and others, then apply the appropriate style for the situation: you can oblige when the issue matters more to others, assertively promote when it matters more to you, collaborate for mutual solutions, compromise when time is limited, or even avoid the conflict altogether when it’s just not that important.

Questions: Who has the greater need here? Which conflict style would be wise for me to use?

What is Power?

The Paradox of Power and the Secret Strength of Meekness

Main Idea: Power, defined simply as “the ability to control a resource,” emerges not from domination or coercion but from recognizing and effectively using resources (both internal and external). Sustainable and righteous power grows through self-mastery and compassionate influence, inviting others to engage willingly in play.

Questions: What resources are available to me? What should I stop participating in, and start participating in?

Peacemaking

Peacemaking, Redefined: Why Civility Feels So Radical

Main Idea: Rising social and interpersonal tensions make even minor disagreements feel threatening to relationships. The introductory video and article explain that the Peacemaking Series teaches that healthier connections can be cultivated by taking personal responsibility, approaching differences with empathy and respect, and modeling peacemaking one interaction at a time.

Question: What can I do to be a peacemaker?

About The Sykline Research Institute

The Skyline Research Institute hosts the website TheFamilyProclamation.org. As a non-profit organization, they combine scripture, scholarship, and stories supporting the doctrine and teachings in The Family: A Proclamation to the World. You can follow them for podcasts, original research, more video content, and even lesson plans for families and classrooms through their social media accounts or at their website, TheFamilyProclamation.org.

The post The Final Lesson of Peacemaking: Ask Better Questions appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

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

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

The Series

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

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

Power Defined: Control Over Resources

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

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

Mastery and Self-Control

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

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

The Baseball Analogy: Play as Power

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

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

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

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

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

Using Simple Resources

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

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

Power and the Christian Perspective

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

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

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

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.

The post The Power of Repentance to Help Relational Healing appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Here is the latest article in our Peacemaking Series. To read the last article: Disagreements Bring Balance: When Silence Isn’t Peace

Few moments are more defining than those shaped by deep personal betrayal. When recalling these moments, the body often reacts before the mind—muscles tighten, the stomach turns, and the memory returns with clarity. The pain may be lasting, the consequences irreversible. In such moments, two responses emerge side by side: anger and forgiveness—two gifts, one in each hand, and while both feel justified, only one can be given.

This is the essential tension at the heart of forgiveness: not a passive emotion, but an active, deliberate, sacred decision. Forgiveness is often couched in dramatic moments of intense pain and wrongdoing, but it also needs to find its way into everyday moments, like when a loved one or stranger says a careless word or performs a negligent action. These small moments of hurt, if unforgiven, can lead to a lifetime’s accumulation of tension and resentment. There is great power for both the offender and the offended in the words, I forgive you. While it is often assumed that forgiveness must be earned, Christian theology and research present a different view. Forgiveness is a gift extended not only to the offender, but also to release and heal the one who forgives.

What Forgiveness Is and Isn’t

Forgiveness is often misunderstood in its meaning and execution, carrying a wide range of meanings across individuals and cultures. Some may conclude it is unattainable before ever fully understanding what it entails. This word deserves a thoughtful unpacking before being dismissed. Clarifications of what forgiveness is and is not can be helpful. 

Forgiveness is not:

• Trusting the person who caused the wrong.
• Earned by the person who caused hurt.
• Forgetting what happened.
• Pretending the offense didn’t hurt.
• Letting the offender perpetuate the harm.
• Reconciliation, or prolonging a relationship.

Forgiveness is:

• A choice to act compassionately. 
• Beginning to feel compassion as you act compassionately.
• Given whether or not the other person shows remorse or change. 
• Something you do for you.
• A perpetual choice and not a single event.

Psychologist Everett Worthington––a leading expert on forgiveness whose research has informed much of the thinking in this article––identifies two forms of forgiveness: decisional and emotional. 

Decisional forgiveness is consciously choosing to forgive—often for our own well-being rather than for the benefit of the offender. 

Emotional forgiveness, by contrast, is when feelings of anger begin to soften into empathy and compassion.

While it is often believed emotions drive actions, research and experience suggest the opposite: choices and behaviors gradually shape feelings. Suggesting that often it may be required to act compassionately, before we feel compassion. Anger’s grip is hard and often shapes our journey with forgiveness. Anger can serve as an emotional strategy to overcome feelings of helplessness. However, as President Nelson taught, “anger never persuades,” and the sensation of control is really an illusion: change is up to the offender just as much as our decision to forgive is up to us.

Forgive For Your Own Sake

Worthington’s research shows forgiveness improves mental and physical health, lowers blood pressure, reduces anxiety, and even boosts the immune system. Forgiveness may not change the offender—but it will change the forgiver.

When we decide to release resentment, we begin to, as one Church leader put it, “rise to a higher level of self-esteem and well-being” characterized by emotional clarity and peace. Choosing to forgive doesn’t deny the pain—it simply refuses to let that pain define our path forward.

Examples of Forgiveness

At one point in early Church history, tensions ran high among members. People were hurting each other, holding grudges, and struggling to move forward. In that setting, the Lord gave a clear, striking command: His followers “ought to forgive one another.” Then He added something sobering. While God alone could decide “whom to forgive,” His disciples were not given that same privilege of discretion. They were “required” to forgive “all.”

It isn’t a suggestion. It isn’t conditional. This is a divine directive for healing and unity. The Lord didn’t ask them to ignore justice—He asked them to make room for His mercy by letting go of their desire to carry the offense any further.

Why would the Lord ask something so hard? Perhaps it is because the Lord knows that holding onto hate keeps our minds dwelling on the past and the offender. Focusing on the offense leaves no room for contemplating and engaging with His healing grace and hope in the present.

Jesus, hanging on the cross, uttered the words while looking at His torturers, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” In that moment, Christ modeled the highest form of forgiveness: extending compassion without having received any apology, show of remorse, or change. He recognized His abusers’ ignorance toward the depths of His pain and the extent of their own sin. Often, offenses are committed in such a state.

Even when buried by regret—when the weight of wrong choices seems too great, or the damage too deep—there is still hope. Healing doesn’t require perfection, only a willingness to turn toward the Savior. His grace reaches to infinite depths. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland tenderly reminds us, “It is not possible for you to sink lower than the infinite light of Christ’s Atonement shines.” The same is true for those who have caused wrong. They, too, remain within the reach of divine love, and those who forgive become more like Christ when hoping for their healing. 

The REACH Method

So what is to be done when someone wants to forgive, but doesn’t know how or where to begin?

Start here. The Skyline Research Institute has published a series of short and playful videos focusing on tools and tactics for Peacemaking. These videos expound principles taught in President Nelson’s address “Peacemakers Needed” by complementing them with academic theories in psychology and conflict management. This current article is one in a series of articles published through Public Square, exploring the theories taught in each video more thoroughly.

The following video teaches principles of forgiveness from the perspective of a cat learning to forgive the dog who hurt them.

As shown in the video, these steps give a simple starting place for applying the divine and well-researched principles of forgiveness:

1. Name the Hurt.
Think of the person who hurt you. Let yourself feel the pain. Ask, “What specifically hurts me about this?” Is it betrayal? Injustice? Abandonment?

2. Imagine Speaking to Them.
What would you say if they were sitting before you? Get it all out—no filters. Write it in a letter (even if you never send it).

3. Switch Seats.
Now imagine being them. What might they say? What wounds might they carry? This doesn’t excuse them—it humanizes them.

4. Picture the Two Gifts.
In front of you are two gifts: your forgiveness and your anger. Which will you give them?

This process may need to be repeated many times—that’s okay. Forgiveness is rarely a one-time event. Like any habit, the choice to act with compassion must be practiced, especially in the face of discomfort. It may feel unnatural or insincere at first, but each time we choose kindness, the action becomes a little more familiar, a little more automatic. In any given situation, forgiveness is a muscle that strengthens with use. It’s a neural pathway that, with repetition, begins to favor hope, action, and healing over the depressing and well-worn track of rumination.

If the choice to act compassionately towards an aggressor feels out of reach, recognizing the need to forgive and its benefits is a good place to start. Even aiming for forgiveness softens your heart. Desire to want to forgive.

Based on his research, Worthington developed the REACH method:

• R – Recall the hurt.
• E – Empathize with the offender.
• A – Altruistic gift of forgiveness.
• C – Commit to forgive.
• H – Hold onto forgiveness when emotions rise again.

As the video showed, REACH is enacted step by step by recalling the hurt, imagining the offender’s pain, and choosing to give the “gift” of forgiveness. 

The Choice Is Ours

The reality of pain is undeniable, and its depth is often known only to the individual and God. Life frequently confronts people with shocking and disproportionate suffering, much of it undeserved. Such experiences are not uncommon, though they remain deeply personal and often isolating.

Forgiveness does not erase the past—but it reclaims the future. It is not about denying hurt, but about refusing to let that hurt decide who we become. In a world full of real wounds and imperfect people, forgiveness offers something radical: not control over others, but healing within ourselves. Though anger may offer the illusion of power, only forgiveness frees us from the grip of the past and opens the way to peace. 

As both research and revelation affirm, forgiveness is not just a moral ideal—it is a practiced, powerful, and divine pathway toward emotional, physical, and spiritual renewal. 

The invitation remains: choose the gift of forgiveness. Give it again and again.

The post You Don’t Need to Feel Forgiving to Forgive appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

This Father’s Day, I want to advocate for the power of righteous manhood. Currently, our Western culture frequently discusses patriarchy. And while abuses of authority are real, too often the necessity of the power of good men—which protects and builds women, families, and societies—is forgotten. As long as there are selfish men who would use their strength to harm women, protectors are needed. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints promotes a dad culture where women can thrive working alongside noble men; each secure in their roles as males and females.

A quick search on Instagram reveals a lively and negative conversation about patriarchy sponsored by many Latter-day Saint women. A sample of such posts:

A picture of a woman with her mouth gagged, captioned, “As a Mormon woman, I absolutely upheld and perpetuated the patriarchy.”

On a prominent influencer’s page, a graphic of flowers, captioned, “Patriarchy taught me that caregiving and ‘nurturing’ are ‘women’s work’ and therefore, less valuable.” 

And, a picture of a young mother and two young children, captioned with a description of her loss of faith, “topped with a growing resentment toward the patriarchy.”

For some, the perceived ‘patriarchy’ in the Church may look bad. Priesthood offices being restricted to men, the lopsided ratio of men and women who speak at General Conference, and male bishoprics sitting on the stand are commonly cited examples. However, while making observations about how the Church is led, it is worthwhile to zoom out and look at the relationship between men and women more generally.

The dance between the sexes has always been complex. Women are physically smaller and weaker than men, and the only of the two sexes that can become pregnant. To be female is to be inherently vulnerable—as a fact of biology—and the way in which men have responded to that vulnerability has foundationally affected civilizations throughout history.

In The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, Louise Perry differentiates between cads and dads as she looks at significant social changes occurring from the 1960s onward. As sex was taken out of the marital context, the influence of single men who viewed women only as objects of their sexual desires—the cads—increased, while the role of fathers caring for families—the dads—diminished. This shifting influence, starting in the 1960s, changed society for the worse.

Perry begins her book by describing two individuals, Hugh Hefner and Marilyn Monroe, as central to this sexual revolution.

[Hefner and Monroe] never actually met, but … in 1992, Hefner bought the crypt next door to Monroe’s … for $75,000, telling the Los Angeles Times: ‘I’m a believer in things symbolic … [so] spending eternity next to Marilyn is too sweet to pass up.’ At the age of ninety-one, Hefner got his wish. The long-dead Monroe had no say in the matter.

Not only in death was Monroe’s voice ignored, but this was a continuation of what had occurred during her life. Young and desperately needing money, she posed nude for a picture and signed release documents using a fake name. Four years later, Hefner used it as the centrefold in his premier edition of Playboy magazine, which made him millions of dollars. Hefner did not get Monroe’s consent for this publication. She received no further compensation and told a friend she had “never even received a thank-you.”

Hefner used Monroe for personal monetary gain; the ringleader of a huge crowd who sexually objectified Monroe. When asked late in his life by the New York Times if he had any regrets about the negative effects of the Playboy revolution, Hefner replied, It was “a small price to pay for personal freedom.” The sexual revolution is the “story of the triumph of the playboy—a figure who is too often both forgotten and forgiven, despite his central role in this still recent history … the likes of Hefner (who) achieve(d) the goal of liberating their libidos while pretending that they were liberating women” (Perry).

Hefner’s magazines normalized a sexual narrative freeing men, particularly the highly socio-sexual playboy types (the cads), from the social responsibilities of paternity. Women lost their leverage when premarital sex became normalized. To gain access to sex, men no longer needed to prove their worth to women as potential dads. Hefner decoupled reproduction from sex by supporting the Pill and the legalization of abortion. This “had nothing to do with a commitment to women’s wellbeing. Hefner never once campaigned for anything that didn’t bring him direct benefit, and when fear of pregnancy was one of the last remaining reasons for women saying ‘no,’ he had every reason to wish for a change that would widen the pool of women available to him” (Perry). The youthful appearance of a fertile woman was what Hefner desired, but not the children she would bear. The resulting sexual culture “promotes the interests of the Hefners of the world” (Perry). 

Look around and ask who is calling the shots. Do the cads (the men seeking sex without family commitment) or the dads (the men who prioritize their wives’ and children’s concerns) have outsized influence?

When observing the sexual-dating culture of young adults—those who are a couple of generations downstream of the sexual revolution with its disintegrating familial patterns—pre-marital and deviant sexual behaviour is somehow perceived as the norm. Consider dangerous growing sexual trends among young adults with a gendered pattern of women being the ones targeted. A BBC-commissioned survey found that 38 percent of women between 18 and 29 years old had experienced specific abuses during sex, with obvious risk to both physical and mental health.

Our current thin culture of sexual consent is not robust enough to safeguard women from harm. The line between assault and pressured agreement to engage in degrading sexual activity is blurry, and women are being hurt. To protect women from this we need “a sophisticated system of sexual ethics … demand(ing) more of people, and, as the stronger and hornier sex, men must demonstrate even greater restraint than women when faced with temptation” (Perry). While some may see chivalry––which encourages men to protect women––as condescending, such a system is advantageous for women. Women are not left to fight off the cads themselves; they have the dads for backup—who can and should shoulder the responsibility of keeping aggressive men in check. This has often played out as older men––specifically fathers––keep younger men’s behavior “banked and cooled” within safe boundaries (Durants). 

The feminist writer Mary Harrington says,

[Feminists attacking] chivalry as a set of social codes has … been absolutely catastrophic … And it was brought about by … women who felt safe enough doing it, because they were fairly civilised, fairly privileged, and they were confident that they could demand that the men in their lives would treat them well. And, they didn’t think about men and women in different social contexts who maybe needed a clear set … of guardrails, and they didn’t specifically think about how much more vulnerable it would make the women.

Within this chivalrous structure, Perry suggests a culture where parental and community involvement can hold young men accountable in dating through “strategic, brief, and celibate” courtships leading to marriage. This counterculture argument is not one Perry always believed in. She was raised in a secular environment and internalized Westernized sexual norms. Observing the effects of the modern dechristianization of the West while studying history, anthropology, and working at a rape crisis centre in her twenties, she conceded Christian sexual ethics work in this complicated world. Early Christianity brought about revolutionary changes for women living in the Greco-Roman context, such as the equal worth of women to men, marriage laws that required women’s consent, and the single standard of sexual continence for both men and women. The now thirty-three-year-old Perry describes herself as an “agnostic Christian,” believing in Christian values, but unsure of the supernatural truth claims. In a way, she serves as a foil to the Latter-day Saint women mentioned earlier and others like them who criticize the structure of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

In light of an argument for chivalry, consider the dad culture the Church fosters.“The Family: A Proclamation to the World” teaches “fathers are to preside … in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.” The Church Handbook stipulates that a Bishop or Stake President must be “loyal to his wife and family.” While single women can serve as Relief Society Presidents, Bishops and Stake Presidents must be married men. Male priesthood leaders reiterate counsel like President Howard W. Hunter’s that “tenderness and respect—never selfishness—must be the guiding principles … between husband and wife … Any man who abuses or demeans his wife physically or spiritually is guilty of grievous sin.” Counsel passed down to young men through the Aaronic Priesthood Theme states, “I will prepare to become a … loyal husband, and loving father …”

The term ‘patriarchy’ is heavy with negative connotations, but not one the Church claims––with no hits when searched on the church website. However, the organizational structure of the Church is full of patriarchs—dads—who channel their passions in holding one another accountable for safeguarding women and children. Arguments made against the Church’s reliance on male officers fall short of proposing a better way of mobilizing groups of good men in taking on the responsibility of protecting women against the selfish desires of predatory men––particularly high-status men who have outsized influence for harm. Father-protectors unite their wills with those of their wives and each other in creating a culture that promotes the safety of women and children. Women’s biology holds women accountable to motherhood through pregnancy and post-natal care, but a social structure is needed to empower women to rightfully claim men’s participation in the supportive role of fatherhood. The structure and doctrines of the Church provide this by sublimating individual male needs while prioritizing the call to be husbands and fathers.

In this post-sexual revolution world, I place my confidence in voices that bring the strengths of men and women together in ennobling ways. I worry the current conversation led by some women in the Church criticizes and diminishes the voices of dads while the cads continue their destructive behavior. Many good men are listening and wanting to participate in productive discourse, like President Nelson, who issued a plea for the women of the Church to use our voices. I’m so grateful for the Church and for the men who serve within it.

This Father’s Day, may we remember our fathers, brothers, sons, and husbands and speak more often of their goodness. The world needs these good men.

The post The Voice of our Fathers: The Forgotten Power of Good Men appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

In the very first chapter of the first book in the Bible, God commanded Adam and Eve, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:28). Religion has always informed the meanings and purposes of sex, but has not limited sex to procreation. In the second chapter of Genesis, God also commanded our first parents to “be[come] one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). “In the beginning,” the divine plan included having a family and the unifying and sanctifying power of marital sexual relations. 

Over the past 25 years, in our American Families of Faith project, we have interviewed hundreds of wives and husbands from “exemplary marriages” in many faiths across the major branches of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Many participants raised and addressed the topic of religion and sexuality without us even asking them to “go there.” What did they tell us?  

Some Religious Beliefs Can Be Damaging

Much of what the exemplary wives and husbands discussed about the connection between religion and sexuality was positive. However, despite being highly religious themselves, some couples readily acknowledged real and potential harms of certain religiously based ideas on marital sexuality. When we asked participants if there were any negative or damaging aspects of religion, one Eastern Orthodox Christian husband responded, 

One [potentially damaging belief] that comes to mind … [is] the idea that … human sexuality is only for procreation. I think [that] is very dangerous to marriages. One of our fathers, John Chrysostom, says it’s for two things—children and the increase of love. 

A Christian wife named Jessica said, 

I think that one [harm] is this issue of sacrifice and guilt. If a person feels like they have to always have to give in to what the other person wants, or always kind of crucify themselves for the sake of the marriage, that’s not going to lead to long-term health. 

Another issue, avoidance of communication about sex, was raised by an Orthodox Jewish wife named Sarah, who said,

Well, certainly [some highly religious persons] are missing the spirit [of sex]. When I was growing up, we weren’t allowed to read certain books. I would hide them under my bed. We didn’t talk about sex at all [and that was not helpful].

Noting the above issues of potentially damaging beliefs, poor messaging, and lack of communication about sex that religion can intensify, we now turn to several positive connections between religion and sex that our participants shared.

The Sanctity of Sex

As reported in a Review of Religious Research article by Chelom E. Leavitt and colleagues, American Families of Faith participants discussed how sex can elevate and bless marriage. Many couples expressed their belief that God gave them the “gift” of sex to unite them, to create strong bonds, and to gain a sense of connection. A Muslim husband named Ahmad said, 

[S]exual interaction between married couples is considered worship in Islam, and you get rewarded in terms of good deeds. [However], if you have [the] intention when you do it, that you are [only serving] yourself, and [only trying] to fulfill your desire, [you] do it the wrong way. 

Ahmad clarified that marital sex is considered a form of worship, and that it must be focused on one’s partner and the relationship—not based in self-absorption. A Black Christian woman named Shawna praised her husband, Ty, for not being “selfish” in their sexual relationship. Shawna said, 

[T]he other thing that I appreciate about [my husband, Ty, is that] he is my lover and he’s an awesome lover. He takes the time to make sure that my needs are met. He’s not selfish in the bedroom. I know when we go up there, he’s looking out [for me] (laughter). … [O]ur children, we always said to them, “This is keeping Jesus happy, because [our] marriage bed is undefiled.” And I said, “So, if you want to know what’s going on [in our bedroom], Mama and Daddy are just keeping Jesus happy.” Our children are very open about [discussing] sex, because we have been [open with them]. 

For Shawna and Ty, and many others we interviewed, their marital and sexual relationship had a higher purpose, were a form of worship, and were even a way to please God through fidelity and keeping the “marriage bed undefiled.” Rather than being seen as sinful or problematic, for most of our AFF respondents, sex is seen as joyful and happy and can draw the couple into a deeper connection that is sacred and God-ordained. This view is what helps sexuality to become a sanctified and holy part of their relationship, which can help religious individuals to focus on each other and marital unity rather than solely on themselves. 

The Expression of Sex Is Limited to Marriage 

In addition to describing the sanctity of sex, marital couples from the American Families of Faith project frequently addressed why waiting to have sex until after marriage can bless a relationship. For many, sex was defined as an expression of love that was only to be used within marriage. A member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints named Robert explained that the religious commandment of not having extramarital sex was not a constraint but freeing. He said, 

Waiting until you are married to have a sexual relationship with someone is something that [some of my fellow co-workers] consider very restricting. They think that they want to be free, they want to go out, party, and have a good time. [T]hey look at that, and they say, “Well, you have no freedom.” I look at it as it gives me a tremendous amount of freedom because I don’t have to worry about all the problems that go along with those things. I don’t have to worry about sexually transmitted diseases, I can enjoy the relationship that I have with my wife, and know that she feels the same way about me. To me, that gives me a tremendous amount of freedom. [R]ules that we choose to live by aren’t restrict[ive], they give us freedom. 

A wife from the Church of Jesus Christ named Michelle explained, 

We believe that committing adultery is wrong, [and] that having sex outside of marriage is breaking that commandment. The concept of total chastity before marriage seems like the greatest sacrifice [to some, but] I don’t feel that that is a sacrifice. I feel that’s a way of ensuring further blessings for my life.

Many interviewed couples perceived that they gained more religious and relational blessings from God because of their commitment to not having sex before marriage. This perspective reportedly allowed marital sex to be viewed not only as a divine gift, but also as a sacred trust from marital partners to each other, consistent with the Apostle Paul’s teaching, “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife” (1 Corinthians 7:4). Like this scripture suggests, couples viewed married sex as a holy sharing of their bodies and sacred selves with one another.

Sex Has a Strengthening Power within Marriage

Many married couples we interviewed expressed that one notable aspect of sex is the power that it has to bond a wife and husband. An Orthodox Jewish couple named Ruth and Saul said, 

Ruth: One thing [our sexual relationship] does is promote a lot of cooperation between a husband and wife. 

Saul: [T]his can be an occasion and an area that probably a lot of couples don’t talk too much about. [But in Orthodox Judaism] you are required to arrange things that otherwise don’t necessarily have to be arranged.

Ruth and Saul felt that patterns created by religious laws surrounding sex united them, brought them together, and helped them to cooperate. Deborah, a Conservative Jewish wife, further explained that sex helps a married couple develop Godly characteristics. She said, 

[Our marriage is] a marriage between the male and the female aspects of godliness—the male aspect being considered the giving, and the female the receiving, for obvious symbolic anatomical reasons. The male aspect of God [is] the aspect of God which is beyond comprehension, beyond the confines of any kind of physicality or humanity. 

For Deborah and others whom we interviewed, the process of learning how to give and receive love fosters growth between a wife and husband. Many other participants reported having more unity and synergy in their marriage as they approached sex as both sacred and empowering.

Sex Is for Procreation

Without specifically being asked questions about sexuality, a quarter of our sample shared with us that procreation is a vitally important part, but not the sole purpose of sex. A Muslim husband named Kamal said, 

My understanding is that Allah, the Creator, has created us to [both] worship and [procreate]. Family life is a unit to protect people; it’s a protection, actually, for men and women, in their everyday life. And it’s a unit of support. So basically, procreation is worship. 

Like Kamal, some participants shared the view that sex with the purpose of creating life made it especially meaningful, making procreation a form of connection with the divine. Patrick, a Catholic husband, similarly said, 

I don’t think that the Catholic religion supports thoughtless procreation. I think God is calling you and me to [engage in] responsible co-creation, and that means you can’t … heedlessly procreate. Now you ask, what kind of Catholics are we? We’re not a Catholic family [that has] babies, babies, babies. That, to me, is a [far] too fundamentalist reading of a Biblical passage. But [we have tried not to go] where I think many Catholics have gone, and that is 1.2 children and my house, my vacation, my, my, my. [Some people] have opted for methods that effectively demean human life and close people off so that they’re not as generous, that they’re not as creative as they could be in a way. And that’s [sad] to me. 

Patrick emphasized that “thoughtless procreation” is not a healthy practice and can demean the beauty of sex. A Jewish wife and husband, Barbara and David, similarly said, 

Barbara: Well, [in the Torah] there was rule number one: “Make more.”

David: “Be fruitful and multiply.”

Barbara: Yeah.

David: It’s a commandment which is incumbent upon men: To have children. 

“Making more” applies to procreation but also to making more love, connection, and unity that empower the couple to face challenges that arise within any close relationship. Sex not only “replenishes” by creating children, but it replenishes the individual and couple in ways that create energy and meaning in their relationship.

These participants in exemplary marriages voluntarily shared their views on sex, and also recognized that there were multiple layers to having a healthy marital sexual relationship. Their wisdom included the repeated view that, as important as sex is in marriage, it was one of many essential elements.

Sex Is Only One Component of a Strong Marriage 

A theme spontaneously mentioned by 22 diverse couples was that “marriage is far more than just sex.” One Catholic husband and father named Ryan stated, 

I try and teach [my boys that] love is a choice, and God chose to love us. And it’s not fireworks; it’s not [just] sex [all the time]. It’s not. [L]ove is a choice. You know, we chose each other, and God chose us for each other. And then you stick to that choice. 

A Black Christian husband named Grant said, 

Finding a mate involves a lot of things: chemistry, sex appeal, charisma, common interests, and all those kinds of things, and they are all important. But for me, the strength in any marriage seems to be dependent upon the degree of commitment from both partners. My wife and I had that going in, and after 32 years, [we] still have it. We are committed to the institution, I think, even more than to one another. [I cherish] the experiences we’ve had with one another, and I can give credit and stability to that commitment, but the commitment was there at the outset.

Indeed, marriage as a commitment between wife, husband, and God seemed core to many participants’ views on sanctified sex. Indeed, one husband said of his wife, “She was committed to marriage long before she was committed to me.”

A Living Invitation from 8,000 Years of Marriage

From the reports of wives and husbands in the American Families of Faith project, we see that many of these wives and husbands reported: 

(1) Religion can do damage through negative messages or through enabling avoidance of healthy communication about sex. 

(2) Sex can create an “elevated purpose to marriage,” and many viewed sex as a “gift” from God. 

(3) Based on religious beliefs, many viewed sex as an expression of love that was restricted to the bounds of marriage, but saw this commandment as a sacred protection. 

(4) There is more unity and synergy in marriage when sex is approached as both sacred and empowering.

(5) Procreation is a vitally important part, but not the sole purpose, of sex, and 

(6) As important as sex is in marriage, it is one of many needed components—including a commitment to each other, marriage itself, and (for these couples) a commitment to the commandments and teachings of God, who supports them in marriage.

We acknowledge that these attitudes in the American Families of Faith participants are not typical in contemporary culture. However, our aim for 25 years has not been to explore the trendy or typical but to discover what underlies the exemplary and extraordinary marriages in America. We now know a little more and have their “lived invitation” to apply what these religious wives and husbands, who have about 8,000 years of combined marital experience, offer for our careful consideration.

The post Religion and Sexuality: Reframing Intimacy as Sacred appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

The fifth article in the Peacemaking Series, published in partnership with Public Square Magazine and Skyline Research Institute.

How often do you gossip? Chances are it’s higher than any one of us would like to admit. Our culture is saturated in gossip from tabloids and politics, to social media, conversation, and even prayer; gossip is everywhere. Christ made it clear, we will be held accountable to “every idle word” we speak (Matthew 12:36). As a Christian, how can one realistically avoid talking negatively about another person (James 4:11) or never spread a rumor (Helaman 16:22) when it is estimated 65 to 80% of all conversation is some form of gossip? (Emler, p.131).

Defining Gossip

In an effort to avoid semantic ambiguity, in this article, Gossip is defined as any conversation about another person who is not present. This is a slightly different way of discussing gossip from more conventional connotations, which typically illustrate gossip as a purely negative or false form of communication. Using the common definition for gossip limits the scope of interactions-while-discussing-others as a purely “sensational,” “false,” or even “malicious” form of communication. This popular negative connotation for gossip aligns with the apocryphal adage, which asserts, “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”

This rather cheeky video was produced by the Skyline Research Institute as a part of their Peacemaking Series and reveals that while gossip gets a bad wrap, not all gossip is bad.

Positive and Negative Gossip

Expanding to a more “integrative definition and framework” for gossip to include all forms of private communication about someone else who is not present, provides the opportunity for more self-reflection on the nature of our individual communication (Cruz & Others’ meta-analysis provides the foundation for this and the following ideas of this section). Through the lens of this expanded definition, we can start to characterize gossip as either Positive or Negative. Whether negative or positive, the motivation and function for gossip remains relatively the same: to communicate right and wrong behaviour within a social group. Distinguishing positive from negative gossip is a combination of recognizing both tactics and motivation. 

Negative gossip discusses people’s mistakes or inadequacies as a tactic to advance individual integration within a social group, but does so at the expense of the social integration of the person being gossiped about. Negative gossip rehearses the behaviors of fault-finding, back-biting, and the proliferation of false information. Because of this, negative gossip is equally destructive whether discussing intimate relationships or those with celebrity status. Ironically, the consequences of promoting this kind of communication include social insecurity.  By using negative gossip, the user and group confirm negative gossip as appropriate within the social group, causing a spiral effect in the social culture of the group. In an effort to further integrate oneself with the group, negative gossipers increase their own social vulnerability and insecurity while eroding social credibility.

It’s hard to be in an environment where you recognize a culture of negative gossip, especially when one is part of the problem. Shakespeare, illustrating the point, used the analogy, “He that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed” (Othello, 3.3). God long ago expressed the cause and effect relationship between our conversation and our own condemnation, “For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Matthew 12:37). If one discovers themself suffering from the self-inflicted consequences caused by gossiping negatively, observe the truth in the proverb, “Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth” (Proverbs 26:20), and the succinct advice “cease to find fault one with another” (D&C 88: 124).

Positive gossipers reinforce group norms and the appropriate behavior for relationships by celebrating successes and promoting the virtues of other people as the “standard” for their communication, whether at home, work, church, or online (Nelson, 2023). While a good place to start, positive gossip is more complicated than merely ‘saying nice things about other people.’ Oftentimes, we will have to make judgments about “ideas, situations, and people throughout our lives” (Judging Others). Not all criticism is negative gossip; however, positive gossip discusses strategies focused on maximizing strengths and employs empathy when recognizing weaknesses. As a leader, it would include recognizing weaknesses as springing from “unmet needs,” and as a Christian, condemning “the sin without condemning the individual” (Kimball, 1979).

Transitioning from Negative to Positive Gossip

Those who use positive gossip are socially favourable and attract like-minded conversation and consideration. Learning to transition from negative gossip to positive gossip is a socially attractive skill. Here is one tactic. To avoid sounding preachy, an individual can use questions that reorient the gossiper’s attention to the feelings, motivations, or circumstances of the person who is the subject of the gossip (Abramson, Cultivating Empathy). This helps foster empathy in the conversation or may challenge the negative gossipers’ perception of the situation. 

For example, a friend is hammering down on why the other presidential candidate is “the worst.” You might ask a question like, “What is the reason their party wants them to do that?” (focused on motivations), or “I can’t imagine how intense it must be to run a country. Can you?” (focused on feelings), or “Is there a reason why you think that policy won’t work? And have you heard another idea?” (focusing on circumstances), or “Have you had a personal conversation with someone who supports them? What did they think? Or, what do you think they’d say?” (challenges their perception).

Rehearsal on this skill can be done on one’s own. As a mind puzzle, consider shifting the following scenarios from negative gossip to positive gossip: 

– A spouse constantly criticizes a specific child.

– A neighbor expresses frustration with another neighbor’s behavior.

– A fellow coworker or student criticizes a boss’s or teacher’s policy.

– A friend shares intimate information about someone else (whether true or not).

Other tactics could include stressing common ground, changing the topic entirely, or addressing the deeper need. As a positive gossiper engaging with a negative gossiper, remember to recognize that this individual may be stuck in a habit of negative gossip, or acting out of an unmet need or insecurity. Stressing social unity, common ground, and mercy may validate them better than engaging in negative gossip.

A Parable for Conclusion

Now, to end with a story and a proverb.

A sentry stood at the edge of a town and watched as two families of settlers approached. 

The first family reached the town limits and asked, “What’s this town like? Is it good here?”

The sentry replied, “Well, what was it like where you left?”

They answered, “We loved it. Our hearts broke to leave. The people were kind and there was always enough, but we had to leave.”

The sentry replied, “You’ll find the same here.”

Shortly after, the second family arrived and asked, “What’s this town like? Is it good here?”

The sentry replied, “Well, what was it like where you left?”

They answered, “We hated it. Our hearts couldn’t wait to leave. The people were mean, and there was never enough, so we had to leave.”

The sentry replied, “You’ll find the same here.”

And Proverbs 18:21, “Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.”

Want more?

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

The post What If Gossip Isn’t a Sin—But a Skill in Peacemaking? appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

“What about love?”

My question hung in the air of the United Nations conference room, met with a ripple of snickers.  In 2024, I attended the annual 68th Commission on the Status of Women in New York City. At this annual event, experts discuss economic freedom for women and the so-called crisis of “unpaid care work”—a sterile term for what most people simply call motherhood. Their proposed solution for gender economic equality? More government-funded childcare centers so mothers can work full time.

I continued, “Isn’t a child better off with an unpaid caregiver who loves them, like a mother, rather than a government-paid care worker who has no emotional connection to them?”

There was silence. Then another wave of muffled laughter. The presenter turned to me and answered in a tone one would use to correct a naive child.

“Love is a dangerous angle,” she said. “We can’t afford to talk about love. What matters is the injustice of unpaid care work and the lack of opportunities for women.”

As the 69th conference convened this spring, I reflected on my time at CSW-68, where motherhood was framed as ‘unpaid care work’—an oppression for women to overcome. The analysts presented gender-equal economic freedom through government intervention in childcare as the solution.

State-sponsored childcare frees mothers for careers, but is it ideal for children? Erica Komisar, a psychoanalyst, child development expert, and author of the book Being There: Why Prioritizing Motherhood in the First Three Years Matters, said: “Institutional care is not and never will be a good option for children under the age of three. There are so many studies which link institutional care from zero to three with increased cortisol stress hormone levels, behavioral issues, anxiety, and increased aggression.”

Jenet Erickson, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Family Studies focusing on maternal and child well-being, agrees. She highlights a study demonstrating that there were correlations between time spent in institutionalized care and child outcomes: “By age four-and-a-half, children who had spent more than 30 hours per week in child care had, on average, worse outcomes in every area of social-emotional development—weaker social competence, more behavior problems, and greater conflict with adults—at rates three times higher than their peers.”

Of course, many mothers of young children work not for personal gratification but to help provide for their families’ needs. Yet many would prefer to work less and stay home more, if given the option. In 2013, Pew Research found that nearly half (47%) of all American mothers said their ideal situation would be part-time rather than full-time employment. Among full-time working mothers, 44% said part-time would be ideal, and another 9% would prefer not to work outside the home at all. Even among mothers who were not employed, 40% said they would ideally work part-time, while only 22% preferred full-time work.

In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, eudaimonia—human flourishing—is the ultimate goal of life. Unlike wealth or pleasure, which are pursued as means to other ends, eudaimonia is an end in itself. For Aristotle, true happiness is found not in the accumulation of wealth but in cultivating virtues like wisdom and courage. Economic productivity, in this view, is a tool, not the goal. The real purpose of life lies in moral growth. This is why roles like motherhood, grounded in love, education, and care, are so vital. They shape the virtues that enable both individuals and society to thrive. 

In the Ethics, Aristotle writes: “For without friends” — and here I’d insert ‘all meaningful relationships’ — “no one would choose to live, though he had all other goods….for what is the use of such prosperity without the opportunity of beneficence?” Beneficence—which encompasses mercy, kindness, generosity, and love—is not just a virtue but the essence of humanity’s most meaningful relationships.

This reverence for relationships is deeply embedded in ancient thought.  In Homer’s Odyssey, the hero of the epic, Odysseus, is more than a warrior; he is the clever king of Ithaca and a family man who never wanted to go to war in the first place. After the Trojan War, he endures a decade-long struggle to return home, facing countless trials and obstacles. He encounters monsters and deities who live in isolation and tempt him to live by appetite instead of duty. The Cyclopes live in chaos, rejecting both law and social bonds. The enchantresses Circe and Calypso offer him worldly comfort and immortality, urging him to remain. 

Though these offers are tempting, Odysseus resists. He gets distracted in adventures along the way, but ultimately, what he truly longs for is neither wealth nor power, but his wife, his son, and his homeland. He recognizes that these relationships are where his identity and purpose lie. When the nymph Calypso desires to keep him forever on her island, he tells her: “… I wish and long day in and day out to reach my home, and to see the day of my return. And if again some god shall smite me on the wine-dark sea, I will endure it, having in my breast a heart that endures affliction.” The Greeks understood that a meaningful life is not built on material success or independence alone, but on love, duty, and belonging. Like Aristotle, Homer reminds us that without these, even the greatest achievements ring hollow.

A 2023 study on the mother-baby bond highlights that this bond is not just emotional, but also “a bodily, immunological, perceptive, and affective relationship” that begins before birth and continues through touch, eye contact, and breastfeeding. This physical relationship plays a crucial role in both postpartum maternal well-being and infant development, influencing emotional attachment, mental health, and even neurodevelopment. Ultimately, the mother’s physical and emotional availability, or being there, is both foundational to the child’s lifelong emotional security, and protective for the mother herself.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World affirms this truth: “Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.” President Henry B. Eyring elaborates on this divine design in his 2018 talk Women and Gospel Learning in the Home, observing that a mother’s unique spiritual sensitivity and capacity to love are key to her ability to nurture: “It takes great love to feel the needs of someone else more than your own. That is the pure love of Christ for the person you nurture … As daughters of God, you have an innate and great capacity to sense the needs of others and to love.”

In a world that continually tells women how much they need to walk away from motherhood, we should seriously consider how much mothers do for the world. What if we valued motherhood as much as labor? What if we saw caregiving not as a burden to pass off to someone else, but as the soul-shaping, culture-forming vocation that it truly is? The greatest opportunity—and perhaps the greatest power—lies in the quiet work of nurturing, educating, and loving the next generation. 

The role of mothers is irreplaceable. There can be no serious discussion of childcare or “unpaid care work” without acknowledging that emotional attachment and maternal bonding are vital components of child development. A mother’s love is not just a sentiment—it’s a developmental necessity. When wealth and equality become the only measures of value, we lose sight of the very people who make a healthy civilization possible. This Mother’s Day, may we honor not just what mothers do, but who they are—the hands that rock the cradle of the world, the hearts that keep humanity alive.

The post How Global Feminism Forgot Motherhood—and Waged the UN’s Quiet War on Love appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

“The Family: A Proclamation to the World” (the Proclamation) begins with an affirmation of the divine nature of marriage: “We, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God … .”  In this essay, we want to help readers find a deeper understanding of this doctrinal principle by exploring the meaning of the word marriage as used in the Proclamation. Careful reading clarifies that marriage has a specific quality; it is not just a relational or legal status, an official ceremony, or a rich cultural practice. 

Unfortunately, across time and place, common practices associated with marriage have diverged significantly—sometimes tragically—from the divine design of marriage. Many elements of the divine meaning of marriage have been ignored in the past or are being damaged in the present, so we need to define the meaning of marriage as intended in the Proclamation.

The Meaning of Marriage

The Proclamation provides a strong internal narrative about the divine meaning of marriage. We see seven core elements of the meaning of God-ordained marriage as set forth in the Proclamation. 

Woman and Man

The Proclamation twice directly (and several times indirectly) states that marriage is the union of a woman and a man: “[M]arriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God”; “Marriage between man and woman is essential to [God’s] eternal plan.” President Dallin H. Oaks writes: “God’s purposes for establishing marriage have not changed. One purpose of [the Proclamation] is to reaffirm the Church’s declaration that marriage is the lawful union of a man and a woman. … No mortal law … can override or nullify the moral standards established by God.” 

President Oaks gives several reasons for the man-woman meaning of marriage in “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” including the close link between the God-given power of procreation and marriage’s vital role in rearing and teaching children. He also argues that legalized same-sex marriage decouples gender from the meaning of marriage and strains the complementary natures of fathering and mothering. President Oaks concludes: “Same-sex marriage cannot be regarded simply as the granting of a ‘new right.’ It is a far-reaching redefinition of the very nature of marriage itself. It marks a fundamental change in the institution of marriage in ways that are contrary to God’s purposes for His children.”

While affirming the Church’s teachings about the divine nature of marriage, President Oaks also “reaffirms that church members should address the issue of same-sex marriage with respect and civility and should treat all people with love and humanity.” The Church has openly supported state legislation to solidify certain LGBT+ rights and has supported federal legislation that tries to balance the legal right for same-sex couples to marry with legal protections for individuals and organizations that follow deeply held religious teachings on the divine man-woman meaning of marriage. The law strives to protect those who believe in the Proclamation’s divine approval of marriage between a woman and a man.

Legal, Sexual Union

God ordained marriage to be the proper public guardian and host of sexual union. The Proclamation declares, “God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife,” and “children are entitled to birth within the [legal] bonds of marriage …” (emphases added).

Perhaps this is the most widely disregarded and challenged aspect of the meaning of marriage in contemporary society. Most people now choose to live together in a sexual union without legal recognition before they marry. For some, premarital cohabitation is a form of dating, while for others it is a significant stage in romantic relationship development that may lead to a decision to marry. Many believe that cohabitation provides the basis for a wise decision about marriage. But cohabiting unions across the world are much less stable than marriages, and in the United States, most do not evolve into marriage. Moreover, those who live together first but go on to marry actually experience, on average, lower marital quality and higher risk of divorce than those who do not cohabit before marriage (or who are formally engaged before moving in together). 

Nevertheless, people cling to the secular logic of cohabitation despite the empirical evidence challenging it. To refrain from sex before marriage is no simple ask anymore. We live in a sex-saturated society that views chastity as backward and unnatural, even unwise and possibly harmful. Those who strive to live the Lord’s law of chastity swim against a strong cultural current and get little support from society. 

Sex within the bonds of marriage is, however, divinely ordained as a beautiful and powerful way to express love, bond spouses, and bring God’s children into the world. The Proclamation states: “We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed.” God’s latter-day endorsement of marriage, then, is also an affirmation of the good of sexual union within the bonds of legal marriage. 

Fertility and Childrearing

God commanded Eve and Adam—and their descendants—to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Moses 2:28). The Lord revealed to Joseph Smith that marriage is ordained of God in part so that “the earth might answer the end of its creation; And that it might be filled with the measure of man” (Doctrine and Covenants 49:16–17). The Proclamation affirms that this commandment applies today: “The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.” Modern methods give couples some choice about when and how many children to have. (And the Church does not inquire into these personal choices.) But the Lord’s commandment to bring God’s children into mortality “remains in force.”

The Proclamation also reminds us of the divine pattern for rearing these precious spirit children of God: “Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.” A vast research literature documents the benefits to children of being born and reared in a stable two-parent family, so much so that scholarly fudging on this finding now comes off more and more like science denial than compassion for alternative family forms. When possible, married couples are to bring children into their homes and bring them up in stability with a loving father and mother. 

Complete Fidelity

The Proclamation affirms that marriage is a sexually exclusive union: “The sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman lawfully wedded as husband and wife.” And the unrepentant sin of infidelity will follow us to the judgment bar of God: “We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity … will one day stand accountable before God.” 

Even in our age of sexual so-called liberation, the norm of marital fidelity is still relatively strong, although younger people seem to be more accepting of infidelity than older people. A third of all adults say that “open marriages,” where spouses mutually agree that it’s okay to date and have sex with someone else, are acceptable. But half (51%) of young adults (18–29, mostly unmarried) today say that open marriages are acceptable. The best estimates of marital infidelity are that about 20% of men and 13% of women have been sexually unfaithful while married. 

Infidelity is strongly associated with a high risk of marital breakdown. One study finds that infidelity is the second most common factor reported by divorced individuals as contributing to their divorce (lack of commitment is first). Violated trust is very difficult to restore. In Restoration scripture, the Lord affirms that the commandment against infidelity, which has been given since the beginning, remains in force today: “Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out” (Doctrine and Covenants 42:24). But the Lord also enhances this fundamental commandment: “Thou shalt love thy wife [or husband] with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her [or him] and none else” (Doctrine and Covenants 42:22). Full-hearted cleaving includes “forsaking all others.”

Equal Partnership and Oneness

The Proclamation clarifies that marriage is a partnership of equals: “In these sacred responsibilities [as parents], fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.” President Hinckley, under whose leadership the Proclamation was written, taught young men: “The wife you choose will be your equal. … In the marriage companionship, there is neither inferiority nor superiority. The woman does not walk ahead of the man; neither does the man walk ahead of the woman. They walk side by side as a son and daughter of God on an eternal journey.” 

Younger readers may not fully comprehend how impactful the term “equal partners” was when the Proclamation was first read to the Church in 1995. It came during a time of prolonged controversy in the Church about the family roles of men and women. Many church members still accepted the traditional notion that women were subordinate in marriage and subject to their husband’s decision-making authority. Many faithful Saints struggled with the discordance of this idea with other gospel doctrines and ideals, and some left the Church because they thought it had not stated clearly enough the fundamental equality of women and men before God. One of President Hinckley’s strongest, most consistent messages to the Church was that men and women were equal partners in marriage. 

The Proclamation does not explicitly refer to Jesus’ teaching about oneness in marriage: “… from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh; so then they are no more twain, but one flesh” (Mark 10:6–9). Oneness is implied, however, in “equal partnership” and is crucial to a full understanding of the meaning of marriage.

Permanent Bond

The Proclamation does not say directly that marriage is meant to be eternal. However, Jesus Christ declared, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mark 10:9). Moreover, the Proclamation implies the permanence of marriage when it affirms the eternal potential of the marital union: “Sacred ordinances available in holy temples make it possible for … families to be united eternally.” 

Modern prophets have acknowledged that divorce can be acceptable, even though “from the beginning of the creation,” marriage was divinely designed to be an unbreakable bond (Mark 10:5–6). President James E. Faust affirmed the permanent quality of marriage while also recognizing that there are justifiable reasons for divorce. He taught: “What, then, might be ‘just cause’ for breaking the covenants of marriage? … I confess I do not claim the wisdom nor authority to definitively state what is ‘just cause.’ … In my opinion, ‘just cause’ should be nothing less serious than a prolonged and apparently irredeemable relationship which is destructive of a person’s dignity as a human being.”  In such cases, divorce may be necessary.

Of course, we are commanded not to judge—and in the case of divorce, we are seldom in a position to understand, let alone effectively evaluate, another person’s difficult decision (or a decision that was imposed on them). We are grateful for a religion that accepts the reality that some marriages may necessarily end, but that extols the permanent commitment of marriage as an attainable ideal. 

Loving and Caring

Finally and crucially, the Proclamation clarifies the quality of marriage. Central to the meaning of marriage is the vow that “Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other … .” The Proclamation also teaches that “successful marriages … are established and maintained on principles of … respect, love, [and] compassion.” Moreover, “Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded on the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.” President Russell M. Nelson teaches that marriage deserves our best efforts. For instance, he counseled priesthood holders: “Brethren, your first and foremost duty as a bearer of the priesthood is to love and care for your wife. … Make it easy for her to want to be yours. No other interest in life should take priority over building an eternal relationship with her.” 

Abuse of any kind in marriage is the antithesis of love and care and is strictly condemned. Over the past several decades, society has become more aware of and sensitive to the awful reality of domestic violence and physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. The Proclamation reinforces this: “We warn that individuals … who abuse spouse or offspring … will one day stand accountable before God.” Church leaders have taught this consistently during our lifetimes. For instance, President Hinckley boldly taught priesthood holders in 2002: “How tragic and utterly disgusting a phenomenon is wife abuse. Any man in this Church who abuses his wife, who demeans her, who insults her, who exercises unrighteous dominion over her is unworthy to hold the priesthood. … Any man who engages in this practice is unworthy to hold a temple recommend.” In this same bold sermon, President Hinckley preached: “I am confident that when we stand before the bar of God, there will be … searching questions concerning our domestic relations. And I am convinced that only those who have walked through life with love and respect and appreciation for their companions and children will receive from our eternal judge the words, ‘Well done, thou good and faithful servant: … enter thou into the joy of thy lord’ (Matt. 25:21).” 

The Proclamation states, “Marriage between man and woman is essential to [God’s] eternal plan.” This relationship, with its necessary virtues and sacrifices, is part of a divine plan of eternal growth and progression. Marriage is ordained of God because it prepares us for the eternal life that our Heavenly Parents live. The loving and caring, committing and enduring, sexual fidelity and bonding, nurturing of children, and striving toward oneness yield sweet fruit over the years, such that President Russell M. Nelson says: “Marriage brings greater possibilities for happiness than does any other human relationship.” We shouldn’t be surprised that secular researchers, too, are finding that the earthly benefits of marriage—to adults, children, and communities—are significant. A healthy marriage is the strongest predictor of human happiness that we know. While there is nothing novel in the Proclamation’s teachings about the divine meaning of marriage, to us,  they are timely in a society that struggles to accept our Heavenly Parents’ wisdom and will about the great plan of happiness for Their children.

The post Marriage: More Than a Commitment—A Sacred Covenant Ordained of God appeared first on Public Square Magazine.