by Autumn Dickson

This week, we get to learn a bit about Solomon’s reign. Solomon was known for his wisdom, a spiritual gift that was the direct result of a request he made as he was ascending the throne. The story of the two women and the baby is well-known and highlights this wisdom.

In the last post, we talked about how the Lord reflected Solomon’s heart back to him when the Lord offered to answer a prayer for Solomon. This week, we get to read about Solomon imitating the Lord in the story with the two women.

Here is a refresher on the story with the two women and the baby.

Two women lived in the same home. They both had babies. One woman accidentally laid on top of her child and killed the child. She snuck into the room of the other woman and switched the babies. The second woman woke up to the dead child and realized he wasn’t hers. They took their case to King Solomon. This is how King Solomon responded.

1 Kings 3:24-25

24 And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king.

25 And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.

The lying woman wanted the child cut in half. The true mother offered to let the other woman have the son; she just wanted him to be alive. Solomon obviously gave the baby to the woman who wanted to protect the baby at all costs.

Now, I want you to imagine being the true mother of the child who found herself in this nightmare through no fault of her own.

I don’t know exactly what she was feeling, but I think my response to this wild suggestion from the king would be this: “What?! I thought this guy was wise! Why would he do this? Is he crazy?”

I think this is sometimes how we react when the Lord makes decisions in our lives as well.

Sometimes the Lord sends or allows trials to happen in our lives. Sometimes we respond with, “What?! I thought the Lord was wise! Why would He do this?”

Throughout my life, and especially while working through sharing my testimony online, I have received this testimony over and over and over: The Lord loves me and works very carefully as He makes decisions to interfere in my life. He is wise! He knows what He’s doing! I know this testimony. I believe it. I find a lot of comfort in it.

And yet, even though I already had a testimony of this fact, I’ve found that there were limits to this testimony that needed to be expanded. When certain events have cropped up in my life, such as getting pregnant three months after having a baby, I have tried to trust in that growing testimony that the Lord loves me and is trying to give me the best of what mortality actually has to offer. Despite my desire to trust that He was trying to do what was best for me, I simply felt scared and betrayed and powerless.

I’m sure that woman was terrified when Solomon made the crazy suggestion to cut the baby in half. He was a king, and she was a harlot. I’m sure she knew what it meant to feel powerless and to have someone making decisions regardless of what was best for her.

And yet, Solomon wasn’t trying to torture her. He had very specific purposes. He was not rash or ridiculous. He was intentional. He was a mortal man blessed with wisdom to discern what was going on in his kingdom. He “sent a trial,” and it revealed the hearts of the women he was judging.

The Lord already knows our hearts, but He still sends little tests in mortality. I’m becoming increasingly convinced that He isn’t testing our hearts for His own sake, but for our’s. We spoke about this in my last post as well: He reflects our own hearts back to us.

Solomon actually needed to see the reflection of the hearts of the women so he could judge well. He was wise, but he did not know these women perfectly. He needed a way of seeing their hearts.

The Lord’s purposes are slightly different, but His methods are similar. His purpose is showing us our own hearts. Sometimes that means sending or allowing trials that allow the deepest parts of our heart to go on display. It highlights the boundaries of what we truly know and feel and desire. It gives us opportunities to expand those boundaries.

Going back to my example of getting pregnant so quickly, I felt incredibly betrayed by God. I am so miserable when I’m pregnant, and now I was going to be in that dark state of mind for 18 months with very little reprieve (honestly, with no reprieve since my body and mind still hadn’t completely recovered in between babies). I thought I had a testimony that the Lord loved me, and I did. But apparently there were limits to that testimony. This specific experience showed me the boundaries of my own testimony. It brought my heart right up to the surface where I could look at it very clearly. I then had the opportunity to work through those experiences and expand those boundaries.

Despite the fact that this woman likely thought King Solomon was out of his mind, I would guess that she felt differently after the experience. Despite the initial fear and distress it caused her, she gained a testimony that Solomon acted with purpose. By the end of this, she knew that Solomon wasn’t crazy. He was trying to be a good king and make sure that baby went back to its rightful mother.

Surely, the experiment could have gone poorly. What if both mothers had pled for the life of the baby? Yes, it could have failed, but this story is a parable. Even if Solomon’s experiments fail, the Lord’s “experiments” never have to. Solomon was a mortal man. The Lord has much more to offer in the way of helping us discern the boundaries of the testimonies that will carry us and help us get where we need to go. The Lord also has the ultimate power of delivering what will be best for us. Even when He sends or allows dark times, He has the power to help those difficult times become sacred experiences.

I testify that the Lord loves us. I testify He knows what He’s doing. I testify that He already knows our hearts, but like Solomon, He sends and allows trials that bring our very essence up to the surface where it’s noticeable. We get to find the holes and limitations of our testimonies, and in turn, we can fill the holes and broaden the boundaries until we are fully protected and constantly uplifted by them.

Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Samuel 11–12; 1 Kings 3; 6–9; 11 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

Download Print-Friendly Version

I live in a neighborhood in Provo, Utah, developed in the 1950s, referred to as “The Neighborhood of Tomorrow” on the community’s original plans. If you think that sounds like an enchanted corner of Disneyland, you’re not far off.

Our community features hidden private parks, a large church building and park where my neighbors gather to worship and socialize, and a neighbor-owned grocery store where you can procure pebble ice, maple bars, and Ben & Jerry’s—all of life’s necessities. A few blocks from our home, a 1950s drive-in offers burgers and the world’s best fresh-lime sodas, made with simple syrup and fresh-squeezed lime juice. It’s an idyllic community, mostly because our neighbors have enormous hearts.

A few years ago, a family on our block marked Pride Month by flying a trans pride flag outside their home in support of their child. Around the same time, other neighbors began displaying various political signs and flags outside their homes, including several “title of liberty” banners.

For those unfamiliar with the origins of the title of liberty: At a pivotal point in the Book of Mormon, Moroni was a chief commander of armies battling against forces that “sought to destroy the Church of God, and to destroy the foundation of liberty which God had granted” the land’s inhabitants. To rally his people, Moroni tore a piece of his coat and wrote on it “‘In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children’—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.” Moroni also “caused the title of liberty to be hoisted upon every tower which was in all the land.” In that wartime crisis, adversaries who refused to enter into a covenant to “support the cause of freedom” were put to death.

I suggest that if Latter-day Saints listen intently, God is revealing a different approach to preserving life, liberty, and freedom today. Rather than being counseled to isolate ourselves into tribes, fashion banners, take up arms, and fight “the enemy” to the death, we are being counseled by the Lord’s prophets to exercise and promote religious freedom in perhaps what is a higher and holier way revealed to meet the exigencies of our day:

•     “peacemakers needed”
•     “we should not seek total dominance for our own position”
•     “seek fairness for all”
•     “seek to moderate and unify”
•     “work for a better way—a way to resolve differences without compromising core values”
•     “pour oil on troubled waters”
•     “exercise our influence civilly and peacefully”
•     “reconcil[e] existing conflicts and avoid[] new ones”

Such work is not for the fainthearted. It requires not planting flags in the ground but engaging in the hard work of planting and nourishing seeds, which if nourished will cultivate peaceful pluralism and religious freedom for all in our diverse society. This prophetic counsel is not an out-of-touch, namby-pamby, touchy-feely approach to today’s polarizing issues. It is much more difficult work, but those who believe in the law of the harvest as an eternal truth understand it is the only approach that will work.

So what seeds can we plant to exercise, promote, and protect our right to religious freedom? I propose here just a few of many possible varieties of fruit-bearing seeds. 

Planting Seeds of Knowledge

In April 2021, President Dallin H. Oaks encouraged Latter-day Saints “to uphold and defend” inspired principles of constitutionalism, including five principles inherent in the U.S. Constitution:

• Popular sovereignty, meaning people are the source of government power, and they exercise that power through elected representatives;
• Federalism, or the division of power between a central “federal” government and state or regional governments;
• Separation of powers, meaning the establishment of independent executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government that exercise checks on one another, holding each other accountable to the Constitution;
• The Bill of Rights, which guarantees enumerated individual rights and “places specific limits on government authority”; and
• The rule of law, or the principle that we are “governed by law and not by individuals,” ensuring “our loyalty is to the Constitution and its principles and processes, not to any office holder.”

Learning about, internalizing, and being guided by these overarching principles is a seed-planting exercise in promoting and protecting religious freedom and other freedoms.

Instead of doing the harder work of studying and promoting these principles, we may be tempted to do the easier work of popping a pocket version of the Constitution in a backpack or purse. We may “like” social media posts purporting to espouse constitutional principles. Or we may vote for candidates who claim to know and stand for constitutional principles. But those acts alone are not a fulfillment of President Oaks’s charge.

President Oaks emphasized the principle of the rule of law—that individuals are not a law unto themselves, meaning we aren’t free to create our own preferred Constitution or rely on the interpretations of friends, politicians, or talking heads. Key here is understanding the legal doctrine of judicial review, established by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1803 Marbury v. Madison opinion. That doctrine means that courts with jurisdiction—not individuals—are responsible for interpreting the meaning of the Constitution and declaring unconstitutional the executive and legislative acts that don’t comport with its principles.

Of course, we as individuals can advocate to amend or repeal legislation that we believe to be contrary to constitutional principles, but those of us who aren’t judges have no authority to declare law unconstitutional, on online fora or elsewhere. So it behooves us all to be more informed about judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution, and the reasoning behind them, and to be more careful and considered in our language. At a minimum, learning and focusing on key constitutional principles, rather than digesting and regurgitating polemic and partisan positions, will help us plant seeds to promote and protect constitutional rights, including the right to religious freedom.

Planting Seeds of Moderation and Unity

Judge Thomas B. Griffith, now retired from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has championed President Oaks’s counsel to moderate and unify. At BYU’s Religious Freedom Annual Review in 2021, Judge Griffith explained how efforts to moderate and unify led to the drafting and signing of the U.S. Constitution and are critical to upholding its principles today:

 To me, the key insight as to what happened in the summer of 1787, what I would say is the miraculous element of that event is, . . . . when the Convention was on the verge of dissolution, eleven moderates got together and decided they were not going to let the Convention fail. And so they did something truly remarkable. They convinced their fellow delegates to enter into a compromise for the sake of unity before they knew the terms of the compromise. 

I believe that is what President Oaks is talking about when he says that we should work to moderate and to unify. You want to support and defend the Constitution of the United States? Then get off your cable channels, stop repeating talking points that are prepared by partisans, and look to build the spirit of amity and mutual deference in your community; that’s how we support and defend the Constitution. 

In the spirit of the Founders, moderating and unifying today requires that we moderate our expectations and not seek a monopoly on rights in a society where we must live alongside those not of our faith—mutually honoring and making space for freedom of religion or belief, or nonbelief, for all.

Planting Seeds in Support of Fairness for All

In his 2021 Joseph Smith Lecture at the University of Virginia, President Oaks discussed the benefits of collaborative legislation as a way to resolve differences without compromising core values—a message reiterated in his April 2026 general conference address.

President Oaks asserted that collaborative legislation is generally preferable to judicial decisions for resolving religious freedom conflicts. Litigation declares winners and losers, is limited in scope to the particular case, and is “ ill-suited to the overarching, complex, and comprehensive policy-making” required in sensitive conflicts, like those between nondiscrimination and religious liberty interests. He explained: 

There are worthy constitutional and ethical arguments on both sides of such disputes, and, so far as possible, we should seek to accommodate them consistent with the most important interests of all sides. This is not easy when we differ so fundamentally on matters of such immense importance. But the effort is essential if we are to live together in peace in a pluralistic society.

Notably, the phrase “most important interests” indicates that not all interests or values are “core.”

President Oaks cited the Utah Compromise of 2015 as a promising model of accommodation legislation. That collaborative legislative effort has been held up by national thought leaders in New York Times op-eds and scholarly publications as a remarkable achievement in bringing together organizations and individuals from both the religious and LGBTQIA+ communities in Utah (which aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, though we often speak of them as if they are) to draft and pass two bills in the Utah Legislature that protect fundamental rights in employment and housing for both groups. In fact, representatives from both “sides” in that process agree that the bills’ popular name—the Utah Compromise—is a misnomer; while the two sides collaborated on a legislative solution, neither believes they compromised core values.  

Planting Seeds Through Informed Voting

To protect religious freedom and other constitutional rights, we can and should prepare to vote by studying candidates’ proposed policies and considering their methods for getting things done. If we want to follow President Oaks’s counsel to support collaborative legislation, it follows that we must support political candidates who will collaborate. President Oaks has also urged church members to “seek out and support wise and good persons who will support [inspired constitutional] principles in their public actions.” This may entail looking beyond messaging or party to examine how candidates’ policies potentially promote or restrict religious freedom.

In an interview with BYU Law School’s International Center for Law and Religion Studies, religious freedom expert Knox Thames discussed how “the promotion of religious freedom has been a consistent topic across all U.S. administrations, Republican or Democratic.” He explained this is so “partly because it’s mandated in law but also because it’s an American value and . . . part of our diplomatic engagement.”

Thames’s subsequent analysis of U.S. policies demonstrates that, when researching candidates, we must scratch beneath the surface of messaging and decide which principles and policies most resonate with our personal priorities relative to religious freedom, among other issues. In selecting candidates, we can make pro and con columns and examine policies that affect both majority and minority religions. This process can help us conduct our own personal calculus to decide which candidates align most closely with our values and desired strategies and outcomes. As President Oaks explains:

No party, platform or individual candidate can satisfy all personal preferences. Each citizen must therefore decide which issues are most important to him or her at any particular time. Then members should seek inspiration on how to exercise their influence according to their individual priorities.

He followed with the kicker: “This process will not be easy.”

The implication being, if it’s easy, we’re not doing it right. 

Planting Seeds Outside Your Faith Community

As President Oaks stated, appreciation and support for free exercise of religion “depends on the value the public attaches to the positive effects of the practices and teachings in churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship.” In short, if we don’t contribute to society through the freedoms we are given, those freedoms won’t be valued or supported by others.

Community service is a significant way for religious individuals and organizations to exercise religious freedom for the benefit of others. Those in a season of life when serving outside their immediate sphere is difficult, or impossible, may consider donating to faith-based service entities like the Church’s Humanitarian Aid Fund or other religious organizations that offer aid to those of all faiths who are in need or vulnerable.

Planting and Nurturing Seeds with Patience and Love

There are many other ways and places to plant seeds of religious freedom I have not discussed here. We plant them through teaching and serving at home and at church. We plant seeds whenever we offer connection and friendship, demonstrate curiosity about the beliefs of others, or share the gospel. And in all our planting, we should seek to cultivate the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance. 

Obviously, we can’t do all of this seed planting at once. Planting requires prioritizing, working, nurturing, and practicing patience. One of my neighbors is fond of invoking Alma chapter 32, saying, “The adversary always offers fruit. God offers seeds, which will eventually produce fruit if we nurture them.” Unfortunately, as 21st-century humans, we’re programmed to want fruit and want it now.

One fairly easy way to feel like we’re exercising and promoting our rights is by flying a banner. I certainly don’t begrudge my neighbors the right to fly flags and banners. Our family flies the Stars and Stripes on our porch from Memorial Day to Labor Day. And just prior to an election, we post campaign signs in our yard supporting candidates or issues we feel strongly about. 

But I worry that, even if we plant flags and signs in our yards with the best of intentions, they can convey virtue signaling more than true virtue. Scott Miller, former dean of BYU’s College of Humanities, cautioned against the potentially reductive nature of some symbols, stating:

We should constantly consider the import of symbols and phrases we use to describe others, as well as those we associate ourselves with. In one way or another, as we seek to be identified primarily by the name of Christ, we must face this enigma: How can we be open and loving in a world where people cannot imagine the complexity and divinity of those with whom they disagree? While symbols have their place, we should be wary of the “lazy” communication that symbols can offer.

Miller advocates for “a more productive kind of communication that involves greater imagination for human possibility, mutual understanding, and grace.” 

Indeed, I fear adopting symbols in the form of flags, bumper stickers, or pocket constitutions in an effort to promote religious freedom may be the latter-day equivalent of broadening the phylacteries on our foreheads. The more productive but much harder work involves planting and nurturing principles of faith and constitutional principles in our hearts.

I would also suggest that some symbols used historically may not be called for today. The title of liberty, for example, was used in a very specific context—during a short period in Book of Mormon history when religious dissenters were put to death. I in no way discount the faithfulness of Moroni and his people, nor would I armchair-quarterback their choices in their unique, historical context.

I do suggest that leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ and of other faiths today are asking us to do work that may be even more challenging than dividing ourselves into all “manner of -ites.”

That hard work involves engaging and nurturing relationships with those who dissent, those who have disaffiliated themselves from our Church, and those who believe differently from us, or who have no religious belief.

Our church leaders, by word and by deed, are asking us to bridge the vast concrete driveways that divide us from our neighbors, to plant seeds of friendship, fellowship, and love, no matter our differences—to collaborate with those who believe very differently than we do to help secure the blessings of freedom of religion or belief, or nonbelief, for all.

Our nation and others won’t understand the value of protecting religious freedom if we fail to live the values we espouse. For members of The Church of Jesus Christ, that means following the example of Jesus Christ and exemplifying His teachings in all we do, rather than simply adopting outward signs or symbols of religious belief. Our latter-day prophets are asking us to show true, Christlike love as the fullest expression and exercise of our religious freedom. 

In his 2021 Joseph Smith Lecture, President Oaks quoted Elder Lance B. Wickman, former general counsel for the Church, who so beautifully stated:

When we exercise our religious freedom to serve and lift to strengthen community ties and to pour oil on troubled waters, and to make America better—when we use our religious freedom to bring people together in unity and love—we are defending and preserving religious liberty and the Constitution in a most profound way.

I believe that is the work we are called to today. Planting and nurturing seeds of religious freedom in a spirit of love and unity will bear fruit for generations to come.

The post How Religious Freedom Takes Root appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

As members of the worldwide Church of Jesus Christ, we want to have a united community of Saints. God reminded us that “if ye are not one ye are not mine” (Doctrine and Covenants 38:27).

How can we move toward a more Christ-centered community? The article “Seven Ideas to Become a More Unified and Welcoming Community of Saints” provides seven ideas that can help us become more united as children of God.

1. Introduce Yourself to Those You Don’t Know.
2. Focus on Our Common Work—the Work of Salvation and Exaltation.
3. Avoid Starting or Spreading Rumors.
4. Minister with a Smile.
5. Seek to Better Understand One Another.
6. Create a Community of Religious Freedom among All Religions and Beliefs.

Read more about each of these ideas in the article “Seven Ideas to Become a More Unified and Welcoming Community of Saints.”

BYU Studies has published a comprehensive study titled, “Latter-day Saint Trends in the United States: Religiousness, Well-Being, and Retention.” The results are published on the BYU Studies site.

Key Findings at a Glance

• Highest Religious Activity in America. Latter-day Saints rank at or near the top in monthly attendance, prayer, scripture reading, and parents praying or reading scripture with children.
• Strong Spiritual Well-Being. Latter-day Saints report high levels of spiritual peace, happiness, and family well-being.
• Highest Active Retention. Latter-day Saints have the highest active-retention rate among the religious groups studied.
• Retention Has Declined. Retention is lower than in previous decades, reflecting broader religious shifts in the United States.
• Deidentification is Not One-Size-Fits-All. Many former Latter-day Saints continue to value religion or spirituality and remain open to recommitting.
• Youth Retention Predictors. Feeling God’s presence and navigating political/social concerns emerge as important factors.

Learn more on the Latter-day Saint Trends in the United States site.

Download Print-Friendly Version

“God would cease to be God.” 

This interesting phrase appears multiple times in the Book of Mormon, often in reference to the balance between opposing forces.

Indeed, the gospel of Jesus Christ consists of many ideas that may appear incompatible. Justice and mercy. Grace and works. Love and laws.

With recent messages from leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about becoming peacemakers, it is the balance of love and laws that I suggest requires more of our focus.

Christ’s Pattern of Love and Truth

We live in a world of polarization, in which we are constantly asked to pick sides. However, we have been taught by prophets, apostles, and the scriptures to love God and love our neighbor—a concept described by President Nelson as upholding both the laws and love of God.

Just recently, President Dallin H. Oaks, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,  taught: 

This balancing is not easy. When we seek to keep all the commandments in our personal lives, we are sometimes accused of having no love for those who don’t. When we show personal love and support loving causes, we are sometimes misunderstood as implying support for results that contradict our other religious duties. But as followers of Christ, we should seek to live peaceably and lovingly with other children of God who do not share our values and do not have the covenant obligations we have assumed.

When we over-focus on one side of the equation, we risk both becoming indifferent to people who need our support and connection and failing to be diligent in our discipleship and defense of eternal doctrines. Both of these traps are inconsistent with the love and character of Christ. Throughout His ministry, we see Christ acknowledging sin as wrong, yet choosing to associate with sinners and form connections with those who would otherwise be outcasts.

Learning What We Lack 

It is so easy to notice in hindsight that the treatment of sinners, publicans, and diseased people in the New Testament by the scribes and Pharisees was wrong, but it can be more difficult to recognize that we sometimes still marginalize or “other-ize” friends, families, and communities today. This may include people who choose to participate in elective abortion, those who identify as LGBTQ+, or even just people who subscribe to different religions, some of whose beliefs may contradict or show contempt towards our own. 

Similarly, it is easy to agree with Christ’s support of His Father’s doctrine and His condemnation of false beliefs in His interactions with hypocritical religious figures and sinners alike. Yet it is sometimes difficult to stand up for those same doctrines when they challenge our worldview or appear to cause pain for people we love. 

How do we actually accomplish this feat? 

It starts with prayer, introspection, and personal revelation. I would propose, in accordance with Dr. Ty Mansfield, that we consider, with the Lord’s help, which side of the equation each of us needs to focus on.

When We Need More Love 

You may discover that you need to increase your implementation of the love of God. As you do, you may find that you can be firmly pro-life and yet empathize with single women who may feel terrified and trapped in their unplanned pregnancies. You may find that you can believe in the divine nature of gender, and still choose to connect and associate with members of the LGBTQ+ community or youth struggling with gender dysphoria who feel marginalized or shunned by religion or society. 

If you feel you don’t struggle with these issues, increasing love for others can take smaller forms as well. For example, perhaps you feel a greater drive to take care of the poor and needy, repair family or ward relationships that have previously struggled, pray more intentionally for a spouse, child, or sibling, or avoid angry retaliations to misinformation online.

When We Need More Law

On the other hand, you may discover that you need to become more diligent in upholding God’s laws. Through diligent prayer and study, you may encounter a growing testimony of the family as essential to God’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. You may feel an increased faith in and appreciation for temple ordinances, even if they still don’t completely make sense to you, or an expanded comprehension of Jesus Christ’s Atonement—what He suffered for you.

You may feel more confident in sharing your beliefs online or grow less concerned about how others will react to your witness of gospel principles. You may even learn to love and stand firmly behind points of doctrine that have been previously difficult to accept because of their implications for friends, family members, or associates.

Through personal revelation, I discovered that I more often struggle to uphold the laws of God in my concern for other people. For example, I had trouble with some of the Church’s policies surrounding the LGBTQ+ community. Luckily, I found myself in classes at BYU that forced me to dive in and truly study “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” from both secular and religious perspectives. Studying these beautiful doctrines gave me an increased understanding of God’s plan and our place in it and allowed me to find peace between the doctrines I have learned to love and the policies and procedures that still affect me and the people I love.

Perhaps (and likely often), we feel that in some cases we need to focus more on love, while simultaneously in others, the laws of God need more of our attention. The Lord wants us to progress, and I believe He will show us which matters need more of our attention.

In this quest to live as true disciples of Jesus Christ, we do not work alone. The enabling power of His Atonement allows us to become more than we ever thought possible. God operates in a space of balance between opposing forces: “If these things are not there is no God.” In our quest to be like Him, let us learn to live within these seeming incompatibilities, building bridges between God, ourselves, and others. This is the work of becoming true peacemakers.

The post Love, Law, and Zion appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Strong families help strengthen freedom and society. Learn how constitutional freedoms protect families, faith, and moral responsibility.

This article is one in a series about principles of freedom and religious liberty. It is based on principles from the book American Principles of Freedom: A Latter-day Saint Perspective, which celebrates the 250th anniversary of the United States of America. Read other articles in the series #America250.

Strong families and strong societies are closely connected. The founders of the United States understood that freedom depends heavily on the character and responsibility of the people. Families play a central role in teaching those values.

Latter-day Saints believe the family is ordained of God and central to Heavenly Father’s plan. “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” teaches that parents have the responsibility to teach children “to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live.” The Constitution helps protect families by preserving freedoms that allow parents to teach, worship, and raise children according to their beliefs and values.

Religious Freedom Strengthens Families

One of the Constitution’s greatest protections is religious liberty. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. That freedom allows families to worship openly, attend church, teach faith in the home, and live according to conscience. Without religious freedom, governments often attempt to control beliefs, education, speech, or family practices.

The Restoration itself benefited greatly from constitutional protections. Joseph Smith could organize the Church, publish scripture, and preach openly because religious liberty existed in early America.

President Dallin H. Oaks has repeatedly emphasized the importance of protecting religious freedom for people of all faiths. “We must also practice tolerance and respect toward others” whose beliefs, values, and ideas differ from our own. (“Truth and Tolerance,” CES Devotional for Young Adults, September 11, 2011, Brigham Young University)

Families Teach Self-Government

The founders believed self-government begins in the home. Children first learn honesty, responsibility, kindness, work ethic, and self-control from parents and families. These virtues help citizens use freedom wisely.

John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (Address to the Massachusetts Militia, 1798)

Strong families help create stable communities because they teach individuals how to govern themselves responsibly without excessive outside control. Latter-day Saints understand this principle well. Agency and accountability always go together.

Freedom Creates Opportunities for Families

Constitutional freedoms create opportunities for families to flourish. Freedom allows parents to:

• Teach gospel principles in the home
• Choose how children are educated
• Worship openly
• Speak according to conscience
• Serve in their communities
• Build stable family traditions

The Constitution does not create strong families, but it helps protect the conditions that allow families to grow and thrive. When freedoms weaken, families often feel greater pressure from governments, cultural forces, or restrictions on religious expression.

The founders believed that many responsibilities should remain close to individuals, families, churches, and local communities rather than centralized government.

Responsibility Begins at Home

Strong societies cannot be built only through laws or government programs. Lasting freedom depends largely on the moral strength of individuals and families. Parents who teach honesty, integrity, service, respect, and faith help strengthen both their children and society. Latter-day Saints can help preserve freedom by:

• Strengthening family relationships
• Teaching correct principles in the home
• Studying scriptures together
• Respecting the rights of others
• Participating responsibly in civic life
• Living with integrity and kindness

What This Means for Us

The Constitution and the family are connected because both help protect moral agency and personal responsibility. For Latter-day Saints, strong families are not only important to society. They are central to God’s eternal plan.

Learn more:

• Articles about about religious freedom and moral agency.
• Read the book American Principles of Freedom: A Latter-day Saint Perspective.

How to access the book

• Read or download a free PDF.
• Purchase on Amazon as a paperback for only $8.95 or get as Kindle or audiobook free with your membership
• Purchase on Lulu as a paperback for only $8.95

The first thing we need to figure out is, what is the Book of Madoc are they are actually referring to?

Book of Madoc 1805 Epic Poem

In 1805, Robert Southey published a fictional epic poem called Madoc in London. It was based on the Welsh legend of a medieval prince named Madoc who left Wales after a royal succession conflict, crossed the ocean, discovered a new land, returned to Wales, gathered settlers, and then sailed back to America.

The legend was useful to the British because it supported the idea that Wales, and therefore Britain, had a claim to America before Columbus.

In the poem, Madoc interacts with native peoples, fights wars, and spreads Christianity. The story of Madoc includes an ocean crossing, ships, a new land, native peoples, advanced societies, kings, priests, councils, temples, wars, battles, and Christianity in the Americas.

These same themes also appear in the Book of Mormon!

And, an edition was published in Boston in 1806, so it is possible that Joseph Smith could have had access to it.

If that’s the only information you are told, if you don’t do any other research. If you simply trust what is shared on the ex-Mormon subreddit, then you might believe that the Book of Madoc is this the smoking gun that provides the source in which Joseph Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon…

But, like the Solomon Spaulding manuscript and View of the Hebrews, there are a few, broad, surface-level similarities between one aspect of the Book of Mormon.

Broad similarities are not plagiarism.

A story about people crossing an ocean and interacting with native people is not exactly a stand-alone idea that nobody had ever thought of before. The Odyssey, Gulliver’s Travels, The Travels of Marco Polo, and The Arabian Nights all include voyages, distant lands, and interactions with different people. So why don’t we here people claiming that Joseph Smith used those as source texts for the Book of Mormon?

Stories with native people with kings, priests, wars, and religion have been told thousands of times before. Those are general story elements found in many historical, religious, and epic writings.

Writing Styles and Story Focus

When the actual content and writing styles are compared, Madoc and the Book of Mormon are not closely related.

Southey’s Madoc

Robert Southey’s Madoc is a British epic poem based on a Welsh legend. It follows a medieval Welsh prince who leaves Wales after a royal succession conflict, sails west, discovers a new land, returns to Wales, and gathers settlers to join him.

The poem then follows Madoc back to America with a Welsh colony. Much of the story focuses on native kingdoms, tribal alliances, political conflict, war, pagan priests, human sacrifice, and Madoc’s effort to establish Christianity among Aztec-related peoples in Aztlan.

The bulk of the poem is filled with long poetic speeches, descriptions of landscapes and cities, military conflict, religious confrontation, temples, rulers, warriors, captives, and sacrificial rituals. Its main themes are Welsh exploration, colonization, Christian opposition to idolatry, conflict with Aztec-style religion, and the attempt to build a Christian settlement in the New World.

The Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon begins with Lehi, a prophet in Jerusalem around 600 BC, warning the people before the Babylonian destruction. His family leaves Jerusalem because it has become wicked and will be destroyed. Next, they obtain the brass plates which are the key to ensuring that religious truths are preserved. The family travel through the wilderness, builds a ship by revelation, and crosses the ocean to a promised land. The main early conflict is between Nephi, who accepts revelation, and Laman and Lemuel, who reject it.

The Book of Mormon’s central characters are prophets, kings, missionaries, military leaders, and record keepers: Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, King Benjamin, Abinadi, Alma, Amulek, Captain Moroni, Mormon, Moroni, and Jesus Christ. The record is built around repentance, covenant keeping, prophetic warnings, priesthood authority, the coming of Christ, Christ’s visit to the Americas, and the preservation of sacred records for the last days.

The Book of Mormon also has a strong record-keeping structure. Its storyline depends on the brass plates, the small plates of Nephi, the large plates of Nephi, Mormon’s abridgment, Ether’s record, and Moroni’s final writings. It presents itself as sacred history preserved by prophets and brought forth in the latter days to testify of Jesus Christ.

The Actual Comparison

The strongest similarities are broad and generic: ocean crossing, ancient America, native peoples, war, religion, and Christianity. But those setting-level similarities do not demonstrate no textual dependence.

A real source claim would need stronger evidence. It would need matching characters, matching plot, matching theology, matching language, or at least one piece of evidence that Joseph Smith may have had access to the text and used it.

When the actual poem of Madoc is examined, the loose thematic overlap does not remotely resemble plagiarism.

Exact Phrase Matches

But what if there are exact phrases shared between the Book of Madoc and the Book of Mormon? What if those shared phrases are even more convincing than shared biblical phrasing of The Late War.  The Late Ware is a history book about the War of 1812 written in King James Style English that has hundreds of shared “four letter phrases.” Unfortunately for the critics, the story of the Late War does not even remotely match the Book of Mormon’s subject or storyline. It is literally a history of the War of 1812.

The Smoking Gun Shared Line

But if the Book of Madoc not only includes some of the same themes, and same word phrases, then we actually have a case for a source text for the Book of Mormon.

According to ex-Mormon forums, the beginning of 1 Nephi is identical to the beginning of the Book of Madoc. In 2003, Ex-Mormon Darrick  Evenson claimed in a google group:

The biginning of the Book of Madoc includes the line:

“I, Madog, born of goodly parents, was taught somewhat in the learning of my father, nevertheless having seen many afflictions, therefore I make a record in my day …”

The Book of Mormon begins:

“I Nephi, being born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father;…there I make a record of the proceeding of my days…”

Now that looks like plagiarism. According to this source, not only do we have a parallels in common broad themes, but we also have the exact same opening phrase used in both books. Clearly this is plagiarism and Joseph Smith simply changed the name from Madoc to Nephi!

There is just one problem with this claim…

The Book of Madoc begins:

Fair blows the wind… the vessel drives along,
Her streamers fluttering at their length, her sails
All full; she drives along, and round her prow
Scatters the ocean-spray. What feelings then
Filled every bosom, when the mariners,
After the peril of that weary way,
Beheld their own dear country! Here stands one
Stretching his sight toward the distant shore;
And, as to well-known forms his busy joy
Shapes the dim outline, eagerly he points
The fancied headland, and the cape and bay,
Till his eyes ache o’erstraining.

Not only is “I Madoc having been born of goodly parents” not in the opening section of the Book of Madoc, but it does not appear anywhere in Robert Southey’s 1805 epic poem.

And clearly the poetic style of Madoc is nothing like any of the writing styles of the Book of Mormon.

The Secret Book of Madoc

Because anti-Mormons are so desperate to believe that some natural explanation for the Book of Mormon exists, because they so desperately want to believe that he was a false prophet and plagiarized it from somewhere, they keep doubling down when the supposed source text fails to be the proof thirst for.

Surely an ex-Mormon in 2003 wasn’t just making stuff up on the internet. Ex-Mormons forum posts are always credible sources.

It is the same pattern as the plagiarism claims of the Spaulding manuscript in 1834.

Anti-Mormons claimed the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from Solomon Spaulding. This was the predominant theory for the origin of the Book of Mormon for about five decades. The claim was first made in E. B. Howe’s book Mormonism Unvailed in 1834. But when the Spaulding manuscript that E. B. Howe had was found in 1884, it was obvious that it did not have anything to do with the Book of Mormon.

Howe had the actual Spaulding manuscript but hid it from the world because it did not actually contain the plagiarism evidence claimed in the affidavits gathered by Philastus Hurlbut and published in Mormonism Unvailed. Instead of dropping the claim, instead of admitting that their supposed source theory was wrong, critics simply shifted the goal post:

“Well, there must have been a different Spaulding manuscript that we do not have.”

No evidence. No actual manuscript of this additional manuscript. Just blind faith that the missing source must exist somewhere because they wanted to believe the claims from the affidavats.

The “Secret” Book of Madoc claim does the same thing.

Because the real 1805 Madoc poem by Robert Southey does not contain the supposed “I, Madoc, being born of goodly parents” quote. Critics claim that, that line is found in a different Madoc book: the so-called Secret Book of Madoc, supposedly written by John Dee in 1810.

That creates a bigger problem.

John Dee was an English scholar, mathematician, occult philosopher, and advisor to Queen Elizabeth I. He lived from 1527 to 1609. A claim that he wrote The Secret Book of Madoc in 1810, is kind of impossible as he had been dead for two hundred years. But if time travel is real, then I suppose it is possible.

But there is no verified Secret Book of Madog by John Dee. Not one written in 1608 or 1810. There is no manuscript of this supposed secret book. No record of publication. No source that can be checked.

Anti-Mormons continue to spread a claim that depends on a book nobody can produce, with a quote nobody can verify, and no evidence that Joseph Smith ever even saw this book that does not exist.

So the Madoc plagiarism claim ends up doing the same thing that so many other anti-Mormon source theories do. It starts with a broad similarity, shares it as if that broad similarity is evidence of plagiarism, adds an alleged smoking gun, fails when the actual source is examined, and then instead of admitting that it was just a desperate attempt to explain something they want to believe, they double down and retreat into a missing original source that nobody can produce.

So no, the Book of Madoc or Mad Dog is not evidence that Joseph Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon.

But it is evidence that critics will wilingly spread almost anything they can to justify their disbelief and provide a naturalistic source that can explain the Book of Mormon without accepting Joseph Smith’s claim that it was translated by the gift and power of God.

Nephi’s Goodly Name Makes the Plagiarism Claim Double Backfire

Did Joseph Smith Plagiarize the Book of Madoc?

June 23, 2026

Solomon Spaulding Book of Mormon Origins

May 29, 2026

Did Joseph Smith Plagiarize the Late War?

May 29, 2026

Moroni and Cumorah: Did Joseph Smith Copy These Names from Maps?

April 13, 2026

Joseph Smith’s Secret Dartmouth Education

April 3, 2026

Did Joseph Smith Plagiarized View of The Hebrews?

March 13, 2026

Joseph Smith Plagarized Adam Clarke

December 26, 2025

Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Samuel 11–12; 1 Kings 3; 6–9; 11 – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Constitutional liberties best endure when we understand the history and values that sustain them. As we discussed in the first article of this three-part series, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have long emphasized the importance of religious freedom for all. Most recently, in a video released for a fifth Sunday lesson in May 2026, President D. Todd Christofferson and Elder Quentin L. Cook invited millions of church members to promote the Constitution’s underlying principles, including religious freedom. President Christofferson said that becoming informed is a good place to start so that we can “speak out of intelligent understanding and not just ignorance and emotion.” 

To support this invitation, in this second article of the series, we will discuss the history of religious freedom in the United States and the constitutional protections that grew out of that history. In doing so, we will be guided by President Dallin H. Oaks’s invitation to lovingly and respectfully “walk shoulder to shoulder along the path of religious freedom for all, while still exercising that freedom to pursue our distinctive beliefs.” 

Brief History of Religious Freedom

To fully understand our responsibilities today, we need to understand how our modern concept of religious liberty has evolved. For much of recorded history, there simply was no concept of religious freedom. Many societies pursued religious homogeneity in quest of social cohesion.  As the Israelites’ entrance into the land of Canaan makes clear, distinctive religious beliefs were seen as an existential threat. For example, in Exodus 23:31-33 the Lord says, 

And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee. Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee.

To maintain religious homogeneity, monarchs typically imposed their own religious views on their subjects. However, a notable exception was the period of the Pax Romana, when the Romans allowed conquered subjects to continue worshipping their gods. Since Roman rule allowed a multiplicity of beliefs, Christ’s apostles could preach the gospel after His death throughout much of the Roman world. Though often facing significant persecution, Early Christians used this nascent religious freedom to spread across much of Europe and into parts of Africa and the Middle East.

Later, as Christianity swept the Roman world, it eventually coalesced into a single church following the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. Then, in AD 380, the Edict of Thessalonica made Nicene Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire, and with it, the ancient practice of requiring adherence to the ruler’s religion resumed. Splinter groups were labeled heretics, suppressed, and often punished. In AD 1054, the Christian church itself splintered into the Roman Catholic Church in the West and the Eastern Orthodox Church in the East. During this medieval period, monarchs in the West often ruled by consent of and coronation by Rome and frequently required their citizens—legally and socially—to be baptized as Roman Catholics. Authorities viewed nonbelievers as a threat to public order. If discovered, they could be convicted as heretics and even burned at the stake. 

The quest for homogeneity finally ruptured in 1517 when Martin Luther launched the Protestant Reformation in Germany. Other Protestant groups soon formed throughout Europe. Most famously, King Henry VIII split with the Roman Catholic Church in 1534. But even in this quest for additional religious liberty, if a king adopted a Protestant tradition, his subjects were obliged to do the same. 

The legal principle governing required religious adherence in Western Europe was termed Cuius regio, eius religio, meaning “Whose realm, his religion.” This principle was formally codified by the Peace of Augsburg in 1555. It gave rulers the legal right to dictate the religion of their realm. Those who did not agree with their sovereign’s religious preference were required to sell their property and immigrate to another territory that aligned with their religious beliefs.

Later acts of Parliament specified that repeated offenses would be considered high treason and authorized offenders to be executed. As a result, a group of these Separatists, now known as the Pilgrims, left for Holland to escape these persecutions and then famously immigrated to the New World in 1620. Their search for religious freedom in America is one of the most important founding stories of our nation. However, the Pilgrims would later repeat the pattern of religious intolerance when they punished and even banished dissenters from their faith. In response, the colonies of Rhode Island, New York, and Maryland adopted policies to welcome many of these outcasts. 

During this colonial period, people with diverse religious preferences continued to arrive in the New World. Within a relatively short time, the original Thirteen Colonies were populated by many people with differing religious allegiances. When the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, the United States had become a unique, religiously pluralistic country with no single dominant sect.  

To protect this religious diversity, the drafters of the Constitution purposely included religious freedom as the first freedom mentioned in the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The two parts of this protection, often called the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, inaugurated a revolutionary experiment that rejected the assumption that social cohesion could only be fostered by religious uniformity. Instead, the Constitution adopted what was then a radical idea: deep loyalty and social stability could be fostered by protecting everyone’s religious beliefs. This principle was summarized by President Oaks, who said, “The key to stability and harmony is not homogeneity in religious or other foundational beliefs, but shared assurance that everyone will be secure in following his or her foundational beliefs.”

Now, after 250 years of experience, the once-radical idea of a government that protects diverse religious beliefs is widely accepted across much of the world. This principle was made explicit in 1948 when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 18 of that Declaration states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

This strong, yet aspirational, statement of religious freedom has become a widely recognized international human-rights norm. Even some states and religions that originally questioned religious diversity have come to champion religious liberty. For example, the Roman Catholic Church reversed centuries of teachings promoting religious homogeneity in 1965 when it published Dignitatis Humanae. It declares that religious freedom is a civil right directly rooted in the God-given dignity of the human person and that this right protects everyone from being coerced in religious matters. 

Our nation continues to promote religious freedom worldwide. Under the provisions of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, the U.S. government carefully monitors religious freedom in every country and annually publishes its findings. Under this Act, the world’s worst violators of international religious freedom norms are designated as “Countries of Particular Concern,” and the President is then authorized to impose diplomatic or economic actions intended to encourage greater religious freedom for their people. Thus, our nation’s foreign policy is directly tied to the degree to which each country upholds the modern principle of religious freedom.

In sum, the long history of religious intolerance and forced homogeneity in Europe led to America’s pluralistic understanding of religious freedom, first explicitly recognized in the Bill of Rights. Religious pluralism contributed directly to the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the United States, as well as the protection of countless believers of other faiths. This is undoubtedly a significant reason why President Oaks has called our Constitution “this nation’s most important export.” As the Lord stated in Doctrine and Covenants 98:5, “that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.”

Constitutional Protections of Religious Freedom

Although the ideal of religious freedom for all was established at our nation’s founding, 250 years later, we are still working to fully realize this constitutional right. Both parts of our “first freedom”—the prohibition on an established religion and the promise of the free exercise of religion—have been the subject of numerous Supreme Court decisions that have tested the meaning of those protections. A brief summary of some notable decisions follows.

Establishment Clause Protections

As originally written, the Establishment Clause was unquestionably intended to prohibit a federally established religion while still allowing state-established churches. Remarkable as it may seem today, many states had established churches during the founding era of our country. In fact, it was not until 1833 that Massachusetts became the last state to disestablish its state church.

Based on this understanding, an intrepid Supreme Court seemed to embark on the project of expelling religious influence from government. In the landmark 1962 case Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court interpreted the Establishment Clause to forbid government-prescribed prayers. A year later, in Abington School District v. Schempp, the Supreme Court banned devotional Bible reading, a mainstay of public schools since the early 19th Century and the primary textbook of the earliest colonial schools. 

In subsequent years, the Supreme Court developed the so-called Lemon test to analyze whether a government action improperly breached the wall of separation between church and state. This test asked if government action had a primarily secular purpose that did not advance (or inhibit) religion, and whether the action avoided entanglement with or endorsement of religion. Since religious expressions are not typically secular and can often be seen as advancing religious sentiments, few religiously motivated expressions could pass this test. As a result, many religious symbols and actions were challenged, such as Christmas nativities and displays of the Ten Commandments on government property. However, despite the Lemon test’s built-in bias, the Supreme Court stopped short of all its implications. It refused, for example, to bar prayer before legislative sessions, and it sidestepped the question whether our nation’s motto, “In God We Trust,” or the statement “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause. 

In recent years, the tide seems to have turned. In 2022, the Supreme Court announced in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District that it would no longer use the Lemon test to determine when the so-called wall of separation had been breached. Instead, the Supreme Court announced it will now rely on the original meaning and history of the Establishment Clause and decide Establishment Clause cases based on the “historical practices and understandings” of the Founders. Since the Founders allowed numerous religious expressions by government, presumably this new approach will more generously allow religious expressions in government that fall short of establishing a religion.

Free Exercise Protections

The Free Exercise Clause has an equally volatile history. The Supreme Court’s first free exercise case was decided nearly 100 years after the Bill of Rights was adopted. In Reynolds v. United States, the Court ruled that the Free Exercise Clause only protects religious beliefs—not actions—when it refused to protect members of the Church from criminal prosecution for engaging in religiously motivated polygamy in the territory of Utah.

Then, 85 years later, the Supreme Court altered its approach. In the 1963 decision Sherbert v. Verner, the Court implicitly rejected its constrained view of the Free Exercise Clause originally adopted in Reynolds. The Court ruled that laws substantially burdening religious practices would be invalidated unless the government could show a “compelling interest” for its purpose and could prove it had used the “least restrictive means” possible to accomplish that purpose. 

This “strict scrutiny” analysis was applied in free exercise cases for several decades until the Supreme Court abruptly changed course again. In 1990, in the infamous case Employment Division v. Smith, the Court announced that our nation could no longer “afford the luxury” of this heightened protection of religion. Instead, with some enumerated exceptions, the Court announced that “neutral and generally applicable laws” would be upheld even if they substantially burden religious practice. In other words, laws that unintentionally impede religious practice would generally be allowed because their burdens on religious people are simply the “unavoidable consequence of democratic government.” 

This result was shocking. How could the free exercise of religion—the first freedom in our Bill of Rights—be so cavalierly discarded as a “luxury?” How could the Supreme Court say that religious minorities would have to depend on legislative protection instead of constitutional protection when the express point of the Bill of Rights was to protect against majoritarian rule? 

The Supreme Court responded to RFRA by ruling that its strict scrutiny protections were unconstitutional as applied to state and local laws. State legislatures then mobilized in response.  Nearly 30 states passed their own religious freedom restoration acts, and many state supreme courts began interpreting their state constitutions to provide strict scrutiny protection. Congress also doubled down by passing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 to provide strict-scrutiny protections against both federal and state laws in land-use regulations and prisons. 

Another irony of this situation should be noted. Not only did the Founders assume that majoritarian impulses would need to be checked by a Bill of Rights, but they also assumed each of the three branches of government would attempt to assume greater authority at the expense of the others. Yet in Smith and with RFRA, the judicial and legislative branches of the federal government attempted to pass authority over free exercise decisions to the other branch as though it were a hot potato. 

Ultimately, the Supreme Court relented and assumed its traditional role as a protector of fundamental freedoms. In multiple decisions over the past two decades, the Court reinterpreted its notorious Smith decision by increasingly limiting what it considers to be a neutral and generally applicable law. If a law is not neutral—because the law targets religious practices—or if the law is not generally applicable—because the law allows for important exceptions in other contexts—then the general rule of Smith, which is not accommodating toward religion, will not apply. Since laws burdening religion are often neither fully neutral nor generally applicable, the unaccommodating standard in Smith is becoming increasingly rare in practice. As a result of the powerful responses to Smith in both case law and legislatures, today many (if not most) laws are again subject to strict scrutiny protection under some combination of the Free Exercise Clause, state constitutions, and federal or state statutes.

Yet the seeming equanimity between the judicial and legislative branches of government pertaining to religious freedom did not last long. The rise of LGBTQ rights has severely tested Congress’s commitment to protecting religious freedom, despite RFRA’s near-unanimous passage just a few decades earlier. Beginning with the question of same-sex marriage and continuing with protections of LGBTQ individuals in housing, employment, and public accommodations, free exercise rights began to be viewed by some as authorizing discrimination by religious individuals and religious organizations. 

In the third and final part of this series, we will explore how the tension between religious freedom and LGBTQ protections has played out in society. In this national debate, we will also explore the prominent leadership role of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in upholding the moral choices of others, including choices with which the Church may disagree. As we explore these topics, the responsibility of Latter-day Saints to simultaneously uphold religious freedom and fairness for all will come into stark focus.

Read the first article in this series, The Importance of Religious Freedom, here.

The post The Legal Framework of Religious Liberty appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

The Interpreter Foundation and Redbrick Filmworks continues to release a new episode of their not-for-profit series of mini-documentaries titled Becoming Brigham each Monday.

Over the past few weeks, they have released the following episodes:

Episode 21: “Saints and Complainers?”

Why did ordinary men like Brigham Young leave everything behind to walk over 1,000 miles under brutal conditions to help the Saints in Missouri? How did Joseph Smith demonstrate remarkable leadership and patience while leading a group of exhausted, complaining men on Zion’s Camp? What can we learn from the extreme sacrifices of the early Saints—and the women left behind—when facing trials that don’t turn out as expected?

This episode continues the story of the 1833–1834 Missouri persecutions. Joseph receives a revelation and calls for Zion’s Camp, an expedition of volunteers to aid the displaced Saints. Brigham Young is among the first to step forward, along with others like Wilford Woodruff. The episode vividly describes the immense challenges of Zion’s Camp: volunteers walking 30–40 miles a day for nearly 2,000 total miles, enduring extreme heat, mosquitoes, bad water, blistered and bleeding feet, minimal sleep, and scarce supplies. The discussion emphasizes the true purpose of the camp—a defensive and relief mission seeking legal redress and militia protection, not armed conquest—and the powerful leadership lessons Joseph Smith taught through patience and meekness.

Episode 22: “How Did They Survive an Almighty Hail?”

How did God dramatically protect Zion’s Camp from a violent mob? Why did the Lord call Zion’s Camp a success even though they didn’t redeem Zion or fight any battles? How did the hardships of Zion’s Camp transform Brigham Young and prepare him to lead the Saints westward?

This episode concludes the story of Zion’s Camp, the 2,000-mile journey undertaken by Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, and roughly 200 others to aid the persecuted Saints in Missouri. Upon arrival, the group faced disappointment when Governor Dunklin refused to help restore their lands. As tensions rose and mobs threatened to attack, a sudden, violent storm with hail and flooding miraculously protected the camp. Despite the hardships and apparent failure to redeem Zion, the Lord revealed in Doctrine and Covenants Section 105 that their sacrifices were accepted. The episode explores the deeper spiritual purpose of the journey: it served as a refining experience and training ground for future Church leadership.
Watch all the episodes on the Becoming Brigham YouTube channel. If you want to be notified when new episodes are published, just click Subscribe on the Becoming Brigham YouTube channel.
 

The episodes are hosted by Camrey Bagley Fox (who portrayed Emma Smith in the Interpreter Foundation’s films Witnesses and Six Days in August), John Wilson (who played Brigham Young in Six Days in August), and Daniel C. Peterson (president of the Interpreter Foundation and retired BYU professor of Islamic studies and Arabic). Each episode features footage shot on location in New York, Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, and Utah, as well as extensive interviews with Latter-day Saint historians who are experts on the subjects being discussed. The series is rooted in scholarship. The list of contributors includes historians trusted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Why this docuseries? Many people are aware of Brigham Young as a pivotal figure in American religious and frontier history, but Brigham is also often misunderstood, seen as a larger-than-life caricature rather than as a man. Who actually was Brigham as a man, a father, a husband, and a prophet? The video web series Becoming Brigham debunks fictions and provides surprising new insights into the real Brigham Young. Learn more in the article “Becoming Brigham: The Video Series Premieres.”

Download Print-Friendly Version

It matters what kind of God we believe in. Mortality can feel heavy. Bodies hurt, hearts break, and even the most faithful can feel worn down. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints worship a God who is not distant, abstract, or unknowable, like in much of creedal Christianity. 

Yet our ability to imagine a God who can literally hug us has become almost common, so ingrained in our imaginations and beliefs, that we may not always notice how deeply it shapes our worship, our understanding of our body, and our sense of divine identity. The truth that God is embodied offers more than a theological quirk to Latter-day Saints and also provides intimacy, dignity, and hope. 

In practice, it may seem as if belief in an embodied God does not make a difference in religious life. The physical act of prayer doesn’t appear to change whether the believer holds an image of God as an embodied being, or as the feeling or presence of love, support, or guidance. Commandments don’t read any differently whether they were spoken by God’s voice or given through inspiration. 

The vast majority of people who have ever lived, even those who believe in a corporeal God, have not seen or interacted with Him physically, nor do they expect to, until after their own physical life has ended. That being the case, why is this doctrine of an embodied God so important, and how does it change Latter-day Saint worship and understanding of our own divine physical identities?

What Is Corporeality?

Corporeality, or embodiment, points to the form and physicality we are familiar with in our own bodies and suggests the capability for interaction. Corporeal beings can share a location in space, exert influence on, and be influenced by, physical surroundings, and communicate through sound, touch, and motion.

Though we don’t know exactly what embodiment entails for divine beings, Genesis 6:6 and Moses 7:28 describe God experiencing grief and weeping over the wickedness of His children. Other scriptures describe His anger and jealousy—negative emotions rooted in disappointment towards His children’s rejection of Him. God’s work and glory in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man is not a pain-free experience, even for Him. 

God, of course, is not miserable in His work with His children, and is said to rejoice alongside heaven in many scriptural instances. 

These emotional elements, along with the physical qualities of corporeality, allow for radical closeness and  between humans and divinity through shared form and varying degrees of shared experience. The doctrine of a corporeal God changes the nature of the relationship a human being can have with their creator, lessening the gap between us and the divine.

Our Understanding of God’s Embodiment

However, because we are fallen humans living in a mortal world, this view of God comes with some problems. By relating too closely to Him, we can make “God in our own image,” and assign Him inappropriate expressions we see in our fellow mortal family members, friends, and associates. In this way, the doctrine of corporeality can lead us to lose the sense of wonder, respect, and even fear for the greatness of the Divine that inspired Isaiah to cry “Woe is me,” and Moses to declare “man is nothing,” along with the praise, celebration, and adoration expressed through psalms, poems, and hymns. God may have a physical body, but His glory exceeds our familiar mortal experience. Recognizing this difference inspires the awe and desire necessary to worship Him reverently.

The exact nature of divine embodiment hasn’t been revealed to us, but we see suggestions of its nature in the scriptures. Doctrine and Covenants 93:34 tells us that we are incapable of receiving a fullness of joy unless our spirits and bodies are united. Resurrected bodies will be immortal and perfectly restored, down to the very hairs of our heads.

Despite this, Jesus Christ’s resurrected body retained His scars. Following His resurrection, Christ was also capable of eating food, feeling troubled, and changing his mind. We don’t know exactly what perfection in bodily form looks like, but the Greek word teleios, used in the Bible to convey perfection, can also be translated as complete or mature, suggesting similarity and continuation of experiences in mortality.

Does God Deserve Worship?

God inspires intense respect for His majesty and power. His love and compassion for his children also inspire reverence. These qualities move Latter-day Saints towards the worship of Him. The etymological source of the word “worship” originates in the Old English weorðscipe, from its root weorð, meaning “worthy.” To worship is to give reverence and respect to the being we recognize as worthy of our devotion. The nature of what and who we worship is therefore tied to the nature of that being.

A person could, in theory, worship a god who is cruel, as long as that god was also powerful enough to inspire devotion and respect purely out of fear. However, while this god could reward his followers for their adoration, he would not inspire a genuine relationship, nor would he be likely to inspire the qualities of love and compassion within them. In the case of our God, both expressions of the qualities we already respect, often referred to as spontaneous worship, and commanded worship, directing us towards what we ought to revere, are both possible.

Our rational minds may be imperfect and liable to error, yet we were given the ability to recognize and seek truth by God, for the purpose of understanding Him and His plan. The image of a god completely outside the realm of human understanding is a god that is difficult to relate to, emulate, and even obey.

How Can You Worship an Embodied God?

To worship a corporeal God is to adore, respect, and honor Him in his corporeality, which can be extended to inspire honor and respect of our own corporeality. Through this, we can more actively and intentionally strive to emulate God. Instead of seeing our bodies as a source of separation, we can see them as a source of connection between Him and us. In a sense, we are divine (or like God) because we are embodied. To mutilate, abuse, or mistreat our bodies denigrates an aspect of our inherent divinity.

Beyond our physical bodies, this respect can extend to all aspects of our embodied experience, including our emotions and sensations. We connect with divinity in our ability to feel both joy and sadness, to see beauty and mess, and to hear harmony and discord. In Matthew 5:48 and 3 Nephi 12:48, we are commanded to be perfect like our Father, or if the alternative translation is used, to be complete or mature. The best aspects of being embodied on this earth—sensations, emotional intimacy, our capability to move, create, and work—as well as pain, must also be similar to the completion or maturity that comes with godlike perfection. As Latter-day Saints, our worship includes obedience to a health code, showing respect for sexual intimacy, and providing for the needs of others when we are able to. This lifestyle encourages respect for our bodies and becomes more clearly inspired when our corporeality is viewed as a connection to the divine.

In addition to the unique ways in which we approach the embodied experience, the worship of our corporeal God encourages prioritization of human relationships. To know that God feels with us and works with us to overcome the challenges of mortality on a physical level allows for a closer and more personal relationship with Him. In the best cases, our relationships with other humans can mirror the attributes of a corporeal living God. Through our belief in an embodied God, we are more able to view ourselves, in our own corporeal state, as capable of becoming like Him.

Though imperfect, our attempts to emulate these qualities in our worship lead us to treasure the good and work through the bad in our human relationships, for the “same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there…coupled with eternal glory.”

 The worship of a corporeal God inspires the kind of relationship with Him and with our fellow human beings that can transform both our mortal and eternal corporeal existence.

The post The Worship of a Corporeal God appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

by Autumn Dickson

Solomon, David’s son, has become king. Very early on in his reign, Solomon has a dream in which the Lord appears to him.

1 Kings 3:5 In Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night: and God said, Ask what I shall give thee.

This is a really incredible experience as Solomon is stepping into his kingship; the Lord appears and offers to grant a prayer to Solomon. Solomon asks for wisdom and discernment in judging his people. The Lord is pleased with what Solomon asked for especially since Solomon could have asked for more selfish things such as riches, long life, or the defeat of his enemies. Solomon does none of this; he wants wisdom.

For a moment, I asked myself what I would ask for. It turned into quite the exercise as I pondered what I really wanted. Going through this experience taught me a couple of principles.

Principle one: No dream required.

I began thinking of all the things that would bless my life the most. I thought of a grateful heart, seeing people clearly, or or to see His hand moving in my life. I thought of spiritual protection for my kids. I tried to think of which spiritual gift would be the most effective for my own life.

It suddenly occurred to me that I didn’t have to wait for a dream from the Lord in order to ask for things, and I didn’t have to pick just one gift. I could ask for all of them. That’s my first principle. The Lord answers prayers regardless of whether He came to us in a dream and agreed to answer a prayer. What would you ask for? What do you ask for? What will you ask for now?

Ironically, I haven’t prayed for any of those things in a long time. I don’t think my prayers have been bad by any means, but I thought so hard about what I really wanted from the Lord and realized that those values had gotten buried by the day-to-day.

Principle two. It is powerful to have your heart reflected back to you.

The normal pathway for prayers and answers goes like this: We are encouraged by prophets and scripture to pray to the Lord, and He answers according to His wisdom.

The pathway for Solomon in this specific experience: The Lord appears directly to Solomon and essentially offers a wish.

So here are the differences:

The Lord appears directly instead of going through a prophet.

He basically offers a wish which is highly unusual (at least in my experience).

The experience that Solomon had was very different than normal. Why? The Lord is intentional so why did He make this particular choice with Solomon? Both of these differences combined to make a special thing happen. Whether this was the Lord’s intentional purpose is a question that only He can answer. However, one of the side effects was that Solomon had his heart reflected back to him. Let’s talk about both differences.

Difference 1: He appeared directly.

The Lord does not often appear when we have sufficient for what we need. For example, He doesn’t always answer “yes” to everything we ask Him about; sometimes He simply refrains from saying “no.” In my experience, He directly interferes only as necessary. Obviously, He is very involved in our lives and manipulates the details in our favor. I’m talking about when His actions would affect our faith. So the Lord is taking care of me behind the scenes and influencing things to help me out, but He’s not appearing in a manner where I can have a very clear conversation with Him.

And there are reasons for this.

Later in life, Solomon turns towards worshiping other gods, influenced by his many foreign wives. I wonder how much more intense Solomon’s betrayal was because Solomon had this dream from the Lord directly. The Lord is very involved in our life, but He also keeps direct interference to a minimum in order to protect our faith.

And yet, despite the fact that the Lord could have allowed Solomon to simply pray without receiving a dream, the Lord chose to come to Solomon to ask and offer. This extremely direct experience opened up Solomon’s heart in a way that normal prayer doesn’t always achieve. Perhaps ideally, normal prayer would achieve this, but I’m not sure that it often does.

If the Lord came to you, I have a feeling you would be much more intentional in comparison to praying in faith. As least, I would be more intentional…and because it forces intention, you get to see what really matters to you. It reflects your heart back to you.

Difference 2: He offers a wish.

If you knew you had the opportunity to ask the Lord for something that He had offered to grant, it changes how you approach what you’re asking. The Lord has already offered to answer prayers, but this is different. He offers to directly answer one prayer. It’s almost like He offered to give Solomon a wish.

When I approach normal prayer, I am very open and talk through things and ask for little things. I’m not always perfectly focused. I ask for a lot of things. When I was thinking about what my request would have been, I suddenly got extremely intentional and this wasn’t even my experience! This didn’t even happen to me, but all of a sudden I was way more concerned about what I was asking for. It gave me an opportunity to reflect on what really mattered to me. What are my values? What do I really want?

It’s interesting because the Lord already knows our hearts. While mankind looks on the outside, the Lord looketh on the heart. So this wasn’t about the Lord trying to figure out Solomon’s heart. One of the effects was that Solomon was able to take a good look at his heart as he ascended the throne where he would have power and responsibility. Not only do we pray more intentionally, it also pushes us to live more intentionally.

How did Solomon feel when he approached that throne to govern his people? How did this experience change how he approached that throne?

I have not stepped onto a throne recently. I have not received a dream or a wish, but even my less-intense experience of pondering what I would ask for has changed my prayers. And in turn, as I pray for help with specific gifts, I’m more intentional as I approach experiences that call upon those gifts.

I testify that the Lord is intentional. I testify that He already knows our hearts. I testify that He is very involved in our lives and acts with purpose. If we can learn to act with purpose as He does, we start to change more readily. Our lives become much more available to Him.

Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Samuel 11–12; 1 Kings 3; 6–9; 11 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

Freedom depends on personal responsibility, honesty, and moral character. Learn why the founders and modern prophets taught that liberty requires virtue.

This article is one in a series about principles of freedom and religious liberty. It is based on principles from the book American Principles of Freedom: A Latter-day Saint Perspective, which celebrates the 250th anniversary of the United States of America. Read other articles in the series #America250.

The founders of the United States believed freedom could survive only if citizens practiced virtue and self-government. They understood that laws and constitutions alone are not enough to preserve liberty. A free society depends heavily on the character of its people.

John Adams famously warned, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (Address to the Massachusetts Militia, 1798) The founders believed  that self-government begins with self-control. When citizens govern themselves wisely, government does not need to control every part of society. That principle still matters today.

Agency and Accountability

Latter-day Saints understand that agency and accountability always go together. Heavenly Father allows His children to choose, but He also holds them responsible for those choices. Freedom was never intended to mean the absence of consequences.

The Book of Mormon teaches, “Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh… they are free to choose liberty and eternal life.” (2 Nephi 2:27) Agency allows people to choose good or evil, service or selfishness, honesty or dishonesty. Because freedom involves moral choice, virtue becomes essential to liberty. Freedom is more than just a political concept. Freedom is a spiritual principle.

Strong Families Strengthen Society

Families play a major role in teaching virtue. Parents teach honesty, kindness, responsibility, work ethic, respect, and self-discipline. These qualities help individuals become responsible citizens as well as faithful disciples. Strong families also help reduce many social problems before government intervention becomes necessary.

“The Family: A Proclamation to the World” teaches that parents have the sacred duty to teach children “to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live.”

The founders recognized the importance of religion and morality in preserving liberty. George Washington stated in his Farewell Address, “Religion and morality are indispensable supports.” Faith communities help strengthen society by encouraging service, integrity, compassion, and accountability.

Freedom Without Virtue Becomes Dangerous

The founders worried that freedom without moral restraint could eventually destroy liberty itself. When dishonesty, corruption, selfishness, violence, or lawlessness spread widely, people often demand more control from government. Over time, excessive dependence on government can weaken personal responsibility and reduce freedom. The founders believed that liberty survives best when citizens voluntarily act with virtue.

President Dallin H. Oaks has taught that societies function best when citizens act with integrity and respect for law and moral principles. (See “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution,” April 2021 General Conference.)

Virtue Protects Freedom

Virtue is not merely private goodness. It strengthens communities, protects trust, and helps preserve liberty. Citizens who practice honesty, responsibility, service, and self-control contribute to stable families and healthier societies.

What This Means for Us

Latter-day Saints can help strengthen freedom by:

• Teaching correct principles in the home
• Serving others
• Being honest in business and personal dealings
• Respecting laws and the rights of others
• Participating responsibly in civic life
• Living gospel standards consistently

Freedom survives when people use liberty wisely. The Constitution and the laws of the nation provide important protections, but no government can replace personal virtue. The long-term strength of a free society depends largely on the moral character of its citizens. For Latter-day Saints, freedom and virtue are deeply connected because agency and accountability are central parts of Heavenly Father’s plan.

Learn more:

• Articles about about religious freedom and moral agency.
• Read the book American Principles of Freedom: A Latter-day Saint Perspective.

How to access the book

• Read or download a free PDF.
• Purchase on Amazon as a paperback for only $8.95 or get as Kindle or audiobook free with your membership
• Purchase on Lulu as a paperback for only $8.95

In his April 2026 General Conference address,“’Tis Eastertide: No One Walks Alone,” Gerrit W. Gong teaches that the resurrected Savior does not leave us to walk life’s roads alone—even when we may not recognize His presence.

Drawing on the disciples’ journey to Emmaus, he invites us to see our own lives in that sacred pattern.

Though we did not recognize Him before, He has been walking with us all along.

But that raises a quiet question: If Christ is already walking with us, why do we sometimes feel alone?

Common Criticism: “If God were really with me, I wouldn’t feel so alone.”

Many experience moments of loneliness, confusion, or distance from God. In those moments, it can feel as though heaven is silent and Christ is absent.

Fallacy at Work: Felt Absence = Actual Absence

This belief assumes that if we don’t feel God’s presence, He must not be there.

It equates emotional experience with reality, or perception with truth. 

Doctrine: Christ Walks with Us, Even When Unrecognized

Elder Gong teaches that the Savior’s presence is not dependent on our immediate awareness.

On the road to Emmaus, Christ walked with, taught, and comforted His disciples. Yet they did not recognize Him at first.

Similarly, in our lives:

• He speaks through scripture
• He is present in covenants and ordinances
• He sends the Holy Ghost as a Comforter

“As we walk by faith with Him… we come to know He lives.”

Elder Gong’s Correction

Elder Gong reframes loneliness through covenant relationship.

Christ promises not only to visit, but to abide with us through the Holy Ghost, His own presence, and covenant connection. 

We are not abandoned.

We are accompanied.

Solution

When we learn to recognize Christ’s presence, we begin to see that we have never truly walked alone.

Living Apologetics: Walking with Christ—and Each Other

Elder Gong’s message doesn’t stop with recognizing Christ walking with us.

It extends outward:

“If you see someone walking alone and sad, will you please walk with them?”

This is the pattern: Christ walks with us and we walk with others. 

In a world where many feel unseen, burdened, or alone, we are invited to become part of the answer. Walking with someone may look like sitting beside them. Listening without fixing. Or offering quiet companionship. 

Often, the most Christlike thing we can do is simply not let someone walk alone.

Practical Apologetic Use 

• If someone says: “I feel like I’m completely alone.”

• You can respond: “Elder Gong teaches that Christ often walks with us even when we don’t recognize Him—and He invites us to walk with each other so no one has to feel alone.”

Ways to Apply Today

1️⃣ Look for someone who may be feeling alone and spend time with them.
2️⃣ Be more aware of how Christ may already be present in your life.
3️⃣ Slow down and listen when someone shares a burden.

Keep This Talk With You

Elder Gong reminds us that Easter is not only about the empty tomb.

It is about the living Christ who still walks beside His disciples. Even on dusty, uncertain roads. Even when we do not recognize Him.

This week:

• Look for Him. Notice how Christ may already be present in your life.

• Trust His presence. Even when you don’t feel it.

• Walk with others. Be the companion someone else needs.

As we do, we will notice loneliness soften as connection grows and faith deepens. 

And we begin to see more clearly what has always been true: we were never meant to walk alone.

And through Jesus Christ we never do.

Who is someone I can walk with this week? And how can I better recognize Christ walking with me?

The Consider Conference series by FAIR offers an in-depth look at recent General Conference talks to help members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints navigate common questions, misunderstandings, and criticisms. Each post provides doctrinal insights, historical context, and practical ways to apply gospel principles in everyday conversations. Through this series, we hope to equip readers with faith-promoting resources that encourage thoughtful reflection, respectful dialogue, and a stronger foundation in gospel truths, fostering both personal conviction and meaningful discussions with others.

The post No One Walks Alone  appeared first on FAIR.

Download Print-Friendly Version

About a year ago, I wrote an article titled “Like Eve and Mary: The Story of Motherhood.” It explored the archetypal relationship between mothers and God. The response was generous and encouraging—but one question kept returning: What is the story of fatherhood?

I was determined to discover the answer. Yet it did not come to me as clearly as the Story of Motherhood had. Oddly, I found it difficult to locate direct communication between God and men in the Bible. Much of what we learn is conveyed through narrative rather than dialogue. Even in places where one might expect patriarchal communication—such as the prophetic era of Isaac—scriptures focus more on Rebekah. The Story of Fatherhood did not seem to announce itself as naturally or visibly as the Story of Motherhood.

Then it became obvious to me.

At least for me, one profound way of reading scripture had come into view: The Bible from beginning to end tells the story of fatherhood. 

Strikingly, the defining moments of that relationship are not spoken. They are not marked by what the Father says, but rather by what He does not say.

In fact, the Story of Fatherhood is told, in some of its most piercing moments, through the Father’s silence.

The first such moment unfolds in the Garden of Gethsemane, on the night before the crucifixion. Christ, crushed beneath the weight of the world’s suffering, cries out: “Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me…” The second is similar. While on the cross, He gives voice to another agonizing plea: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

In both moments, Heaven is silent.

That silence—that salvific silence—is not abandonment. Our calling is not to withhold ourselves from our children, but to remain present, while accepting the real cost of loving them well. Silence, in these moments, does not equate to absence. It is restraint. It is submission. It is love that refuses the immediate in pursuit of the eternal.

As Christians, we rightly speak often of the sacrifice of the Son. Far less do we dwell on the sacrifice of the Father. What must it have been like for Him to hear the cries of His perfect Son and do nothing? This silence is not evidence of cruelty, distance, or apathy. It is evidence of love: a love so grand and pure, one willing to forgo the rescue of one in order to secure the redemption of many.

The Father certainly desired to let that cup pass—or so I can only imagine—but He chose not to. Why? Because the salvation of His children hung in the balance. Few have captured the cost of that choice more vividly and more strikingly than Elder Melvin J. Ballard, a mid-century apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

In that hour I think I can see our dear Father behind the veil looking upon these dying struggles until even He could not endure it any longer; and, like the mother who bids farewell to her dying child, has to be taken out of the room so as not to look upon the last struggles, so He bowed His head and hid in some part of His universe, His great heart almost breaking for the love that He had for His Son. Oh, in that moment when He might have saved His Son, I thank Him and praise Him that He did not fail us, for He had not only the love of His Son in mind, but He also had love for us. I rejoice that He did not interfere, and that His love for us made it possible for Him to endure to look upon the sufferings of His Son and give Him finally to us, our Savior and our Redeemer. Without Him, without His sacrifice, we would have remained, and we would never have come glorified into His presence. And so this is what it cost, in part, for our Father in Heaven to give the gift of His Son unto men.

“For God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son.” We read those words often, yet too rarely with any appreciation for the gravity of what was given—or what it cost the Father to give it.

While this vastly oversimplifies, if the Story of Motherhood is one of celestial submission, then the Story of Fatherhood is one of celestial sacrifice.

What, then, are fathers asked to sacrifice?

The word sacrifice comes from the Latin sacer (sacred) and facere (to make): to make sacred. In its holiest form, sacrifice is the laying down of one’s life for another, as Christ did for us. Few of us will ever be asked to do that. Many of us, I would think, would be willing if we were.

I am a father. I would die for my children and for my wife.

But is that what is being asked of me?

There is a song by The Hunts titled “Please Let It Go,” in which one line confesses, “I was willing to die but I wouldn’t kneel.” Those lyrics haunt me, cut me to my core, each time I hear them. They are painfully true. I am willing to die—but am I willing to surrender my temper when it wounds the ones who matter the absolute most to me? I am willing to die—but am I willing to give up my vices for the sake of my marriage? I am willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, pay the ultimate price, as some would put it. But does that mean anything when I hesitate to make the necessary one today?

I have spent my entire professional career working with men who have been incarcerated. There is one central theme I see repeatedly: father wounds. Again and again, I meet men who grew up without the steady sacrifice children need from their fathers. Luckily, I did not grow up that way. 

I had a father who was willing to sacrifice.

I saw it most clearly the day my father was going through his deepest, darkest moment. In the midst of awaiting news that would change his life forever, I saw him writing. He was writing letters—to me and my siblings. In the moment his future hung in the balance, he was thinking only of ours. In the letter to me, he wrote:

Son, please don’t let all this mess drag you down… We have the gospel, priesthood, and Spirit in our home. In the big picture of things, we both know this stuff just doesn’t matter. What does matter? Your relationship with your Father in Heaven. Your relationship with Jesus Christ. Your relationship with your family. Does anything else really matter?

I am a father now. I have two wonderful children. I am writing my own Story of Fatherhood, and I can only hope I am doing it well.

About a year ago, my wife, my children, and I were at the lake with some friends. Lost in conversation, my wife and I unfortunately failed to watch our children as closely as we should have. I noticed my six-year-old son drifting farther from shore. He could swim—but not well enough for where he was headed.

Not wanting to overreact, I watched.

Too long.

Then he began to struggle. He went under. When his head broke the surface again, a single word rang across the water—one I will never forget.

“DADA!”

I was far away, but already running. I hit the sand, dove into the murky water, and searched blindly, prayer pounding in my chest. I reached where I had last seen him.

Nothing.

Then I saw small hands grabbing at a nearby paddleboard. I grabbed the hands and pulled with everything I had left. My son was in my arms—but my work was not yet finished. I kicked to shore, lifted him over my arm, and smacked his back until he coughed and was breathing again.

I looked at my son, and he met my gaze with tear-filled eyes. He whispered, “Dada, why did you leave me?”

I could not answer. I just held him.

“I never left,” I finally said through tears. “I was watching the whole time. I am so sorry I could not get there sooner.”

I am not a perfect father. But there is one thing I do know: there is nothing—no, nothing—that would have kept me from reaching my son that day.

And that knowledge always leaves me wondering.

How did the Father—perfect in all His being—show such restraint when His own Son, suffering, cried out, “Abba,” “Papa,” or even, “Dada?”

The post The Story of Fatherhood appeared first on Public Square Magazine.