One of my favorite lines of fiction comes from Orson Scott Card’s “Rachel & Leah.” There’s a woman who criticizes and puts others down, saying they need to “face the truth” in order to grow. Another, wiser character responds that “the truth is beautiful. Only ugly people make it harsh and unkind.”
Read more VP Vance says Republicans will accept midterm results even if SAVE America Act isn’t passed
This quote highlights something I’ve realized amid the recent emphasis on kindness and civility by leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: When we are harsh and unkind, we may conceal more truth than we defend.
Over the last few years, senior church leaders have repeatedly counseled members to be peacemakers. Peacemaking has become a specialized phrase within the Latter-day Saint community — generally understood as an approach to disagreement that values understanding and reconciliation to others more than prevailing over them. In 2023, then-President Russell Nelson urged members of the church to reject “confrontation” in favor of “reconciliation.”
“Now is the time to cease insisting that it is your way or no way,” he taught.
President Dallin H. Oaks echoed this message in his most recent general conference address: “Many current writers characterize the time in which we live as toxic, a time of contempt or hostility toward adversaries. This hostility affects many different relationships in society, involving many whose Christian beliefs should orient them otherwise.”
President Nelson and President Oaks have both also said that peacemaking does not require us to abandon our principles. “This does not mean surrendering our values,” President Oaks taught last April. “The covenants we have made inevitably position us as devoted participants in the eternal contest between truth and error.”
A lot of us are tired of being combatants in the culture war and want to engage in productive ways. But it can be difficult to know how to have a peacemaking focus while not simply “surrendering our values.”
It’s clear that peacemaking cannot be construed as simply splitting the difference on contested issues or allowing everyone to live their own truth. If the pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that none of us is an island. We can’t opt out of the policies others enact or the consequences of the decisions they make.
For Latter-day Saints, there is an additional cost to allowing detractors to go unanswered. We occasionally enjoy a moment where our cultural reach seems big enough to feel relevant to the broader population, but the truth is that church members are a tiny fraction of the countries they live in.
When news outlets, media personalities or content creators represent our history, beliefs or practices as contemptible, it doesn’t just undermine faith within our own community; it damages an already precarious public opinion of us. These losses in the court of public opinion have the potential to become losses in other arenas, like literal courts. When contempt for Latter-day Saints is culturally sanctioned, even violence against us will seem less unreasonable.
Although Christian teaching about “turning the other cheek” and “praying for enemies” is crystal clear, there’s less formal counsel about engaging directly with our persecutors.
Obviously, it’s possible to defend the church without being contentious, and there are many who do this well. But the consistent directive to make peace seems to be about more than behaving ourselves when we respond to critics or adversaries.
My own attempts to be a better peacemaker have convinced me that hostility and contempt undermine the truth and our ability to convince others of it.
Read more A new federal rule would let states manage threatened grizzly bears
In the first place, there are worse things in life than allowing our adversaries to have the last word, and that’s becoming like them in our personal attributes.
To borrow from an Old Testament story, if the world is again being flooded, only this time with contempt and rage, then meeting it with our own hostility is just going to drown everyone faster. The answer to too much water is not more water — it’s to stay afloat. Peacemaking is an invitation to get out of the water and get aboard the ark.
If the truth you model is ugly and hurtful, it will never be persuasive.
Additionally, approaching conflict with kindness and civility does more to defend and promote truth than confrontation ever could. The form which our advocacy of truth takes reveals as much about that truth as the content of our message — something restoration scripture teaches plainly, in asking whether an individual shares truth “by the Spirit of truth or some other way?” then answering: “And if it be by some other way it is not of God.”
To illustrate, my religion teaches that all people are children of God, and that God loves them profoundly. When I seek to promote what I believe is right or true through harshness, hostility or ridicule, the implicit claim I’m making is that being wrong makes you less worthy of love and respect. If the way I conduct myself doesn’t help convey to someone that they are a deeply loved child of God, then I may be concealing from them truths about who they are and how God feels about them.
Returning to the beginning quote: If the truth you model is ugly and hurtful, it will never be persuasive. Brookings fellow Jonathan Rauch wrote for the Deseret News and called peacemaking our “civic theology.” Rauch argues that “you can obtain more of what you need through patience, negotiation and mutual accommodation than by rioting in the Capitol …”
He also rejects the idea that this requires going halfsies on every issue. “While it can sometimes be mere difference-splitting, compromise is more often a creative, generative, prosocial endeavor in its own right … The result is often better than what anyone started with.”
Similarly, Elder Robert M. Daines, a General Authority Seventy of the Church of Jesus Christ, recently argued that being “a good peacemaker” would protect religious freedom better than being a good litigator. “The legal protection of religious liberty depends, in the long run, on whether religious communities actually live up to the ideals and religious principles they ask the law to protect.”
He subsequently urged religious adherents, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim or Buddhist, to “not be a jerk” in order to draw public support for religious legal protections.
The idea being put forward by Rauch and Elder Daines is not to ignore attacks on the things we believe to be right and true, nor is it that we should be kind merely to be persuasive.
Instead, they’re each collapsing the dichotomy between speaking truth and making peace. If we wield truth like a weapon, people will be somewhat justified in wondering whether we actually know the truth, rejecting our message from their own deeper sense that the truth isn’t cruel.
If, on the other hand, the truths we claim for ourselves and others are beautiful and good, we might need to make sure it shows up in our messaging.
Read more O’Leary’s China conspiracy claims spark federal defamation case in Utah