We recently sat down with Professor George to talk about what Fidelity Month is all about. This interview has been edited for length and clarity, and Professor George has approved the edits.

Public Square Magazine: For readers who may not be familiar with Fidelity Month, what is it and how did it start?

Robert George: Back in the spring of 2023, I happened to read a report in the Wall Street Journal. It included polling data showing that the belief of Americans in certain core values—values that had traditionally been sources of unity and strength for Americans—had very considerably diminished over the past decade or decade and a half. I’m talking about values such as religion, family, and patriotism. And these values have indeed been sources of our unity and strength in the United States of America because we are not a nation who can look to a common racial heritage or ethnic heritage, or even a common religious tradition or cultural heritage for our unity and strength. We Americans come from many, many different racial and ethnic backgrounds. We come from different traditions of faith. Our cultural histories are very different. So what do we have in common? What binds us together? Especially when times get tough—what are our sources of unity and strength?

Historically, they’ve been a shared commitment to the principles of our civic order, the principles of our Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. But also, very critically, they’ve been a shared belief in the importance of fidelity to God. Whether we’re Jewish or Christian, whether we’re Protestant or Catholic, Orthodox, LDS, we share, at least historically have shared, a commitment to the idea that there is a superintending deity: a God who creates us, indeed creates us equal, and endows us with certain unalienable rights. These rights don’t come from government; they don’t come from kings or parliaments or presidents or congresses; they come from a more than merely human source. And therefore, no merely human authority can legitimately violate those rights or take them away. So we’ve had that in common historically.

In fact, the polling showed that one value had increased in importance in the minds of Americans, and that was money. Religion went down, family went down, country went down, but the belief in the importance of money went up. Now, I’m all for people being prosperous. I want everybody to be financially secure. I want people to have enough money to take care of themselves and their families, and have a few luxuries, and all that. But money, as important as it is, is not on the same scale of importance with God, family, and country.

So, I really was concerned. And I thought, “How can we go about the business of reviving and restoring our fellow citizens’ commitment to the principles that once were the sources of our unity and strength that once bound us together?” How do we rebuild faith in God, a deeper commitment to spouses and families, a sense of the importance of patriotism and love of country? So, I said, initially to myself, well, we have a day for this, and a week for that, and a month for the other thing. How about having a month that’s dedicated to fidelity? To fidelity to God, fidelity to spouses and families, and fidelity to our country and communities.

And so I did what you do these days. I went online. I went to my Facebook account and my Twitter account, and I announced: “By the power vested in me by absolutely no one, henceforth the month of June will be Fidelity Month.” And that’s how it all began. And then, fortunately, people read the social media posts, and a number of people said, this is a great idea. We want to get behind this. And the next thing you know, we had Fidelity Month up and going. It’s entirely a grassroots movement. It’s not a top-down directed thing. There’s no budget, there’s no staff, there’s no administrative structure, there’s no president. I guess I’m the founder, since it was my idea, and I floated it on social media, but there’s no official structure for Fidelity Month. But it’s grown as a grassroots movement.

And I was really delighted, that for this month, for June of 2026, the governors of both Utah and Arkansas have proclaimed, officially, their states’ recognition of Fidelity Month, as has Michigan’s House of Representatives. So, it’s a growing movement.

PSM: This seems to be catching on. Why are people interested in this idea?

Robert George: Because at the end of the day, there are some things that money can’t buy. And there are some things that are more important than money. That’s not to deprecate the importance of material things. As I say, I really do want everyone to prosper financially. I want everyone to have a materially good life. But that’s a secondary consideration, or should be a secondary consideration. And I think even if things have gotten a bit out of whack, and people are tending to value material things over the more-than-merely-material things, people feel the want or the need for something greater, something beyond ourselves, something beyond the material.

And that’s when faith in God, the importance of fidelity to the family, the importance of patriotism and love of country and community come to the fore. Of course, people sometimes just need reminding. There’s an old saying that people more often need reminding than instruction. And I think that’s true in this case. People know in their hearts that there are some things that money can’t buy, there are some things that are more important than the material things of life, and they have a pretty good idea of what those things are. But sometimes, folks need to be reminded. So Fidelity Month is a reminder for all of us.

PSM: For you, is there an important distinction between “fidelity” and related concepts like “commitment” or “loyalty”? Was it important for you for this to be Fidelity Month?

Robert George: Well, there are certainly related concepts that are very important, and that are aspects of fidelity in some cases, but I think the term fidelity is the right term. What we need to revive is faith. Now, part of that is what we usually mean by faith, namely, faith in God. But we also need greater (and richer) fidelity in marriage and in the family. And we also need a revival of patriotism—fidelity to our country and communities. Being faithful involves being grateful—and that is another related concept. We’re faithful when we’re grateful. And fidelity does require gratitude, and gratitude does prompt fidelity, or reinforces fidelity. We should be grateful to live in this country, where we have, by the standards of history and cultures, an almost unique measure of liberty, opportunity, and security. Most people, in most places, at most times, would give their right arm for the opportunity to live in a place like the United States of America. And we don’t often appreciate enough what our country makes available to us and makes possible for us. Therefore, sometimes we’re not grateful; but we should be.

PSM: I think many people can easily get on board with the idea of fidelity to God and fidelity to family, but fidelity to country might be harder for some people. When many people hear patriotism, they immediately link it to nationalism. Could you walk us through how you think about patriotism?

Robert George: When some people hear the word “patriotism,” what they think is being evoked is a kind of chauvinism. But patriotism is not that. Patriotism is not thinking, because I’m an American, I’m better than you because you’re Japanese, or Indonesian, or French, or whatever. Even the concept of American exceptionalism, which I think is an important concept that I’ll talk about in a minute, is not a matter of beating on our chests and saying how wonderful we are and how much better we are than other people. That’s not it at all. Patriotism is simply a matter of being grateful and therefore being loyal. In other words, faithful to the country.

And patriotism itself is concern for one’s community—recognizing that one is not an island or an atomistic individual. So that’s the respect in which America is an exceptional place. No, it’s not that other people don’t believe in God, or think the family is very important, or believe in patriotism. People, wherever they are, should love their country for the gifts that their country gives them and makes available to them. They might not love their regime, they might not love their government. But patriotism is not love of your government. And it does not require us to adopt the position, “my government right or wrong.” Patriotism is love of one’s country.

Now, for those of us who are religious believers, certainly for those of us who are Christians, we recognize that love of country is secondary. Our first loyalty is to God. And our second loyalty is to our family. But to recognize that our first loyalty is to God and our second loyalty is our family is in no way to suggest that we don’t also need to be grateful to, and loyal to, our country and our community. It’s true that love of country can go haywire. And the nation can become an idol. But anything can become an idol. Anything can replace God. We have to be careful of that, no matter what the other thing is. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t properly contribute to, believe in, uphold, and be loyal to our country and our family.

PSM: I’m curious what threats you see to fidelity both in culture and in the ways that laws are changing. Where are these threats coming from, in your view?

Robert George: There are plenty of threats; there are always plenty of threats. As I said, anything can become an idol. The human condition is such that human beings—we frail, fallen, fallible creatures—are always vulnerable to the temptation to put something in God’s place, to put something first above God. Those of us who are Christians, of course, believe that there is nothing that comes above God or before God. The trouble is, we can put other things first. We can put money first. We can put fulfilling or satisfying our desires ahead of God—making our desires into idols. We can put fame or celebrity first, replacing God with those idols. Power, wealth, status, all of those things can become idols.

And we today, in 2026, here in the United States and throughout the world, are as vulnerable to those temptations to idol worship as anybody has ever been in the history of the human race. We are as prone to idol worship as were the people who bowed down before stone outcroppings or worshiped golden calves in ancient times. So that’s number one.

Now, what are the threats? Well, the threats are everywhere. Promiscuity. The divorce culture. Everything that came out of the sexual revolution. You can date the sexual revolution in different ways. You know, once you start trying to trace these things back, the next thing you know you’re in the Garden of Eden with the serpent and the apple and Adam and Eve. But certainly in the 1940s Alfred Kinsey’s widely hyped and quite phony and fraudulent so-called sexuality “science” became a kind of justifying theory for breaking traditional norms of sexual morality. And then in the 1950s, we had the mainstreaming of pornography, so-called softcore pornography, beginning with Hugh Hefner’s Playboy magazine and his whole empire. Then the 1960s counterculture normalized promiscuity and made it socially acceptable. With that came the rise in out-of-wedlock childbearing and massive fatherlessness, especially in some of the most vulnerable communities, or sub-communities of our country. And then the sexual revolution continued to the point at which you now have people claiming that being male or female is not an objective biological reality. Instead, it’s said to be a matter of some subjective alleged “gender identity” that you have invisibly somewhere inside you. So, there are very significant threats to the family today.

And then with patriotism and love of country, it’s so easy to fall into thinking, well, my country owes me, or my community owes me, but I owe nothing back. I’m here for them to serve. And I need to just focus on getting everything I can from the common stock or the common pool. And, I don’t have any responsibility to give back, to serve, to do my part, to be a contributing member of the community. And I think, again, we have to fight back and push back against such attitudes. We need to remind people of the importance of being contributors and not just takers.

PSM: I’m curious, if you could have this grassroots movement grow in an ideal fashion, which institutions would be the most important for this to take hold? I know it’s exciting to see some states adopting it, but what about families, religious groups, or other groups? How do we spread it to those who maybe aren’t already inclined toward faithfulness?

Robert George: I like grassroots building. I want this to be a grassroots movement. I don’t want to try to direct everything from the top. So, I’d like to see it begin in the family, with Mom and Dad teaching the kids—not just by precept, but by example too. Precept is important. It’s important for parents and teachers and pastors to preach a little bit, to talk. But even more important is setting an example. So, Mom and Dad, set the example for your children of worshiping God and putting God first. That’s what my parents did for me. It’s the greatest gift they gave to me and my brothers.

Second, parents should model fidelity in their love and concern for each other. And by fidelity, I want to make clear, I mean more than merely avoiding having adulterous affairs. That’s important, obviously. But that’s only the beginning of fidelity, not the whole of fidelity in marriage. The whole of fidelity in marriage means serving your husband or wife. Serving your spouse. That’s why we think of marriage, rightly, as a vocation. Vocation is not a career; vocation is not a job. Vocation is a way of serving, and in marriage, husband serves wife and wife serves husband. Marriage is a way of serving. And of course, husband and wife, as father and mother, serve their children. So, I think it’s important for men and women as husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, to model fidelity in its richest sense in marriage.

Third, parents, again, by precept and example, can model patriotism. They can take their civic responsibilities seriously and thereby encourage and teach their children to take their civic responsibilities seriously. Vote. Contribute to campaigns. Get behind the causes you believe in. Contribute time as well as money to serving the civic interest. Be willing to run for office. It doesn’t have to be President of the United States. How about the local school board? How about the county commission? Or support friends and neighbors who you think would be good office holders in their efforts to be a county commissioner, or a school board member, or mayor, or whatever it is.  I think those are some of the ways, and they all involve teaching by both precept and example. People can begin in the family to promote fidelity.

Then, what’s next? Churches and synagogues and mosques and other houses of worship all over the country should be promoting these values. I would love the churches—all denominations and traditions, because they basically share the same set of principles—I’d love to see them get behind Fidelity Month, recognize Fidelity Month. The pastor should preach a sermon about fidelity at least once during the month. Preach on fidelity. Maybe you could do three Fidelity Month sermons: One on faithfulness to God, one on faithfulness in marriage, one on patriotism and love of country, and why that’s legitimate and not idolatrous, unless you go about it in an idolatrous way.

And remember, this is all about reminding people of what they already know. We’re not teaching something new. This is not some new ideology. It’s not some new philosophy, it’s not some new theory. It’s just reminding people that there are some things that really matter, that ultimately matter.

You know, I sometimes say to my students, and to my kids (and to myself, to be honest with you) that there are some things that matter, but at the end of the day, not all that much. And then there are other things that really matter. So, what are the things that matter, but at the end of the day, not all that much? Things like wealth, power, influence, status, prestige, celebrity. Those aren’t bad things. It’s not bad to want those things. In fact, they can be good things because you can use them for good. You can use money for lots of good things. You can use power, if you have it, in a good way, for good things, to do good things. You can use influence for good. You can use celebrity for good.

But those things, though they matter, are not, at the end of the day the things that really matter, because things like wealth, power, status, influence, prestige, and celebrity are not ends in themselves. They’re not things that we want just for their own sake. They’re things that are means to other ends, and they have their value only as means to other ends. And they need to be contrasted with the things that really matter, the things that are not mere means to other ends but are desirable for their own sakes—things like faith, family, friendship, knowledge, beauty, integrity, honesty, decency, and compassion. Those are the things we want, not just as extrinsic instruments to get something else that they will make it possible for us to obtain or attain. They are the things you want for their own sakes. They are the things that really matter. They’re the things that ultimately matter.

David Brooks has a good way of illustrating the difference. He asks, what do you want on your tombstone someday? We all have just a short period of time on this earth. If you live 100 years, that’s a really old age, but it’s a blink of an eye in the history of the cosmos. What do you want on your tombstone for whatever number of years you have? Do you want it to say something like, Summa Cum Laude, Princeton? Goldman Sachs partner? No. What you want is something like “faithful husband, loving father and grandfather, loyal friend.” From the perspective of death, we can see more clearly the difference between the things that really matter, such as family, friendship, faith, knowledge, beauty, integrity, from the things that matter but not all that much.

PSM: Are there other ways that people can get involved if they are interested in doing more?

Robert George: Yes. I’d like everybody to go to the Fidelity Month website, www.fidelitymonth.com, because there at the website, you’ll be able to see what you personally can do to be part of this grassroots movement. There aren’t going be people upstairs who are doing stuff. Everything about Fidelity Month is grassroots, so if you go to the website, you can see what you can do to promote Fidelity Month.

Number one, you can say the Fidelity Month Prayer, which is a prayer that people in all traditions of faith can, in good conscience, say to ask God’s blessing on us, that we may be truly faithful to Him, faithful to our spouses and families, loyal and faithful to our country. Number two, you’ll be able to access the Fidelity Month logo for free. Use it for the month of June for your social media accounts. Use it on Facebook, or Twitter, or Instagram, or whatever social media accounts you have. Number three, it has suggestions about what you can do in your local community, like hosting a speaker for Fidelity Month, maybe at your church, maybe at your community center, or having a panel discussion. You can also go to the merch section of the website, and you can buy at cost (we don’t make any money on it, it’s just sold at cost) the Fidelity Month flag, or a Fidelity Month cap or tee-shirt. Those things help to get the message out. People see the cap, they see the shirt, they see the flag, and they ask, hey, what’s that about? And boy, there’s your opportunity to witness to the importance of fidelity. And there are many other suggestions about how just everyday people, just ordinary folks, in every walk of life, from every tradition of faith, with every background, can spread the word about fidelity and be part of this movement to remind people about the things that really matter.

The post Robert P. George on Fidelity Month appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

The story of Queen Esther focuses on a terrifying extermination order in Ancient Persia to eliminate the Jewish population—and a high-stakes marital challenge. Queen Esther, a Jew, was married to the Persian King Ahasuerus (also known as Xerxes). The king had permitted his highest-ranking official, Haman, to pass the extermination order without knowing its consequences to the Jewish people—or the Jewish identity of his own wife. 

Esther’s uncle, Mordecai, urged Esther to approach the king to plead for her people’s lives. But Persian law dictated that anyone who approached the king in his inner court without being specifically summoned would be put to death. The only exception was if the king extended his golden scepter to spare the person’s life.

Faced with the threat of her people’s destruction, Esther called her community to fast and pray before she approached the king:

Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish.

Esther then stepped forward with courage to do what was right despite immense danger. 

She expressed her strength not only inwardly, but in an outward act of faith. Through her religious actions and the united actions of her faith community, she successfully persuaded her husband, the king, to spare her people—and her own life. 

Esther’s inspiring story is retold once a year in the Jewish community, and her courageous spirit lives on in the daily lives of highly religious women. For highly religious women, Esther is not just a historical figure but a functional model for navigating challenging situations, including in the home. In this article, we will discuss the findings from a recent study we conducted about the religious actions that women of faith, like Esther, take to overcome their marital challenges and hardships.

Belief in God Leads to External Resources That Strengthen Marriage

Esther’s unwavering faith in God gave her the strength to face the king, even if it meant she might die. In our study, while the lives of believers were not on the line, family happiness was. We found a recurring theme of what religious women do to call down the power of God into their family life. Gwen, an African American Christian, called it the “big three” and said this:

If you are doing the big three: prayer, being in the word, and fellowshipping with those of like faith then it helps you, and you can encourage other people when they do see that you’re still happy in your marriage after umpteen years.

So how do prayer, scripture, and fellowshipping contribute to happy marriages and families? We turn now to insights from our study participants.

Prayer

Our study participants commonly expressed a connection between their relationship with God and the way they chose to act in their marriages and families. They reported that they built strong bonds with God through prayer. Anne, a Catholic, said:

My faith has had its ups and downs. During the lowest downs where I’ve really been kind of far from God, I haven’t been a very good wife, and I haven’t been a very good mother. But when I’ve come back to God and been closer and been more faithful and more active in my own personal prayer life, then I’ve been better: a nicer person and a better wife and a better mother. So, they just, they’re totally hand in hand. I can’t really separate prayer and my family relationships.

Not only did prayer help participants improve their relationships, but it also fostered spiritual and personal growth. Alyshia, an African American Christian, offered this:

Having a solid relationship with the Lord … He will tell you when you are out of line. The Lord will change you and say, ‘Look at thy selfishness; … and then we can see a little more clearly. Definitely, a solid relationship with God helps with my marriage and family relationships.

In addition, husbands and wives used prayer as a means of resolving disagreements. Yui, a Chinese Christian, said, “When we had some disagreements, we prayed together, confessed our sins before God, and learned to forgive each other.” For many of the women we interviewed, prayer was not merely a religious practice—it involved a sacred connection to get closer to God and closer to family.

Scripture Study

Reading sacred texts or scriptures emerged as another key resource for the women we interviewed. Moriah, a Jewish wife, said that reading the Torah brought her and her spouse closer together:

So often you just stop talking. You don’t communicate, and so I think when we read Torah together, which we really try to do pretty often, it does create conversation and more understanding, and I think certainly that reduces conflict. It prevents conflict. It also helps remedy conflict once it’s there.

Cassandra, an African American Christian wife, also commented:

I get all of my inspiration and all of my guidance from the Bible. That’s how I learned how to treat others. How to treat people and how to be in my marriage with my relationship with my husband. And that is what puts things in priority, in order. That’s where I get it from. And when I make decisions, I always say, ‘I don’t make decisions just based on what I think. It’s coming from scripture.’ It’s gonna be scripture-based or it’s gonna be something on that ground.

Not only did scripture study reportedly influence couple communication and personal decision-making, but it also enhanced participants’ relationships with both God and with their spouse—reflecting similar benefits to prayer. Mercy, a Baptist wife, relayed this about God’s word:

When two people are married, what’s wrong in you really influences the other person. But for me, I find the only way that I grow very effectively is through God’s touch in my life. So I study in scripture and learn more about who God is and what His heart is for our relationship, for His world that He’s made. It helps me to be able to grow myself so that I can better apply what I learn into my relationships.

Participating in a Faith Community

Just as Esther drew support from her uncle and the Jewish community, the women we interviewed drew vital support from their faith communities. Emily, a Baptist wife and mother, highlighted how her congregation gave her needed support:

So, faith helps me because I realize that there is a different way to do [life]. And I can actually learn how to do it differently, with other people who are also learning too. Some people I know are much further along, and I can learn from them. And I find that I can actually share experiences with other people that help them. I think being in a faith community is helpful that way, because we realize that we’re not alone.

Sometimes I’ll go to Bible study and I’ll realize: ‘Boy, the kinds of things that my husband Michael and I maybe are facing or dealing with are nothing compared to what someone else might be experiencing.’ Or I can learn from other people and bring it back into our marriage and say: ‘Hey, this is something somebody shared with me; and what do you think?’ So it’s a dynamic thing. There’s all these relationships that affect us and we have those relationships because we have the same faith.

Similarly, Noor, an Arab American Muslim wife and mother, commented on how her masjid (mosque) and its faith-based classes have offered her direction in her marriage:

Basically, I need to learn more about Islam to strengthen our marriage, even make it stronger. I think that by getting more in depth in Islam, which I’m trying to do now, I’m going to classes and everything. So, it’s helping me understand a lot more; and I think that it makes me understand more my role in our marriage and how I’m supposed to act.

Many of these women of faith drew marital support from their faith communities.  These supportive relationships were often so strong that many women referred to “sisters” and “brothers” in their “church family” who had helped their marriages to grow spiritually, temporally, and relationally. Many of the women of faith emphasized that growing alongside others helped them navigate their marriages and parenting with greater wisdom and perspective than they would have found on their own.

A Legacy of Courage

Our study participants’ words echo the legacy of Esther: courage is born not only from within, but from a life rooted in faith and the relationships it enriches. Like Esther, these women found strength not in their circumstances but in their devotion to God and in the support of a covenant community. 

By turning to the “big three” of prayer, studying sacred texts, and engaging in marriage-strengthening fellowship with others, their faith shaped how they navigated marital hardship in myriad ways. The sacred practices of these women did more than comfort them; these relational efforts empowered them. Prayer, study, and covenant community worked together to foster clarity, compassion, and resilience in the face of difficulties and challenges in family life. Ultimately, the perspective of these women was that active faith in God can help provide not only a set of coping tools, but a deeper sense of strength, purpose, and connection within their marriages.

The post Women of Faith, Action, and Power appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

When I was a teenager, I competed in a track meet and made it to the finals. Events ran later than anticipated and my dad, who was serving as a bishop, had interviews scheduled for that evening. He went searching for a pay phone, but couldn’t get hold of everyone he needed to, so he called a family that lived close to the church and asked them to tape a note on the door explaining his absence. 

This is a small story, and one that loses some of its impact in the age of cell phones, but it was significant to me as a fifteen-year-old. My dad was very conscientious in his church work, but he had cancelled interviews to see me run. This incident spoke to my teenage heart, and it has continued to inform me through the years. 

Something struck me recently, though. I didn’t know the details of this story from my dad. It was my mom who later told me of the missed interviews. Mom was the narrator of much of what occurred in our home, and this was just one example of many. It was Mom’s voice that often provided the tone of the plot points in our family story. She was an optimistic narrator who expressed reverence for the characters involved even when addressing complexity.  

Much gets said about women’s emotional labor on social media. It’s argued that mothers carry the burden of the emotional needs of the family. As I look back on my parents’ marriage, I recognize that my more talkative mom did carry the responsibility of being the communication hub in our family, and by extension much of the emotional climate as well. But was it a burden for her? I hadn’t sensed that and she was a strong, confident woman who shared her thoughts. 

My dad was a reserved man, and he didn’t talk as much as my mom. This difference in my parents’ personalities underscored to me that the way in which a wife approaches her husband’s strengths and weaknesses has a profound effect on a family. The healthy dialogue my mom encouraged invited a synergy of their strengths.

In 2006, Elder James E. Faust counseled:

There are some voices in our society who would demean some of the attributes of masculinity. A few of these are women who mistakenly believe that they build their own feminine causes by tearing down the image of manhood. This has serious social overtones because a primary problem in the insecurity of sons and daughters can be the diminution of the role of the father image.

Let every mother understand that if she does anything to diminish her children’s father or the father’s image in the eyes of the children, it may injure and do irreparable damage to the self-worth and personal security of the children themselves. How infinitely more productive and satisfying it is for a woman to build up her husband rather than tear him down.

The dialogue in our homes affects all family members and we are shaped by the conversations we are exposed to and participate in. The Canadian philosopher, Ralph Heintzman, describes how each of us is born into an ongoing conversation that began before our birth and will continue after our death. It is in a conversational context that “we develop our sense of ourselves and of the world…and it is by joining the conversation that we become who we are.” 

But, Heintzman warns, we aren’t just individuals. We need to “give a full account of humanity…which reflects our necessary involvement in a greater whole.” Heintzman argues for language that addresses the relational nature of what it means to be human and provides balance for the language of self-assertion. The name that he gives to this is a “language of reverence.” He describes reverence as conveying “a human attitude of respect and deference for something larger or higher in priority than our own individual selves; something that commands our admiration and our loyalty, and may imply obligations or duties on our part.” “The virtues of self-assertion and the virtues of reverence are the two sides of the human paradox.” 

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ, we are often taught in ways that remind us of the virtues of reverence, but we are immersed in a culture that speaks the language of self-assertion. Sometimes we are tempted to look at the gospel primarily through the self-asserted lens and as a result, we distort prophetic counsel or push against it. This is particularly true of teachings about the relationship between men and women because the virtues of reverence are so necessary for bringing feminine and masculine strength together. When focusing only on the self, without the tempering virtues of reverence, men use their strength against women to get what they want, as I’ve written about previously, and women weaponize their innate abilities to gain leverage over men. The results are a tragic loss of potential and some of the greatest human suffering. As Elder Neal A. Maxwell taught, “In the work of the Kingdom, men and women are not without each other, but do not envy each other, lest by reversals and renunciations of role we make a wasteland of both womanhood and manhood.” 

I feel very secure as a woman. I know that women are recognized, valued and loved by the Lord. I feel confident that this is truth…I also recognize that this regard for womanhood that is held by the Lord is the model for all who seek to be like Him…for those who are His disciples… and for those who bear His priesthood and act in His name. I appreciate the noble men of the church for the many responsibilities that they shoulder; for the service and respect that they give to women.

Mom had a confident voice full of reverence, and she used it to strengthen relationships. There were distinct themes in Mom’s life, and an appreciation for how men and women complement one another, both in the family and in church service, was one of them. 

All those years ago on that track field, she had wanted me to know that Dad had cancelled his appointments to see me run, so I would understand how much he loved me. I’m so grateful for that.

The post The Reverent Conversation Between Men and Women appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Although the two groups share historical roots dating back to early Latter-day Saint history, they are not at all the same. The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was formed by former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who were excommunicated for their continued practice of polygamy. The two churches have developed in significantly different directions. 

The Church of Jesus Christ is approaching 18 million members, with members living in approximately 150 countries. FLDS members mostly live in isolated communities in Utah, Arizona, Texas, and British Columbia. FLDS membership estimates are limited, though Reuters reported approximately 7,500 in 2007. Many members have abandoned the FLDS communities since the faith’s leader was imprisoned in 2011.

Despite the stark differences between the two faith groups, mainstream media continues to portray the FLDS members as part of “Mormonism” generally, perpetuating confusion and deeply inaccurate stereotypes about members of The Church of Jesus Christ. 

One of the most visible distinctions between the groups is the practice of plural marriage. The FLDS Church continues to teach and practice polygamy as a religious requirement. In contrast, The Church of Jesus Christ officially discontinued the practice of plural marriage in 1890 and strictly prohibits it today. Yet because of the way the two groups are sometimes portrayed and conflated by media, many people erroneously think members of The Church of Jesus Christ practice polygamy.

The two groups also differ in leadership structure and governance. The FLDS Church has historically been associated with a highly centralized leadership model in which a single individual holds extensive authority over members’ lives. The Church of Jesus Christ, in contrast, is governed by a First Presidency and a Quorum of the Twelve Apostles within a structured, global ecclesiastical organization. 

Differences are also evident in marriage practices and engagement with broader society. The FLDS Church and its members have been the subject of public reporting and legal cases involving coercive and underage marriages, as well as patterns of isolation from broader civic and educational systems. By contrast, The Church of Jesus Christ requires legal, consenting adult marriage and explicitly condemns abuse in all its forms. It also encourages education, civic participation, and active engagement with the wider world.

The experiences and allegations associated with the FLDS Church, as portrayed in recent media, do not reflect the doctrines, governance, or practices of The Church of Jesus Christ today. Clear distinctions between religious groups are essential for accurate public understanding, particularly when sensitive or serious topics are being discussed.

The post Trust Me, They’re Not the Same appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

If the first article mapped the terrain of vulnerability, the second this part turns to the work of building protection.

What would it look like to respond proportionately to what the evidence actually shows? If certain patterns repeatedly increase vulnerability, then their opposites ought to must become deliberate priorities. In this section, I outline practical steps—grounded in the research reviewed previously above—that families, faith communities, and civic institutions can take to reduce risk and expand real protection for women and children.

The protection of healthy, genuine faith

In part one, I outlined ways that limited religious community and faith commitment can increase the risk of sexual violence against women. The opposite is also true, with religious affiliation, identification and participation often protective against sexual violence according to studies in various countries. For instance:

• A family’s “affiliation with Christian religious denominations” is “associated with lower risk of physical and sexual violence” in India (Kimuna, et al., 2013). 
• Being a Muslim was “protective from any type” of intimate partner violence” including “sexual and emotional” in the Ivory Coast (Peltzer & Pengpid, 2014). 
• The latter finding is mirrored in an earlier study finding Muslim religion protective against intimate partner violence in six African countries (Alio, et al., 2010).

Beyond affiliation alone, regular church attendance was specifically protective against victimization as well (Lown & Vega, 2001; O’Connor, et al., 2023). Respondents with higher levels of religious involvement in different studies were less likely to report intimate partner victimization (Zavala & Muniz, 2020) -with the latter U.S. research team noting this finding was “consistent with prior studies looking at the relationship between religious beliefs and intimate partner violence.” For instance: 

• “Frequent church attendance” is among the factors “associated with decreased risk of violence” in Filipino homes according to Fehringer & Hindin, 2009—who report “less male perpetration if mothers attended church more often”—in line with other findings, as they say “other research supports a protective effect of church attendance on partner violence.” 
• The same research team observed in a second article that “regular church attendance by the wife” and “regular church attendance by the husband” were both associated with lower risk of perpetrating violence in a marriage (Ansara & Hindin, 2009).
• Fergusson, et al., 1986 highlighted “church attendance” as a significant factor in the frequency of “wife assault” in New Zealand—with the religious attendance of both fathers and mothers making the perpetration of victimization within their relationship less likely. They specifically found that men and women least likely to commit domestic violence were those who participate in services once a month or more are least -followed by those who attend less than monthly.
• In an analysis of U.S. couples two decades ago, Ellison, et al., 1999 likewise reported that “regular attendance at religious services” made domestic violence perpetration less likely. “Both men and women who attend religious services regularly are less likely to commit acts of domestic violence than persons who attend rarely or not at all,” they observed—noting that for men, it was only when they participated weekly that this effect showed up, while women also had a protective effect with monthly attendance. 

Overall, “religiosity does decrease (intimate partner) victimization” report Ellison, et al., 2007 based on a U.S. survey—adding that “religious involvement, specifically church attendance, protects against domestic violence”—a “protective effect,” which they note, is “stronger for African American men and women and for Hispanic men, groups that, for a variety of reasons, experience elevated risk for this type of violence.”

As reflected above, studies show repeatedly that faith participation can prevent both perpetration and victimization. This seems, in part, due to pro-social teachings, avoidance of risky behavior and a sense of higher purpose and meaning.

Victims often described in studies how leaders and fellow congregants helped them get away from earlier abuse and begin to find healing. This is not always true, of course—with certain attitudes held by people of faith sometimes functioning as a barrier to healing and safety. Indeed, another set of studies point towards less healthy religious attitudes that leave women at greater risk for different kinds of abuse.

Conflicting evidence

Even so, the influence of religion is not as simple as described above—with more nuance to consider. Psychological, physical and sexual violence had a “significant association” with evangelical faith in a Brazilian study—with the authors reporting a “33% increase in intimate partner sexual abuse in life in evangelical women, compared to those who do not belong to this group” (Santos, et al., 2020). 

A set of other studies in Africa have also found families who were Muslim at greater risk of victimization (in Ethiopia Agumasie & Bezatu, 2015; in Kenya Ward & Harlow, et al., 2021; in Nigeria Bolarinwa, et al., 2022; in Malawi Forty, 2022). 

How exactly to interpret these and other seemingly contradictory findings is a critical point, something I explore in-depth in my full report. In simple form, not all religiosity is the same, with religious faith that allows men to dominate women, or which does not place serious emphasis on avoiding alcohol or casual sex, putting women (and children) at risk. 

“Misinterpretation of religious beliefs” was cited in a Pakistani analysis of influences on sexual and other kinds of violence at home, with the authors advocating for “public policy informed by correct interpretation of religion” which they said could prompt “a change in prevailing societal norms.”

In addition, there’s also evidence that sincere, “intrinsic” religious practice and conviction among men and women functions as a more powerful protector against sexual violence and other abuse, while more superficial, “extrinsic” religious conviction simply does not. It seems clear that “weak commitment to religion” could be a factor in victimization within a relationship, Vakili, et al., 2010 notes that a “woman and husband’s weak level of religious commitment” in Iran was “significantly associated with an increase in physical, sexual, and psychological abuse.” 

The authors later said that “strong religious beliefs may be instrumental in reducing the likelihood of intimate partner violence among Iranian families” (Vakili, et al., 2010). In the other direction, deeper and more sincere religious conviction shows promising effects—with “religious intensity” associated in another study with a “lower victimization count” (Sabina, et al., 2013). 

Complex, overlapping patterns of vulnerability

While this broad array of variables involved in increasing (or decreasing) the risk for sexual violence can seem overwhelming, I believe it can be invaluable to know that, broadly speaking, women and men who have experienced significant past abuse, who are under heavy current stress and financial pressures and are experiencing compromised faculties, significant conflict and real isolation, are all at much higher risk of future victimization (and perpetration)—especially if they have little awareness about the extent of the risk. 

By contrast, women and men who have been protected from past abuse, who are not facing current heavy stress or compromised faculties, who don’t have significant conflict or isolation, will all be significantly more protected against future victimization (and perpetration)—especially if they have adequate awareness about the extent of the risk. 

To the degree a woman or man falls on a higher or lower place on any of these spectrums (more past trauma, but lower stress levels today … less conflict, but also greater isolation), their level of risk (and protection) will likewise vary widely. 

In addition, women who are less educated, divorced, addicted (or with partners addicted to alcohol or pornography) are more likely to experience sexual violence—especially if they experience inadequate financial support, limited healthy community commitments, and a dearth of higher meaning and spiritual purpose in life.

Certainly, none of the above factors operates in a vacuum independent of each other—with interlinkages among all ten factors. For instance, people of faith are also more likely to avoid drug/alcohol dependency, experience nurturing social support and be happily married (while also having more children).

But overall, the research makes it clear that perpetrators focus on places where any vulnerability exists. For instance, women of younger age and much older age are both more likely to be victimized, as are those with reduced cognitive or physical capacity due to disability or prior victimization.

Some factors are more changeable than others, obviously. But even those that appear unchangeable (past abuse) have interventions that can prompt healing. On a general level, as reflected above, “a person’s routine and lifestyle influences the level of exposure one has to potential perpetrators and how vulnerable one is as a target,” as Walker, et al., 2020 state. Consequently, “the identification of variables that influence likelihood of (sexual violence) is fundamental for prevention efforts” (Thomas & Kopel, 2023). 

Alignment with other studies

Many of these themes have been identified in other attempts to survey available risk factors, such as a CDC analysis from 2016, which touched on most of the above patterns, but overlooked the potentially protective role of faith and religiosity.

This national and international data also align with demographic data collected locally in Utah, showing higher vulnerability to sexual violence among women who are homeless, with lower socioeconomic status, using drugs or alcohol, in minority groups, younger, or experiencing some kind of physical or mental impairments.

One especially impressive University of Washington literature review from 2017 concluded that the available evidence “reinforces the long-standing notion that sexual aggression is a complex behavior that emerges based on the interplay of multiple risk factors over time.”

“Additionally,” they note “there are likely very different pathways to the development of sexually aggressive behavior. 

As Casey & Masters, 2017 conclude, “This means that preventing sexual aggression before it begins necessitates prioritizing multiple risk factors, and bolstering multiple protective factors across individuals and communities.” 

The only real purpose of such study, of course, is taking better steps to protect women from sexual violence. 

Better data, better prevention

The CDC advocated nearly two decades ago for building a comprehensive ecological model that “offers a framework for understanding the complex interplay of individual, relationship, social, political, cultural, and environmen­tal factors that influence sexual violence” —all of which they note can inform specific intervention and prevention steps.

In an early 2004 exploration of what sexual violence prevention programs should look like, the CDC called for prevention efforts that “work to modify and/or entirely eliminate the events, conditions, situations, or exposure to influences (risk factors) that result in the initiation of sexual violence” and thereby proactively take steps to “prevent sexual violence from initially occurring.” 

Yet a decade later in 2014, CDC researchers admitted (as I cited earlier) “rates of sexual violence remain alarmingly high, and we still know very little about how to prevent it,” going on to describe how most prevention efforts were largely “one dimensional” attempts to change individual attitudes, and little more. 

Kathleen C. Basile, Associate Director for Science in the Division of Violence Prevention, in the Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, told me in an interview with Deseret News, “I would also add that sexual violence, intimate partner violence, all types of violence are preventable, and the way we prevent them, like you alluded to earlier, is to understand the size of the problem and who is impacted, and so the characteristics, like who the perpetrators are, who, what age, it happens, things like that” (italics my own). 

In a 2014 review of strategies to prevent sexual violence perpetration, CDC researchers stated that “the vast majority of preventative interventions evaluated to date have failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of impact on sexual violence perpetration behaviors.”

They went on to call for “an evidence-based, comprehensive, multi-level strategy to combat sexual violence,” suggesting that “addressing a broader range of risk and protective factors for sexual violence may be more likely to be effective.”

Two years later in 2016, the CDC released a prevention resource prevent sexual violence called “STOP SV”—noting that although the evidence for sexual violence prevention is “less developed” than other areas of prevention, “a comprehensive approach with preventive interventions at multiple levels of the social ecological model (i.e., individual, relationship, community, and societal) is critical to having a population level impact on SV.” But they noted that evidence remained “limited and must continuously be built through rigorous evaluation.” 

As CDC researchers summarized in 2016, “Risk for sexual violence perpetration is influenced by a range of factors, including characteristics of the individual and their social and physical environments. These factors interact with one another to increase or decrease risk for SV over time and within specific contexts.” 

CDC researchers also wrote in 2016 that “prevention strategies that address risk and protective factors for sexual violence at the community level are important components of a comprehensive approach,” before lamenting that “few such strategies have been identified or evaluated.” 

Ten life patterns that increase protection 

Our review of these root contributors paints a picture of what deeper strategies of protection would look like. For instance, men who are less educated, financially struggling, addicted, isolated, emotionally unhealthy, promiscuous and spiritually disengaged, are also more likely to perpetrate sexually on vulnerable women.

There’s also protective power in more fully appreciating that women and men who are better off economically, have good educational experiences, and are embedded within both healthy marriages and supportive communities are less vulnerable to sexual violence. This is doubly true if they also avoid substance abuse and habits of risky, casual sexual relations with multiple people, while nourishing a healthy spiritual foundation.

Here are the ten steps that follow from this research broken down: 

• Helping lift families and communities out of poverty
• Expanding educational opportunities for both women and men

• Helping nurture marriages and families that are healthy and happy

• Providing additional support for younger and larger families

• Helping to prevent compulsivity and support addicts in finding freedom

• Encouraging the value of sexually-exclusive marriages and healthy, non-aggressive masculinity

• Fostering deeper healing for mental health challenges

• Helping those who have experienced earlier abuse to work through post-traumatic symptoms

• Expanding robust community connections and durable social support

• Fostering healthy spirituality and religious connection

To see a broader summary of concrete steps, go here for the Deseret News article.  Some of these ten themes are reflected in a 2016 prevention resource released by the CDC called “STOP SV.” This resource highlighted research-based recommendations that include efforts to “provide opportunities to empower and support girls and women, support victims/survivors to lessen harms, create protective environments, teach skills to prevent sexual violence and promote social norms that protect against violence.”

As reflected above, some of the best ways to ensure women remain safe may be to proactively encourage life and community patterns proven to protect against both victimization and perpetration, including:

• Healthy marriages that are cooperative and satisfying, surrounded by layers of trustworthy community support.
• An atmosphere where education is prioritized and there are adequate resources to provide for the financial needs of the family, while helping both men and women avoid drugs and alcohol, delay sexual behavior until marriage, and learn how to control anger and impulses.
• A hopeful environment that nurtures healing from past trauma and current mental health challenges, while ideally also providing a grounding sense of higher purpose and spiritual meaning.

According to the evidence, women embedded in this kind of a context will be significantly less likely to be sexually victimized (or abused in other ways)—compared with those living within chaotic settings with poor education, financial deficits, fraying marriages, spiritual detachment, few healing resources, rampant substance abuse, sexual promiscuity and out of control anger.

Just as any vulnerability can be exploited by perpetrators, any time a vulnerability is shored up and turned into a strength, there is more protection against multiple kinds of abuse. Therefore, if we want to get at the roots of sexual victimization, more focus needs to go towards these kinds of protective life patterns, and additional ways to encourage and promote them.

Special thanks to Laura Whitney, Odessa Taylor, Jacob Orse, and Brigham Powelson for helping to gather and sift through published studies, and to Diana Gourley for helping edit the review. In addition to recent support from Deseret News, the author expresses thanks to Public Square Magazine for initial funding for the project.

The post What Life Patterns Protect Against Sexual Violence? appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Part one in my series on the risks of sexual assault focused on five broad conditions that repeatedly appear in the research about heightened vulnerability to child sexual abuse: fragile economic stability, limited education, the absence of a stable two-parent relationship, low-quality parent-child bonds, and weak community accountability.

In part two, the evidence turns toward a different cluster of factors—patterns that often show up in the lives of victims and perpetrators: significant mental-health struggles, early and risky sexual behavior (including exposure to sexually explicit content), aggression and impulsivity, and drug and alcohol influence.

This article also examines the research on faith and religiosity. The findings are more complex than many people assume. Healthy religious practice functions as a protective layer in a number of studies—often indirectly, by shaping peer networks, substance use, and sexual risk-taking. But religious identity alone is never a guarantee of safety, and faith settings can also be exploited when adults are unaccountable or when communities fear the consequences of transparency.

What follows are five patterns of individual behavioral risks associated with childhood sexual assault—not as moral judgments about families or youth, but as population-level signals that help clarify where prevention and safeguarding can be strongest.

Ongoing, Significant Mental Health Struggles

While you would expect poor mental health in the aftermath of abuse, there’s repeated evidence that young people who struggle with various mental health challenges are also more likely to be victimized sexually, as well as to become perpetrators themselves.

This appears to be largely due to the emotional vulnerabilities associated with high levels of despair, hopelessness, fear, and anger. But it’s also clear that some psychiatric treatments can involve emotional blunting and heightened indifference—making affected youth more likely to be sexually victimized.

There’s also evidence for “drug-induced activation” and manic symptoms in treated youth that can sometimes manifest as excessive hypersexuality and uncharacteristic sexual aggression against other youth.

Where abuse has taken place, it’s especially critical to help young victims receive as much compassionate support as possible to heal from earlier trauma. That’s confirmed by abundant evidence showing that previous abuse of any kind sets up a child for future sexual victimization and perpetration.

Early, Risky, Casual Sexual Behavior

A significant number of studies find that youth who are sexually active at a younger age or who have multiple, casual sexual partners are at heightened risk of being sexually victimized or becoming perpetrators.

Adults who are hyper-sexual are also at greater risk of perpetrating sexual violence against children. This is especially true in the presence of cognitive distortions that justify exploiting children as a legitimate “need” that doesn’t “really harm” the child.

More than 100 studies have likewise linked compulsive pornography use to sexual aggression, coercion and violence against women and children, contrary to industry-friendly messaging that mass consumption of explicit material somehow “reduces” sexual violence.

One 2023 review of 27 studies involving 16,200 young participants in North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa concluded that “significant associations were found between exposure to both violent and nonviolent sexual content” and the likelihood of engaging in “problematic sexual behaviors” (frequently involving force, coercion and aggression).

Aggression, Lack Of Empathy And Impulsivity

Young people who display a marked lack of empathy, along with significant anger and hostility, are more likely to be involved in sexual violence. This is especially true if boys show a behavioral pattern of fighting, conduct disorders, and disciplinary problems at school. Penn State researchers found that “delinquent youth” were “more likely to have favorable attitudes toward the abuse, to initiate the sexual encounter and to experience repeat victimizations.”

Young people who spend time with “delinquent” friends are also more likely to perpetrate sexual abuse against others and be victimized themselves—especially if they demonstrate consistent patterns of aggression, impulsivity and rule-breaking. These are the patterns U.S. researchers find lead to a “heightened risk for most types of victimization.”

Dutch researchers reported in 2023 that “impulsivity increases the odds of future sexual victimization as a child.” And German researchers found earlier that the lack of self-control likewise predicts “sexually aggressive behaviors” among adolescent boys.

Adults who display low empathy and callous, aggressive, criminal patterns—as well as an overall lack of impulse control—are also more likely to sexually offend against children.

Drug And Alcohol Influences On Both Youth And Adults

Substance abuse has multifaceted impacts on abuse, starting at home—since the children of parents who use alcohol are more likely to be sexually victimized and to sexually offend against other children. 

Teenage boys who use substances, both drugs and alcohol, are more likely to sexually abuse others. And teenage girls who use alcohol are also more vulnerable to being sexually victimized by other adolescents and adults.

This is true in a dating context as well, with University of Maryland researchers summarizing: “substance abuse during a date is linked to experiences of sexual and physical violence.” Even “being in places where one’s friends are drinking alcohol” is “associated with an increased risk of victimization” according to the same scholars.

Adults who sexually abuse children often struggle with drugs and alcohol as well—this frequently being one of many factors bringing a man (or woman) to the point of being willing to exploit someone so vulnerable.

Limited Faith Commitments And Religious Practice 

Young people who report infrequent attendance at church show heightened risk for both sexual victimization and perpetration. For instance, “low frequency of attendance to religious services” was identified in a survey of 250 high school teens as one of the “socio-cultural factors that affect the kind and intensification” of family abuse that includes sexual violence. 

Other studies report “not having religious affiliations” as a risk factor for sexual violence—with young girls who report their religious affiliation as Protestants compared to those with no religious affiliation. Among other things, these researchers hypothesized that “girls who do not have religious affiliations could be marginalized and socially isolated.” 

The protection of a healthy faith

By contrast, youth who report frequent attendance at church have repeatedly been found in studies within different countries to have less risk for abuse of various kinds, including sexual violence—especially when they demonstrate “intrinsic religiosity” (sincere faith).

For instance, adolescent girls who rated themselves as very religious in a 2021 South African study were 80 percent less likely to describe any previous experience of sexual violence in their lives compared to girls who were not religious. In addition: 

• Church attendance was identified as protective in a survey of Puerto Rico students from 117 schools, making violent behavior between adolescents less likely.
• “Religious service attendance” was a central variable associated with a lower prevalence of recent dating violence.
• Church attendance and religiosity protected against perpetration of sexual violence among high school students. 

The Sexual Satisfaction and Function Survey asked nearly 1,400 women in 2019-2020 whether they had experienced sexual abuse as a teen, and how often they attended religious services during high school. In a new analysis of the data, Stephen Cranney found that women who reported attending religious services weekly during their high school years were significantly less likely to talk about experiencing sexual abuse as a teen, compared with those who were less religious in high school.

These same trends show up in research on sexual minority youth as well: 

• In a survey of 117 adolescents in same-sex relationships, those who reported that religion was important to them were at lower risk of “any violence.”
• A study of sexual and gender minority youth found spirituality was among protective factors associated with lower likelihood of adverse outcomes, including sexual violence victimization and perpetration.
• Spirituality also emerged as a significant protective factor associated with lower risk of sexual violence victimization among high school students, as replicated in a follow-up paper.

This goes against common biases in the research community. One researcher set out with a hunch that “authoritarian ideology, including religious conservativism (which) endorses obedience to authority” might also correlate with the “mistreatment of children.” But on closer examination, political and religious conservativism both predicted lower child abuse rates.

How faith shapes other variables playing a role

Studies also identified a number of other variables that play an indirect role in increasing or reducing sexual violence—each of which are tied to the level of religious commitment in a teenager: 

• More risky sex—Adolescent females “for whom religion was not or only somewhat personally important” had higher odds of participating in “riskier sex” in one multi-factor analysis. 

• More negative friends—Elevated levels of “religious coping” were indirectly protective against violence by reinforcing “less antisocial bonding” among high-risk youth in a longitudinal study.
• More substance abuse—A “personal belief in God” and “parent religiosity” were connected with less adolescent substance use in one survey-based study. It’s long been known that illicit drug use decreases among young people as belief in God increases in broader population research, or they are involved in a spiritual system that provides grounding (including Buddhism, as shown in cross-cultural work).

Consistently, one study found high-risk behaviors fully mediated the link between religious activity and dating violence. Another paper likewise cites research suggesting that “values upheld by the clergy and their peers who attend church could also reinforce youths’ personal values against violence and/or high-risk behavior.”

In the other direction, one analysis highlights research linking religiosity with stronger bonds to family members and school. Another paper adds that stronger bonds to family members and school mean that a youth will spend greater time with parents and other adults in schools that will act as the child’s ‘handler.’ These handlers will protect the child from engaging in criminal behavior, which will decrease the odds of victimization.

Religious children are still abused far too much

None of this is to minimize heartbreaking instances where a child is assaulted in a religious home, or by a perpetrator acting in a religious position. And, indeed, there is no such protective religious influence in a home or community where children are harshly controlled and manipulated by domineering adults. When such devastating abuse is perpetrated by a person of such immense trust, it can prompt in a young person what one scholar described as “rage and spiritual distress that pervades their entire life being.”

As two researchers argued in 2010, “the particular nature of religiosity needs to be considered when interpreting a connection between religiosity and abuse risk”—going on to highlight differences in the “underlying motivation for an individual’s religion.” The authors suggest that “Religiosity per se may not be as critical to predicting physical abuse risk as selected approaches to religion or particular attitudes the religious individual assumes in their daily life.” 

In response to the same article, another researcher in 2011 pointed out that “it is very common for social distortions and individual pathology to be hidden by groups and individuals behind a religious construction, misconception or misinterpretation.” The same researcher also underscored that “the fundamental concept of the major religions in the world deal with loving one’s fellow man, caring for the family and one’s children, and being a positive element in the community (with kindness and charity).”

Like other communities, faith communities are actively taking more steps around the world to prevent such tragedies. Meanwhile, it seems clear that healthy and cooperative religious communities generally reduce victimization, in part, because children with such a faith commitment shaping their lives and homes typically engage in less risky sex, less substance abuse and have fewer negative friends.

In part three, I look at what happens when these risk factors stack and their effects are combined—and the specific protective patterns the research suggests can reduce harm before it occurs.

The post Behavior Patterns Associated with Sexual Abuse of Children appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

What’s all the fuss about? As Commissioner of Church Education, Elder Gilbert is accused of instituting a variety of measures to ensure that professors at BYU support the doctrine of the Church that pays their salaries—specifically on issues related to marriage, family, and gender. According to some, these measures have ushered in a culture of fear among faculty who have reservations about Church doctrine or policy. Other concerns have been mentioned, but this seems to be the heart of the issue.

Before I say a few words in defense of Elder Gilbert, I want to take a moment and recognize the difficult space that many Latter-day Saint scholars inhabit. The Church’s views on family, sexuality, and gender are (to put it gently) not popular in academia. Despite stated aspirations to diversity and inclusivity, there isn’t much room in academia for researchers who vocally promote the Church’s positions on family life. I have seen this first-hand in my nearly two decades in academic life. Those who support marriage as the union of a man and a woman and claim that sexual relations should only happen in such marriages are castigated as out of touch, prudish, ignorant, hateful, and bigoted. It’s hard to get along in your profession when your colleagues view you as little better than a racist.

In an environment where so much of your professional success is influenced or determined by people who are hostile to the Church’s views, I can see why many people would feel concerned about Elder Gilbert’s efforts to align the faculty with the doctrine of the Church.

At the same time, I, like many other faculty and students, choose to study at BYU precisely because of its doctrine. I want to be at a university where I can “seek learning, by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). As Elder Gilbert has emphasized many times, institutional drift in academia is real, and many universities that start with religious aspirations end up abandoning them later. It’s tempting to say that this is the standard arc for religious universities in the United States. Believing that BYU’s distinctive religious heritage can be maintained without intentional efforts to preserve it is naive.

But perhaps it is not possible to run a quality university that is committed to religious beliefs? Indeed, many of the criticisms of Elder Gilbert presuppose that it is inherently wrong to try to get professors to align with Church teachings. The critique takes two forms: first, that any attempt to align (or more darkly, “impose”) views about any topic at a university is wrong; and second, that it is wrong for BYU to expect faculty to support the Church’s doctrine on marriage, family, and gender.

The first view is widespread but breaks down upon inspection. As I have explained in detail, it is neither possible nor desirable for a university to be completely devoid of commitments. Without well-known and agreed-upon standards, university life would descend into a cacophony of competing claims, none of which could be evaluated as better than any of the others. The scholarly practice of peer review presupposes that practitioners in the discipline know what counts as “legitimate” scholarship and can reject submissions that do not meet disciplinary standards. (A more blatant example of institutional gatekeeping would be difficult to imagine.) As I wrote in the previously mentioned article:

The point of academic study is to produce knowledge. This search is a winnowing process, as academic ‘disciplines’ (note the word) seek to separate the wheat of truth from the chaff of unsupported opinion and bias. Good scholars are committed to getting it right, which presupposes that truth is real and knowledge is possible, which in turn is premised on a host of philosophical and other presuppositions. Academic freedom cannot mean the freedom to be supported in whatever one believes; rather, it is the freedom to seek truth, which means being accountable to reality.

It may come as a surprise to some readers, but some people actually want to go to a university that includes religious beliefs among its commitments (see Elder Gilbert’s recent article on this in The Chronicle of Higher Education). A recent essay by prominent Catholic sociologist Christian Smith explains that he chose to teach and research at Notre Dame because he wanted more direct engagement with the Catholic intellectual tradition. But after 20 years at Notre Dame, Smith decided to leave because (in his view) the university was not living up to its potential. He writes: “When I came to Notre Dame, I believed the university was serious about its Catholic mission. I tried to make my contribution, I think with some success. But I also saw much of the institution absorbed by other interests that, in my view, were often irrelevant to or at odds with the Catholic mission.” I don’t have enough information to know if he is right about Notre Dame, but many people want something other than the standard secular university experience. In general, the world is enriched, not diminished, by religious universities that pursue truth in a distinctive way.

The second critique—that it is wrong to expect BYU faculty to support the Church’s doctrine on marriage, family, and gender—is in my view the occasion for most of the angst directed at Elder Gilbert. There would be a lot less complaining if he had, for example, taken steps to ensure that faculty at BYU had a certain view about environmental stewardship. But marriage, family, and gender? Who does Elder Gilbert think he is?

To be clear, as Commissioner of Church Education, Elder Gilbert wasn’t some rogue actor trying to sneak something past Church headquarters. The family proclamation may be controversial in some quarters, but it is firmly established as Church doctrine. It would be hard to make this point more emphatically than President Dallin H. Oaks recently did: “Those who do not fully understand the Father’s loving plan for His children may consider this family proclamation no more than a changeable statement of policy. In contrast, we affirm that the family proclamation, founded on irrevocable doctrine, defines the mortal family relationship where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.”

Though debates over marriage, sexuality, and gender are often framed as conflicts between “rigid defenders of orthodoxy” and proponents of love and authenticity, the reality is not so simple. At the heart of these conflicts are deep disagreements over personal identity, sexual morality, the meaning of human life, and the common good. There are many resources available to Latter-day Saints and others to think through these issues carefully. In my view, these are not issues on which one has to “blindly accept” Church teachings; the assumptions that lead to revisionist conclusions about marriage, gender, and sexuality are highly contestable.

Which brings us back to the idea of Elder Gilbert as a “culture warrior” or an “attack dog.” It’s strange that people on only one side of these controversies get called names like this—even when the university in question is clearly owned and operated by the Church. As my former teacher Robert P. George writes in a related context, “There is a culture war, alright, but supporters of the sanctity of human life and the conjugal conception of marriage are not the aggressors in it. It was people on the other side–those who reject sanctity of life principles and the idea of marriage as a conjugal union–who wanted to change longstanding legal and cultural norms.” In my view, Elder Gilbert took reasonable steps to ensure that BYU students get the education that is advertised in the BYU mission and aims, and I’m grateful for his efforts.

In a recent interview, Elder Gilbert recounts an important conversation he had with President Holland. Both the mandate from President Holland and his ultimate hope for BYU seem like a good way to conclude: 

I remember I was talking to President Holland, and he was bemoaning that he could feel this drift happening to the university. And he’s like, ‘What have they done with our school that we love so much?’ And I felt awkward. I wasn’t even the commissioner yet. And I felt like I needed to defend them. And I said, ‘Well, President Holland, you know, we have the honor code, we have devotionals, we have religion classes, we have the academic freedom policy.’ And I said, ‘They’re like bumper lanes protecting us from bowling into the gutter.’ And he didn’t even let me finish. And he said, ‘That’s very different than bowling for a strike.’ And he said, ‘We need to bowl for a strike at BYU.’

The post Bowling for a Strike at BYU and Beyond appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Attack dog. Enforcer. Culture warrior. These labels and more have been used to describe Elder Clark G. Gilbert, newly called apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He has also been described as a “high-profile defender of doctrinal orthodoxy” and a proponent of “retrenchment.”

What’s all the fuss about? As Commissioner of Church Education, Elder Gilbert is accused of instituting a variety of measures to ensure that professors at BYU support the doctrine of the Church that pays their salaries—specifically on issues related to marriage, family, and gender. According to some, these measures have ushered in a culture of fear among faculty who have reservations about Church doctrine or policy. Other concerns have been mentioned, but this seems to be the heart of the issue.

Before I say a few words in defense of Elder Gilbert, I want to take a moment and recognize the difficult space that many Latter-day Saint scholars inhabit. The Church’s views on family, sexuality, and gender are (to put it gently) not popular in academia. Despite stated aspirations to diversity and inclusivity, there isn’t much room in academia for researchers who vocally promote the Church’s positions on family life. I have seen this first-hand in my nearly two decades in academic life. Those who support marriage as the union of a man and a woman and claim that sexual relations should only happen in such marriages are castigated as out of touch, prudish, ignorant, hateful, and bigoted. It’s hard to get along in your profession when your colleagues view you as little better than a racist.

There are intellectual resources to defend the Church’s positions on these matters (more on this below), but the opposition to such arguments is so loud, so confident, and so strident that often it’s easier to just keep quiet. Latter-day Saint scholars are generally trained in the same graduate programs, go to the same academic conferences, and are under the same pressure to publish in top journals as scholars who don’t belong to the Church. It’s hard to not imbibe the norms, expectations, assumptions, and conclusions of the culture, including revisionist views about gender, sexuality, and family. The implicit and explicit pressure to fall in line with the prevailing orthodoxy can be suffocating. Even Latter-day Saint scholars who want to resist the prevailing academic culture on these issues can feel bewildered about how to do so. 

In an environment where so much of your professional success is influenced or determined by people who are hostile to the Church’s views, I can see why many people would feel concerned about Elder Gilbert’s efforts to align the faculty with the doctrine of the Church.

At the same time, I, like many other faculty and students, choose to study at BYU precisely because of its doctrine. I want to be at a university where I can “seek learning, by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). As Elder Gilbert has emphasized many times, institutional drift in academia is real, and many universities that start with religious aspirations end up abandoning them later. It’s tempting to say that this is the standard arc for religious universities in the United States. Believing that BYU’s distinctive religious heritage can be maintained without intentional efforts to preserve it is naive.

But perhaps it is not possible to run a quality university that is committed to religious beliefs? Indeed, many of the criticisms of Elder Gilbert presuppose that it is inherently wrong to try to get professors to align with Church teachings. The critique takes two forms: first, that any attempt to align (or more darkly, “impose”) views about any topic at a university is wrong; and second, that it is wrong for BYU to expect faculty to support the Church’s doctrine on marriage, family, and gender.

The first view is widespread but breaks down upon inspection. As I have explained in detail, it is neither possible nor desirable for a university to be completely devoid of commitments. Without well-known and agreed-upon standards, university life would descend into a cacophony of competing claims, none of which could be evaluated as better than any of the others. The scholarly practice of peer review presupposes that practitioners in the discipline know what counts as “legitimate” scholarship and can reject submissions that do not meet disciplinary standards. (A more blatant example of institutional gatekeeping would be difficult to imagine.) As I wrote in the previously mentioned article,

The point of academic study is to produce knowledge. This search is a winnowing process, as academic ‘disciplines’ (note the word) seek to separate the wheat of truth from the chaff of unsupported opinion and bias. Good scholars are committed to getting it right, which presupposes that truth is real and knowledge is possible, which in turn is premised on a host of philosophical and other presuppositions. Academic freedom cannot mean the freedom to be supported in whatever one believes; rather, it is the freedom to seek truth, which means being accountable to reality.

It may come as a surprise to some readers, but some people actually want to go to a university that includes religious beliefs among its commitments (see Elder Gilbert’s recent article on this in The Chronicle of Higher Education). A recent essay by prominent Catholic sociologist Christian Smith explains that he chose to teach and research at Notre Dame because he wanted more direct engagement with the Catholic intellectual tradition. But after 20 years at Notre Dame, Smith decided to leave because (in his view) the university was not living up to its potential. He writes: “When I came to Notre Dame, I believed the university was serious about its Catholic mission. I tried to make my contribution, I think with some success. But I also saw much of the institution absorbed by other interests that, in my view, were often irrelevant to or at odds with the Catholic mission.” I don’t have enough information to know if he is right about Notre Dame, but many people want something other than the standard secular university experience. In general, the world is enriched, not diminished, by religious universities that pursue truth in a distinctive way.

To be clear, as Commissioner of Church Education, Elder Gilbert wasn’t some rogue actor trying to sneak something past Church headquarters. The family proclamation may be controversial in some quarters, but it is firmly established as Church doctrine. It would be hard to make this point more emphatically than President Dallin H. Oaks recently did: “Those who do not fully understand the Father’s loving plan for His children may consider this family proclamation no more than a changeable statement of policy. In contrast, we affirm that the family proclamation, founded on irrevocable doctrine, defines the mortal family relationship where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.”

Some critics might be concerned that Elder Gilbert’s efforts to align the faculty with the Church’s teachings diminish academic freedom. In my view, this gets it exactly wrong. There are hundreds of universities in the United States where revisionist scholarship about marriage, family, and gender is welcome and rewarded. The orthodoxy on these issues is clear and intolerant. There is a much smaller number of universities where one can pursue scholarship that is aligned with the family proclamation. If BYU became just like other universities, there would be less academic freedom than there currently is. (Attentive readers will realize that I’m using “academic freedom” in two senses here, individual and institutional, both of which are explained in detail in BYU’s Academic Freedom Policy.)

Though debates over marriage, sexuality, and gender are often framed as conflicts between “rigid defenders of orthodoxy” and proponents of love and authenticity, the reality is not so simple. At the heart of these conflicts are deep disagreements over personal identity, sexual morality, the meaning of human life, and the common good. There are many resources available to Latter-day Saints and others to think through these issues carefully. In my view, these are not issues on which one has to “blindly accept” Church teachings; the assumptions that lead to revisionist conclusions about marriage, gender, and sexuality are highly contestable.

Which brings us back to the idea of Elder Gilbert as a “culture warrior” or an “attack dog.” It’s strange that people on only one side of these controversies get called names like this—even when the university in question is clearly owned and operated by the Church. As my former teacher Robert P. George writes in a related context, “There is a culture war, alright, but supporters of the sanctity of human life and the conjugal conception of marriage are not the aggressors in it. It was people on the other side–those who reject sanctity of life principles and the idea of marriage as a conjugal union–who wanted to change longstanding legal and cultural norms.” In my view, Elder Gilbert took reasonable steps to ensure that BYU students get the education that is advertised in the BYU mission and aims, and I’m grateful for his efforts.

In a recent interview, Elder Gilbert recounts an important conversation he had with President Holland. Both the mandate from President Holland and his ultimate hope for BYU seem like a good way to conclude: 

I remember I was talking to President Holland, and he was bemoaning that he could feel this drift happening to the university. And he’s like, ‘What have they done with our school that we love so much?’ And I felt awkward. I wasn’t even the commissioner yet. And I felt like I needed to defend them. And I said, ‘Well, President Holland, you know, we have the honor code, we have devotionals, we have religion classes, we have the academic freedom policy.’ And I said, ‘They’re like bumper lanes protecting us from bowling into the gutter.’ And he didn’t even let me finish. And he said, ‘That’s very different than bowling for a strike.’ And he said, ‘We need to bowl for a strike at BYU.’

The post Bowling for a Strike at BYU and Beyond appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

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

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

Humor in Coping with Racism

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

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

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

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

Joelle, a Christian wife, also discussed racism:

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

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

Humor in Marriage

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

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

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

An African Methodist wife from Massachusetts named Joann said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annie: Like old shoes. (Laughter)  

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

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

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

Humor in Parenting

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

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

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

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

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

Jasmine (daughter): Yeah, right!

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

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

Humor in Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonding Humor as Healing Medicine

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

The post The Power of Positive Humor in Strong African American Families appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Several years ago, Public Square Magazine provided initial funding for a research team to gather published studies that get at the roots of this question. Our small team reviewed thousands of studies to identify those focused specifically on risk factors making children more vulnerable to sexual abuse by parents, other relatives, or older teenagers.

These studies from around the world also examine the assault of children ages six to twelve and teenagers in various contexts, including competitive sports clubs, youth-serving nonprofits, churches, and schools, with dating violence also receiving much more attention in recent decades.

For many years, scholarship emphasized individual offenders and individual victims—perpetrator motives, disorders, and victim-level correlates. In more recent decades, researchers have increasingly examined the broader context around abuse: family stability, supervision, peer dynamics, institutional oversight, and community accountability—what some studies call “enabling factors” that make abuse easier to commit and harder to detect.

Last summer, I completed this in-depth review of approximately 500 abuse studies (285 involving adults, 215 involving youth), publishing summary versions of results focused on children and adult victims in the Deseret News, with the full-length, 60-page version released later that fall.  

This three-part series synthesizes findings from that deep dive into the risk factor research focused on the sexual abuse of young people. Part one outlines five recurring patterns that show up across countries and contexts—patterns that tend to increase vulnerability to child sexual abuse by weakening stability, supervision, and community safeguards.

Fragile Economic Well-Being 

Consistently, studies demonstrate that children growing up in families and neighborhoods with limited economic resources are more likely to experience sexual victimization—a risk that appears to grow as poverty deepens (parents unemployed, families going without food, living in substandard housing, adolescents forced to work).

The opposite is also true. For instance, youth whose fathers were employed were “about four times less likely to experience sexual abuse than respondents whose fathers were unemployed,” according to one Nigerian study from 2017.

Limited Educational Opportunities

Children with lower levels of education are more vulnerable to victimization—especially those who drop out completely. As Canadian researchers summarized in a 2007 review, “adolescents who have no intention of pursuing postsecondary schooling or who have not obtained their high school diploma are at greater risk of being victims of sexual and physical violence.”

By comparison, when children grow up where education is encouraged and valued, they are less likely to be sexually victimized. This shows up first in analyses of parental education level—with studies from Africa to Brazil to the U.S. showing that boys and girls whose parents have more education are also more likely to be protected against victimization (with risk consistently increasing as parental education declines).

Children’s own higher education level also decreases this risk, starting with just being in school at all. This is especially true if the schools are smaller, if the child feels comfortable at the school, and if they are doing well academically.

Growing Up Without Both Parents in a Loving Relationship

Following parental separation, divorce, or death, a child naturally experiences more residential instability and often significantly less parental supervision. That frequently includes a greater likelihood of being in close, regular contact with other older men who are “not the biological father.”

Consistently, children with incarcerated fathers also were 5.5 times more likely to experience child sexual abuse in one New Zealand analysis. Even higher risk comes when children live with neither of their parents, such as living with friends or another relative; living in foster care or other institutions; or especially if they are homeless and on the streets.

By contrast, multiple studies found that children living with both parents are less likely to be victimized—with the same Nigerian analysis finding children living in these homes “two times less likely to experience sexual abuse.”

Although most sexual abuse happens within homes, studies repeatedly show that children growing up with married parents are less likely to be abused in any way, including sexually. This is especially true when that marital relationship is cooperative and healthy—with “parental togetherness” and “harmony” identified in the Nigerian study as “protective factors that buffer children from sexual abuse.”

No such marital protections exist, however, in the presence of significant amounts of conflict and other kinds of emotional and physical aggression in the marriage and home generally. Another African study found a 2.5-fold increased risk of children being sexually abused when they experienced conflict between parents—a result that aligns with some U.S. data.

Low Quality of the Parent-Child Relationship

While you would expect negative parent-child relationships within any abusive context, there is repeated evidence that poor relationships with a mother and father also precede and predict abuse of various kinds, including sexual violence.

Available studies look specifically at vulnerability to victimization connected to a “lack of closeness” with a parent and “low warmth” relationships within a “rigid” family climate. Children whose parents display harsh, authoritarian parenting behavior are also at greater risk of being sexually victimized.

One Canadian study of abusive coaches observed how they often admitted to persuading mothers and fathers to “relinquish some or all parental control” to themselves—with the researchers acknowledging that “for the abused athlete, the bond of trust established between him or herself and the perpetrator is often a substitute for a weak relationship with a parent.”

By contrast, studies in Africa and the U.S. found, unsurprisingly, that “high” and “frequent parental monitoring” is connected with less sexual violence against children and teens. This is also true for positive, warm, healing relationships between parents and children overall.

Spotty Community Accountability

To the extent any community has allowed isolated access to children historically, this has sadly been shown to raise the risk of victimization. That includes abuse connected with ‘unguarded access to children’ by religious leaders, ‘unsupervised coaches,’ rogue law enforcement officers, predatory physicians, leaders of boys’ and girls’ clubs, and other organizations where perpetrators can seek out ‘volunteer work with organizations through which they can meet children.’

One study of 41 serial perpetrators found that 57 percent reported having picked their profession either partly or specifically in order to access children. Such privileged, close contact with youth is often taken for granted within special trusted roles—clergy, coach, teacher, mentor, counselor, camp staff, and scout leader.

This is also why healthy peer groups make such a difference, and why negative friend and sibling relationships increase the risk of children being sexually abused. That includes settings where older adolescents have “unsupervised opportunity with younger victims.”

In the absence of this kind of proactive, robust community supervision, what’s clear is that isolation of any kind appears to be quickly exploited by adult and older teenage perpetrators. Australian researchers report that sibling sexual abuse is “the most common form of intra-familial child sexual abuse”—an outcome that is more likely among “step-siblings and half-siblings,” when compared with full siblings.

Five groups of young people, in particular, experience higher levels of sexual violence: (1) girls; (2) younger children; (3) youth who identify as sexual/gender minorities; (4) children who have experienced abuse previously; and (5) children with disabilities—all of whom consistently show higher risk for sexual victimization.

In part two, we turn to patterns tied more directly to mental health, risk behaviors, substances, and the evidence on faith and religiosity—factors that can either amplify vulnerability or strengthen protection depending on how they play out in real communities.

If you or someone you love has experienced sexual assault of any kind and needs additional support in the U.S., contact the National Sexual Assault Hotline (1-800-656-HOPE)—with virtual and text-based options available. This is a confidential networking service in the U.S. that helps connect victims with local agencies that can offer therapeutic support across the country. Similar kinds of hotlines exist in many countries around the world.

The post The Hidden Conditions that Leave Children Vulnerable to Abuse appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

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

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

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

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

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

Isn’t it time for a new marriage story?

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

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

It doesn’t have to be this way.

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

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

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

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

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

Later in the movie, another husband shares:

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

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

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

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

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

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

About 25 years ago, an LSU graduate class read Family Life in Black America, a nearly 400-page volume written by leading social scientists. Near the end of a class discussion, a Black student named Katrina Hopkins raised her hand and posed a piercing question: “Why is there not a single chapter in this book that talks about strong, marriage-based Black families like mine?” Katrina found no adequate response.

It has taken nearly 25 years, but the high-profile journal Marriage & Family Review recently dedicated an entire special issue to that topic. Nearly half of the pieces in this special issue are based on BYU’s American Families of Faith project, a 25-year study of the strengths and characteristics of a diverse group of highly religious spouses, with which the authors of this article are affiliated. Of the roughly 300 families in the American Families of Faith Project, 46 were Black. An emerging insight from the research was this: strong Black families were built on serving others. In this article, we share three insights on the service that contributes to strong Black marriages and families. 

Meeting Others’ Physical Needs

For the exemplary Black families we interviewed, service through physical care of others was central to the life and marriages these women and men had built together. 

Caring for the sick was one way of serving the physical needs of others. Jacquie, a Christian wife, described her husband’s physical care for her in reverent tones:

The most difficult thing was having my cancer diagnosis. And my husband … stepped up to the plate and took charge of me as I was going through my treatments and things—just made sure that my different needs were met… . [H]e took really good care of me.

Similarly, a mother named Keisha explained what her husband Wes’ care meant to her:

[Our] second child … was very difficult. I didn’t get any sleep, and she didn’t sleep through the night until she was one year old. And I wouldn’t have made it if it had not been for Wes, because he would get up in the middle of the night, he’d put her to sleep on his chest, and he’d bring her to me so I could nurse… . [He] was incredible. That was … one of the most difficult things I’ve ever been through … and he was right there.

Interestingly, virtually every exemplary Black family we interviewed had housed at least one non-biological child for weeks, months, or years—providing for them out of their own resources. This was so common that we dubbed these welcomed youth temporary children. When asked how many children each family had housed over the years, one family said the number was so high that they did not know. 

Serving the physical needs of in-laws was another way Black families served. A Christian wife named Jada shared the following:

I brought [my husband] Jacob to my mother. She, my mother, loved him like he was her own son. [Years later] my mother ended up in a nursing home. We ended up taking care of my mother for some years, and he helped me to take care of my mother—just like she was his mother… . There was one night we had to put my mother in the bed between us, [to keep her safe]. She had Alzheimer’s [so bad at the end and would wander off]. Now what husband does that? (laughter) … He really stuck by me in every way. 

Later in their interview, Jada said of Jacob, “If you get a husband that’s like that, then I think you … you did good.” Jada and Jacob were both entering a second marriage when they were wed, and they each brought their own children with them. Of this challenge, Jada said:

Jacob treats my children just like they’re his, and I do the same… . [Then] my sister died some years later, and … we raised her three children. She had a set of twins, a girl and a boy; they [were only] three years old [at the time].

Jada and Jacob ultimately raised six children together. At one point, the time came when the children were the ones serving the parents. Jada explained:

I think we had a lovely life … until these days came here recently where Jacob was paralyzed for … about three months from the waist down… . But through all that … all those six children that we raised, those children came to pay bills, [took care of the] grass to be cut. They did [all of it], they … took care of us. 

Indeed, our participants repeatedly conveyed that service to one person often perpetuates additional acts of service. 

Theme 2: Service through Emotional Support

Our research showed that Black families also offered service through emotional service. A Baptist husband named Anthony said: 

When I shake your hand—and we are talkin’ [especially about] young Black men [and] men in general—I shake your hand and I look you dead in the eye and I … say, ‘How you doin’?’ … Sometimes it don’t even get to that point, … [I] get there and [they] say, ‘Ah man, can I give you a hug? … I needed what you said.’ … Anytime you [have] got a man cryin’, they [are] not cryin’ out of weakness, they [are] cryin’ cause the enemy has pulled them from where they are supposed to be at and … [they’re] like, ‘I need help.’

Anthony later explained, “It’s just that sometimes when you say stuff to people and you really mean it—consistently, it makes a difference in people’s lives.” Anthony’s approach applied to his local and faith communities, but the importance of emotional service was frequently focused on family. 

Phil, an African Methodist father, was effusive and passionate when he said,

When you see your kids, hug ’em. … One time in the course of every [single] day, I tell my kids, ‘I love you,’ give ‘em a big hug … hold ‘em, let them know I care. I let them know, ‘I love you not because it’s just the thing to say, but because I DO; and … God loves you too.’ So even when we do go through little life struggles, it’s okay, because someone who loves them is going to be there through the good and the bad. 

Gwen, a Christian wife, also had someone to love and serve her during her struggles. Years after the event, Gwen vividly recalled how her husband Kordell helped her through a difficult pregnancy and delivery:

Kordell was so attentive and … caring about how I felt. [And then] while I was in labor, which was about 26 hours … [He’d say,] ‘I’m concerned about you. How are you feeling? How’s it going?’ … and he’d hold my hand for contractions and stuff, and I’m squeezing his hand [so hard that] he never thought he’d play the piano again! (laughter) … I really saw his real love for me, for who I was—his wife, not just the producer of his kids—which really strengthened our marriage a lot, ‘cause I thought, ‘He really cares.’ Well, this man really does love me, oh my gosh! (laughter)

Serving and caring, however, do not originate in a vacuum. At a different point in their interview, Kordell spontaneously reflected on the power of Gwen’s example of service. 

One thing about her is she’s very much into … sowing into other people’s lives anonymously. ‘Cause, often times, she will buy things for people, know what they really like, send it to them anonymously, and they’ll never know it was her. She’s just totally into that… She’s very consistently [serving others in] that way. 

We see that emotional care was an elevating experience not only when done for a spouse, but when such service was lovingly (and perhaps anonymously) done for someone else. 

Even so, service is often costly and rarely convenient. This begs the question: Why give so much? 

Our third and final theme sheds light on this question.

Theme 3: Service to Others is “Living Faith”

The most prominent theme relating to serving others in the data was the influence of faith on service. A husband named Leonard explained: 

If I go out there and see a poor man down, [I shouldn’t] look down on him—[instead, I must] pick him up. I don’t [care] how he stink[s]—God said, ‘I love them all, they all are my children.’ So, I can’t pass nobody; [the] Savior don’t pass me by. When I pass by somebody that needs help, I’m passing God.

Another couple, DeShaun and Jamilla, shared how their beliefs affected their view of service:

Jamilla: We should be good stewards of our time and our finances, that we give back [because of] what He has given and done for us. It’s good stewardship. Some people call it a sacrifice to give your time and your money, but … that’s part of being a believer.

DeShaun: All those things are His, anyway… . The time is His. The money is His. We’re just stewards… . I think that’s what helps us through hard times—because no matter what we lose … it’s not ours. 

The concept of divine stewardship—similar to what some faith traditions call consecration—was echoed by Candice and Shandrel, a Baptist couple, who said of their time and money:

Candice: I give time, but I don’t think [it’s] really mine; I think it’s …

Shandrel: It’s not actually our time.

Candice: It’s not our time… . You need to give … time so that you can be a contributor, and in giving your time, you learn that … you [also] give your finances. 

Shandrel: And then you [come] to love what you do.

Candice: You love what you do, you become a good steward.

Like Jamilla and DeShaun, Candice and Shandrel referenced sacred religious beliefs that influenced how they served, gave, and viewed resources. In addition to sacred beliefs, participation with a religious congregation was frequently mentioned as participants described how their faith informed their service to others. For many, participating in the faith community reportedly provided both individual and collective experiences that centered around serving others. A non-denominational Christian wife named Briana said:

The congregation is very important, and [they]’re my spiritual family… . When you hurt, I hurt. … We are [our] brother’s keeper—servants to one another. And that’s what the Lord says: We are servants to one another.

Looking Outward Together

In a passage from the Holy Bible—a book that the faithful Black women and men we interviewed cherished and frequently quoted in their interviews—King David’s final recorded question to his people was this: “Who then is willing to consecrate his service this day unto the Lord?” (1 Chronicles 29:5). 

We learn from these remarkable women and men that perhaps the deepest marital love does not consist of merely gazing at each other, but, as Antoine de Saint-Exupéry observed, “in looking outward together in the same direction” with eyes fixed on lifting sisters and brothers in the broader human family. The exemplary Black families that opened their homes to us and taught us revealed that consecrated service is one of the key ingredients of the secret sauce of a championship-level marriage. May we all benefit from this revelation.

The post The Service Ethic Behind Strong Black Families appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

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

My journey as a researcher of strong African American families of faith begins with a short story about my paternal grandmother. As a highly religious, praise-dancing, Bible-quoting woman of faith, my grandmother based her every thought and decision on a religious foundation. After being diagnosed with colon cancer, she faithfully tucked her prescriptions into her Bible in lieu of having the prescriptions filled. If she was here today, my grandmother would argue that she won that battle against cancer. She would emphasize that she was faithful to the end, and she trusted that God would have healed her, if it was His will for her to be healed on this Earth. However, for a 16-year-old kid who just wanted his grandmother, her death left me with more questions than answers. Unbeknownst to me at the time, her death would plant in me a seed to understand religion and its role in Black families.

One day, while sitting in Loren’s office during our weekly Monday meetings, and while expressing my frustration with my dissertation proposal, he revealed that he had something for me. Handing me a massive 4-inch binder with over 1,000 pages of narrative interview data, Loren asked me if I would like to read the interviews of the married, strong Black couples that he had researched for over a decade. I read all 1,000 pages of interviews over a single weekend. I was fascinated! The stories of these marriages were so rich, so detailed, and so sacred. I was amazed that it could even be considered “research.” The role of religion in building a strong marriage was central to each interview, and this further ignited my desire to understand religion in Black families. The Monday after I had been handed a binder too big to fit in my bookbag, I asked Loren if I could utilize the interviews on strong Black families to examine how religious coping had contributed to their strong marriages. He enthusiastically agreed. We have now been research partners for 13 years.

Despite my desire to study strong Black marriages, I was not necessarily surrounded by these types of relationships growing up. Neither of my grandmothers were in long-term marriages. In addition, my parents divorced around the time I graduated from high school. My parents had separated long before their divorce, so most of my memories of “family” came from looking at old pictures and seeing us all smiling together. Growing up, the best example I had of a strong marriage was a set of my great-grandparents, who were married for about 60 years before the death of my great grandfather, Paw-Paw. Paw-Paw was a minister in Southern Louisiana. He was deeply grounded in his faith, and he raised my highly-religious, praise-dancing, Bible-quoting grandmother that I mentioned earlier. I never thought much about my great-grandparents’ marriage, nor did I have a real opportunity to understand it because I only observed it as a child. However, I do know that they shared many similarities with the married, strong Black couples I have interviewed for my research. They saw their marriage as a sacred bond. As the grandchildren of slaves who were legally unable to marry, they were determined to honor their marital vows and build a family on faith and religious beliefs. I wish that I had been able to witness more of my great-grandparents’ marriage, but I am also thankful because I recognize the privilege of having a strong Black marriage in my family’s history.

When I ask Black couples who have been married for up to 60 years how they have done it, I am documenting their experiences for the many Black people who, like me, have rarely (or never) witnessed a strong Black marriage. I am documenting their experiences for the many Black couples who, like my wife Tasha and me, are still figuring out how to grow closer together each day. I am documenting their experiences for the many Black communities around the world that, like mine, are burdened by external stressors (such as financial strain, racism, and incarceration) that constantly threaten the stability of the Black family. Every moment, every interaction, and every opportunity has carried a purpose that has brought me exactly where I am, doing exactly what I am called to do at this moment, which is studying strong Black families and loving the journey. 

Never in my wildest dreams did I think that my conversations with Dr. Loren Marks and a weekend with 1,000 pages of narrative data would change my life. Yet, they have. Each time I speak about my research, Black communities and families share with me that there is a need—an unquenchable thirst—for stories of Black couples deeply grounded in faith and unwaveringly dedicated to marriage. I have been a witness and recorder of profoundly sacred family moments where husbands have poured out their hearts to their wives and wives have found comfort in the arms of their husbands. I have been invited to vow renewals, wedding anniversaries, and family dinners. A few months ago, I received word from a husband I had interviewed that his wife had recently died. He thought enough of our interview to let me know the news. For me, that was deeply powerful, and as I revisited their interview, I thanked God for allowing me to share in such a sacred experience. 

I am indebted to Public Square Magazine, as they will be running three additional articles during Black History Month to highlight our team’s work with Black families. I urge you to stay tuned as you hear directly from the voices of strong Black families this month. These articles will focus on: (1) serving others, (2) using faith to cope with racism, and (3) the power of positive humor. As you engage these stories, I invite you not simply to read them, but to receive them. Allow the lived faith of these families to speak to you, to teach you, and to bless you and those around you. These stories are not ours to own, only to share. They are reminders that Black love grounded in faith can be profoundly powerful— capable of overcoming even the highest hurdles attempting to impede familial stability. May their faith strengthen yours, and may we continue to go forward as one people, as brothers and sisters, just as civil rights leader John Lewis urged us to do. 

The post Studying Strong Black Marriages Changed My Own appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

When did parenthood become just one lifestyle option among many—and what gets lost when it’s framed that way?

Such a shift certainly has its positives—allowing people to choose is not in itself a bad thing—but current narratives discourage having and raising children. Media and public discussions often emphasize the burdens of parenthood. For just one prominent example, in 2024, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued a warning that parenting can present a “public health concern” because of the stress and mental health challenges associated with it. 

Other commentators have pointed out that a generation learned to “dread motherhood.” These trials are very real. We bear broad responsibilities in our communities to help reduce the loneliness and stressors of parenting. 

But if we discuss only the problems, we are not creating a more accurate picture than if we only rhapsodize sentimentally about the pitter-patter of little feet. We shouldn’t ignore the deeper reality: parenting is both struggle and joy, and part of our covenantal relationship with God. Couples who are trying to decide whether or not to have children need an honest, balanced look at parenting that examines both its challenges and its abundant blessings, as well as God’s wishes for His children about their children. 

Parenthood as Burden vs. Parenthood as Commandment

The Family: A Proclamation to the World is unambiguous: God commands us to choose to bring children into the world in the proper order. The Proclamation affirms that the commandment “to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.” If we are tempted to consider such teachings outdated or superseded by new conditions, recent prophetic teachings have also reinforced the doctrine. In October, President Dallin H. Oaks, then the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, taught, “The national declines in marriage and childbearing are understandable for historic reasons, but Latter-day Saint values and practices should improve—not follow—those trends.” The commandment remains relevant, and seeing the obligation to bear children as a commandment represents a fundamental reframing. 

A commandment is different from a social mandate or a biological imperative since commandments include personal accountability before God. Scripture teaches us that when God gives us commandments, He also makes it possible for us to obey them (see 1 Nephi 3:7). Therefore, parents do not face the challenges of bearing and rearing children alone. They are promised the assistance of the Almighty. Furthermore, commandments require honest effort rather than absolute success (see, for instance, Doctrine and Covenants 124:49). Those who for one reason or another are unable to have children in this life but who have tried can be comforted that they are under no condemnation. 

Choosing to have children is only the first step. Parents then have responsibilities throughout their children’s lives. These responsibilities can seem daunting, and some potential parents may feel reluctant to assume such a level of responsibility. However, The Proclamation, even while impressing on readers the seriousness of these responsibilities, also presents them as manageable tasks. A fascinating passage lays out basic parental responsibilities:”Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.”

The word “entitled” is typically used negatively. This is particularly the case in the public language of the Church. For example, Oaks has taught, “Entitlement is generally selfish. It demands much, and it gives little or nothing. Its very concept causes us to seek to elevate ourselves above those around us.”

The Family: A Proclamation to the World is an unusual case in which “entitled” is used not to criticize an attitude, but to instill one. While we should not generally feel a right to special privileges, an exception is made for children. They have a divinely appointed right to be born into a family welded together through mutual commitment between husband and wife. 

The stance on marital fidelity in The Family: A Proclamation to the World represents another important reframing of our perspectives. Marital fidelity is actually as much about children as it is about husband and wife. Therefore, personal fulfillment is not the foundation for a happy family. Rather, the foundation is the teachings of Jesus Christ. 

Such a view of the family implies the sacrifice of some personal desires, perhaps even needs. But the message of Christ’s Gospel is that sacrifice proves eternally more satisfying than seeking our own fulfillment, as Jesus taught:

“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross⁠, and follow me⁠. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.” (Matthew 16:24–25). 

Choosing Parenthood with an Eternal Lens

While the demands of parenting can seem daunting and even all-consuming, the Proclamation helps us to see them as manageable. Its call for community support and individual adaptation provides the practical tools necessary for implementing its teachings in the life of every family. 

It presents mutual fidelity as the baseline for creating a happy family. We can start there knowing that God will help us accomplish the other responsibilities He has given us and that He will be merciful to us as we give our honest effort. Such a view of parenting can help us to see that it is not only possible, but also rewarding.

The post Choosing Parenthood, the Hard Joy appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

by Autumn Dickson

The world is so confused. The more I learn about the gospel and the more I observe the world, the more I’m amazed at how lost the world is. The world is constantly seeking happiness, but it still seems so elusive.

I testify that there is joy to be found, and it is found in following the patterns of the Lord.

Moses 3:18 And I, the Lord God, said unto mine Only Begotten, that it was not good that the man should be alone; wherefore, I will make an help meet for him.

And the Lord created Eve for Adam. They were married for eternity. They went through the “dating” stage where everything was perfect, and they also crossed over into the mortal, fallen world where they had a lot to learn and figure out. They had to toil and sacrifice together. They worshipped together.

This is one of the ultimate patterns of the Lord.

The ideal is marriage. It is not good for man or woman to be alone. That is the truth. God declared it Himself in the beginning. We were not meant to be alone.

Let’s talk about a couple of ways that our world is fallen and tries to take this away from us.

We live in a fallen world, full of hurt and selfishness and abuse and apathy and neglect. Somewhere inside, we know that we were meant to have true joy and so in a confused attempt to achieve this joy, we walk away from difficult and painful things. We shy away and assert that we’re happier on our own.

And honestly, that is probably true in specific circumstances. Perhaps a person who has been abused for years in a scary marriage has finally found peace in the quiet that has been left behind after that marriage has fallen apart. Perhaps this person has found themselves again and likes who they are. Of course they are happier than they were in a toxic relationship.

But ultimate joy is found in following the pattern of the Lord and no matter what you’ve been through, the Lord stands ready to walk that hard path back towards healing and peace so that you’re prepared to find joy on the other end.

We live in a fallen world where many find themselves without a partner through no fault of their own. We live in a fallen world where many long for this pattern but it hasn’t come to them yet.

Just because the Lord has an ideal and you haven’t received that blessing yet does not immediately equate with being unloved or being unworthy. It does not mean that your life has to be void of joy or meaning. When I say that marriage is the ideal, I’m not simultaneously testifying that being alone means worthless. It’s not worthless. The Lord can take any journey on any path and turn it into powerful, meaningful, joy-filled growth opportunities.

We teach that marriage is ideal, not because we want to rub salt in the wounds of those who find that truth painful but because we want to testify of what the Lord wants them to have.

He wants you to find what Adam and Eve found. He wants you to find what it means to labor alongside an eternal partner. He wants you to find what He has found with your Heavenly Mother. That blessing is there. He can see it.

We live in a fallen world where the ideal is far away from many. Even if you’re not abused, there are many who worship without a spouse who has stepped away. There are many who long for an eternal sealing, a full bench during sacrament meeting, someone to engage in the deepest parts of life with. There are many who have been victims of infidelity, and there are many who are the ones who engaged in the infidelity and also feel far away from the ideal.

I testify that the truth is this: It is not good for man or woman to be alone.

I also testify of another truth. Christ can take you exactly where you’re at, no matter how far away you feel from the ideal. I testify that Christ knows how you feel. I testify that He stands ready to walk the path before you with you.

In The Book of Mormon, we learn about the strait and narrow path to walk towards the love of God. It is not “straight.” It is “strait,” meaning “narrow.” I understand that this partially refers to the covenant path, but I also believe there is another layer of meaning.

When we picture the traditional life in church, we see finishing high school, going to college, serving a mission, coming home, getting married, finishing college, and having kids (sometimes with varying order). That’s the path. It’s straight. We can see it. We know how it’s supposedly meant to happen.

But God set us up for a fallen world, and that means that there isn’t a “straight” path. There are only “strait” paths. There is a path for you to walk, and along that path, there are pieces of salvation that you will be picking up. A spouse, selflessness, compassion, knowledge. God can see your strait path, and Christ stands ready to walk it with you. The ideal is available to you even if it’s not the path you would have chosen for yourself. Trust me; the path that God chooses is so much better even if it feels painful right now.

I testify that the ideal is to not be alone. The world will tell you that you’re better off alone or that you don’t need a relationship, and they’re right but only to an extent. You can be happy on your own. However, the ideal, the most amount of joy available, comes from being in a relationship centered on Christ. God declared this truth, Himself. Sometimes this truth feels unbearably painful because it feels withheld or tangled up with trauma, but it is still the truth. Luckily, I can simultaneously testify that if we cling to the Savior, He can help us find that ideal and He can help us be able to find joy in the strait path that eventually leads to the ideal. You can find joy now in less than ideal circumstances if you include Christ, and you will also eventually find the ultimate joy if you continue to hold to Christ.

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 – Genesis 1–2; Moses 2–3; Abraham 4–5 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.