Still, religious freedom has been a dominant interest of mine for many years. Some 73 years ago, when I was only 16, the Supreme Court endorsed with particular force the metaphor of “a wall between Church and State, which must be kept high and impregnable.”5 The legal relationship implied by this metaphor has been confusing and much criticized and is being selectively displaced. Over time, I have come to wish for a better metaphor, one sufficient to define the limits but also allow accommodation of the mutual interests of religion and government. Less rigid than a wall, the boundary should be permeable enough to admit light and flexible enough to allow mutual support. That change has not happened.
We are currently governed by the tests established in the 1990 case of Employment Division v. State, 6 but its influence is clearly waning. Subsequent cases have exposed its failure as a broadly applicable and publicly
understandable standard to help reconcile opposing parties.7 Rather, it appears to have perpetuated, if not exacerbated, the divisiveness in our relationships. It has become increasingly clear that we now need a new, workable balance between religious freedom and nondiscrimination.
In these circumstances it is timely to ask how we should go forward to resolve urgent conflicts between the widespread support for nondiscrimination and the constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion. Most media coverage and public perception of these conflicts understandably focus on court rulings, especially those of the United States Supreme Court. We all know that the courts are intended to have the final word on constitutional issues. We also know that court opinions in this area are rigorously policed by litigation organizations on both sides who solicit and groom additional cases to advance their causes through favorable court rulings. Though
such rulings are immensely important, I caution against primary reliance on judicial rulings to ultimately resolve these conflicts. What is needed is wise public policy, not a declaration of the winner in a legal contest. Litigation should not be the first recourse in resolving our differences. Courts are constitutionally limited to resolving the specific cases before them. They are ill-suited to the overarching, complex, and comprehensive policymaking that is required in a circumstance like the current conflict between two great values. Notwithstanding my years of working with judicial opinions, I prefer the initial route of legislative lawmaking on big questions like the ones now before us. I find wisdom in the observation of Professor Martha Minow of Harvard Law School. In her influential article on this subject, she concluded that “[a]ccommodation and negotiation can identify practical solutions where abstract principles sometimes cannot.”8 Professor Minow further observed
that problem-solving by negotiation “is highly relevant to sustaining and replenishing both American pluralism and constitutional protections for minority groups.”9
Successful negotiation requires that neither side be unduly influenced by the extreme voices that often drive litigation, especially litigation sponsored by ideological groups. Extreme voices influence popular opinion, but they polarize and sow resentment as they seek to dominate their opponents and achieve absolute victory. Such outcomes are rarely sustainable or even attainable, and they are never preferable to living together in mutual understanding and peace.
Good-faith negotiation invites that seldom-appreciated virtue so necessary to democracy: tolerance, free of bigotry toward those whose opinions or practices differ from our own. But learning to live with significant differences requires much more than tolerance. Dr. Alwi Shihab, the Indonesian president’s special envoy to the Middle East and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, made this point in an address to the faculty and students at Brigham Young University. Relying on the teachings of the Quran, he said, “We must respect this Godgiven dignity in every human being, even in our enemies. For the goal of all human relations—whether they are religious, social, political, or economic—ought to be cooperation and mutual respect.” Thus, he added, “We must go . . beyond tolerance if we are to achieve harmony in our world.” 10 Obviously, followers of Christ also have a duty to seek harmony. Where there are conflicts, all should seek peace.
Far from being a weakness, reconciling adverse positions through respectful negotiation is a virtue. As Jesus taught, “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”11 The Apostle Paul followed this by teaching Christians to “follow after the things which make for peace,” 12 and “[i]f it be possible . . . live peaceably with all men.”13 Similarly, the Book of Mormon teaches that it is a “peaceable walk with the children of men” that distinguishes a true follower of Jesus Christ.14
Such teachings impose duties and can create tensions that I will now address. On this subject I counsel my fellow Latterday Saints specifically, but I also request
the consideration of those who share our belief in the Bible and even those who only embrace its wisdom. I will illustrate some of my points with the experience of the Latterday Saints because I believe the lessons we have learned from that experience are applicable to any who seek to obey both the law of the land and the law of their God, even in circumstances of extreme tension.
what Jesus called Caesar’s law. Joseph Smith, for whom this lecture is named, taught that “religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberty of others.”17
What I have described as necessary to going forward—namely seeking harmony by finding practical solutions to our differences, with love and respect for all people—does not require any compromise of core principles. Both religious and secular rule are ordained of God for the good of His children. As is generally known, Jesus taught this during His ministry. Some who sought to trap Him asked Jesus whether it was right to pay taxes to Caesar. They wanted to force Him to declare publicly that His followers were not subject to the civil law. Instead, using a coin of the Roman overseer as a visual aid, Jesus answered, “Render [meaning give] . . unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” 15
The religious duty to obey the law of the land and to live peaceably with all people does not contemplate that the religious will abandon the public square. In a free society like ours, all are lawfully privileged and morally obligated to exert their best political efforts to argue for what they think is most desirable. For example, it is well-known that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints exercised its constitutional right to express its position that the traditional legal definition of marriage should be preserved. But in 2015, when the Supreme Court pronounced the legality of same-sex marriage, the Church immediately ceased all such opposition and publicly acknowledged its acceptance of the constitutional law established by the nation’s highest court.16
Of course, a church’s religious marriage law and practice, which upholds the Biblical understanding of marriage, remains in force on its adherents when it does not violate
Therefore, notwithstanding its heavily criticized opposition in the political debate over same-sex marriage, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reached out to nondiscrimination advocates and participated in Utah negotiations over shared concerns on housing and employment. The discussions that followed were previously thought impossible for either side. Over a six-year period, however, they were able to craft suitable local and statewide legislation because adversaries gradually learned to understand each other’s positions, including what they deemed most important to affirm and protect by law. One participant told me that he recalls them as “an effort in peacemaking, learning how to live together” with mutual respect, even love.
At issue was a head-to-head conflict between free exercise of religion and nondiscrimination in housing and employment in a Salt Lake City ordinance first proposed in 2009. In time, a jointly designed proposal gained traction, and its adoption at the city level prompted an effort to adopt a similar law statewide. The resulting law, later called “the Utah Compromise,” was enacted with the Church’s full support in 2015. This law offered protections to both sides. One side obtained significant legal protection from discrimination in employment and housing. The other side gained protection for religious freedom in its most sensitive areas of Church employment and student housing. While the law gave neither side all that it sought, its reconciliations did grant both sides significant benefits—a win-win outcome—that could not have been obtained without the balancing of interests made possible by the dynamics of the legislative process.
In contrast to the tendencies of the judicial branch to decide complex issues in a winner-take-all adversarial process, the legislative process in Utah provided an opportunity to forge enduring relationships and to craft workable long-term solutions. Here
is how Troy Williams, executive director of Equality Utah, described the process:
We found solutions together. Neither side compromised our values, but rather, we discovered new ways forward that respected each other and forged areas of common ground. Bringing diverse voices to the table is hard. It requires expanded empathy and patience. But when we ratchet down the vitriol and seek areas of agreement, incredible things can happen.18
The resulting Utah Compromise on housing and employment was a pathbreaking beginning that has been embraced by all parties, including the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As a church, we are committed to the free exercise of religion to allow us to practice the principles of our faith. But we are also committed to fundamental fairness and the rule of law. We see the process that succeeded in Utah as a promising way to have both religious protection and fundamental fairness, particularly on individual issues like housing and employment. Whether it can be applied to other sensitive issues remains to be seen.
In this regard, I must add that the Utah Compromise required more than political engagement. Essential to our side was the principle of honoring both divine and mortal laws. Rendering to Caesar in good faith requires religious persons and associations to acknowledge what their government does for them and to be faithful in fulfilling the reciprocal responsibilities they owe to the government and their fellow citizens. All should observe the laws and respect the values of the country that guarantees their freedoms. This is a debt of gratitude that should be paid gladly.
But what if neither side to a controversy over religious freedom and nondiscrimination can make the concessions necessary to reconcile their differences? On a broader front, what if the conflicting demands of civil law and religious law are such that they cannot be resolved by negotiation? Such circumstances rarely exist. If they do, the experience of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints suggests that a way can be found to reconcile divine law and human law—through patience, negotiation, and
mutual accommodation, without judicial fiat or other official coercion.
That was the outcome of the painful, nationally debated contest over seating Latter-day Saint Apostle Reed Smoot in the United States Senate in 1903. I do not have time to tell the story of this four-year Senate hearing, but I recommend it to you as a fascinating account of a political negotiation which, according to a brilliant scholarly analysis by your own Kathleen Flake, “hammered out a twentieth-century model for church-state relations, shaping for a new generation of Americans what it meant to be free and religious.” 19 Where coercive efforts against a church (by mob violence, public shaming, military might, statutory criminalization, and even disincorporation) had failed, politics—“the art of the possible, the attainable—the art of the next best”20 finally succeeded, and a church leader was seated in the Senate.
Mutual accommodation between the Latter-day Saints and the rest of the country was achieved by adversarial parties who were able, by political means, to identify and “preserve the deepest interests of the greatest number of parties.”21 That is the essence of constructive politics, which is something to be emulated in our own day. Indeed, the
terms for maintaining a workable relationship between church and state that emerged from the Smoot hearings are applicable to all sides today: obedience to the law, political toleration, and commitment to the common good.
United States history is replete with failures and successes in protecting religious and other civil rights. Let us hope that current efforts will add another success to the troubled history of the intersection of divine law and civil law.
5In the meantime, religious leaders must not overlook the fact that the preservation of religious freedom ultimately depends on public appreciation and support for the related First Amendment freedoms of religious conscience, association, and free exercise. In turn, such appreciation and support depend on the value the public attaches to the positive effects of the practices and teachings in churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship. Those effects include their encouraging observance of civil law and churchgoers’ improved health
We must not allow fears about losing our own freedoms make us insensitive to others’ claims for theirs.
5 McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 212 (1948); Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16, 18 (1948); see also Dallin H. Oaks, ed., The Wall Between Church and State (University of Chicago Press, 1963).
6 Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
7 See Steven H. Aden and Lee J. Strang, “When a ‘Rule’ Doesn’t Rule: The Failure of the Oregon Employment Division v. Smith ‘Hybrid Rights Exception,’” Penn State Law Review 108, no. 2 (2003): 573–609.
8 Martha Minow, “Should Religious Groups Be Exempt from Civil Rights Law?” Boston College Law Review 48, no. 4 (2007): 849.
9 Minow, “Should Religious Groups?” 783; emphasis added.
and longevity, recently highlighted in a cover story in Christianity Today.22
Teachings based on faith in God— however defined—have always contributed to moral actions that benefit the entire nation. This will continue to be so as religious people love and serve their neighbors as an expression of their love of God. As Lance B. Wickman, general counsel of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, recently observed:
When we exercise our religious freedom to serve and lift, to strengthen community ties, to pour oil on troubled waters, and to make America better—when we use our religious freedom to bring people together in unity and love—we are defending and preserving religious liberty and the Constitution in a most profound way.23
In this way, more than any other, the importance of religious freedom will be better understood and better protected.
I earnestly invite all religious leaders and associations to coalesce more effectively—and that often means out of court—to seek peaceful resolution of painful conflicts between religious freedom and nondiscrimination. This does not require an examination of doctrinal differences or even our many common elements of belief. All that is necessary for unity and a broad coalition to promote our common need for religious freedom is our shared conviction that God has commanded us to love one another, including our neighbors with different beliefs and cultures.24 This invites all believers, as President Russell M. Nelson
has challenged our members, to “expand our circle of love to embrace the whole human family.”25
In doing so, we must not allow fears about losing our own freedoms make us insensitive to others’ claims for theirs. Let us unite with those who advocate nondiscrimination to seek a culture and laws that respect the rights of all to the equal protection of the law and the right to the free exercise of religion. From the experience of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I believe we can proceed toward this goal by mutual respect and willing accommodation. The right relationship between religious freedom and nondiscrimination is best achieved by respecting each other enough to negotiate in good faith and by caring for each other enough that the freedom and protection we seek is not for ourselves alone. I pray for that result under our inspired Constitution, as we pledge to be “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”26 In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
notes
1 See Dallin H. Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Liahona¸ May 2021, 105–108.
2 Arthur C. Bro oks, “More Love, Less Contempt,” Brigham Young University commencement address, Apr. 25, 201 9, speeches.byu.edu/talks /arthur-c-brooks/more-love-less-contempt.
3 “Legislation Should Not Polarize Religious Liberties, Anti-Discrimination Protections,” Opinion, Deseret News, Apr. 4, 2015.
4 “The World Lost a Moral Voice, but Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks’ Wisdom Lives On,” Editorial, Deseret News, Nov. 13, 2020.
10 Alwi Shihab, “Building Br idges to Harmony Through Understanding,” Brigham Young University forum address, Oct. 10, 2006, speeches.byu .edu/talks/alwi-shihab/building-bridges-harmony -understanding.
11 Matthew 5:9.
12 Romans 14:19.
13 Romans 12:18.
14 Moroni 7:4.
15 Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25.
16 See Tad Walch, “What the LDS Church Said About the Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage,” Deseret News, June 29, 2015.
17 Doctrine and Covenants 134:4.
18 Troy Williams, in Matt Canham, “Read What Key Figures Say ‘the Utah Way’ Is,” Salt Lake Tribune, July 25, 2021.
19 Kathleen Flake, The Politics of American Religious Identity: The Seating of Senator Reed Smoot, Mormon Apostle (University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 11.
20 Otto von Bismark, in conversation with Fredrich Meyer von Waldeck of the St. Petersburgische Zeitung, Aug. 11, 1867; in W. Andreas, ed., Gesammelt Werke, vol. 7 (Strollber, 1924), 222.
21 Flake, The Politics of American Religious Identity, 10; see also 8–9, 50–51.
22 See Tyler J. Vanderweele and Brendan Case, “Empty Pews Are an American Public Health Crisis,” Christianity Today, Oct. 19, 2021, christianitytoday.com /ct/2021/november/church-empty-pews-are -american-public-health-crisis.html.
23 Lance B. Wick man, “Shrapnel in a Bible: Reflections on Patriotism, Charity, and Religious Liberty,” St. George (Utah) Interfaith Devotional, July 4, 2021.
24 See Matthew 22:36–40; Luke 10:29–37.
25 Russell M. Nels on, Teachings of Russell M. Nelson (Deseret Book, 2018), 83.
26 The Pledge of Allegiance, 4 USC § 4 (2013).
Saving Our Democracy
by JUDGE THOMAS B. GRIFFITH
Retired Judge on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
I LOVE BYU. This university is unique because here we can talk about the things of the Spirit and the things of the mind, and there is no artificial distinction between the two.
My career as a lawyer was radically influenced by an invitation I received long before I was a judge. I was the United States Senate’s legal counsel, and we had just finished the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. I was involved in a nonpartisan way, and at that time it was unusual for a lawyer to be involved in an impeachment trial of the president. Because of my unique role, I received many invitations to speak, including from byu–Hawaii. I’d never been to Hawaii before, so this wasn’t a tough invitation to accept.
This article is adapted from remarks delivered at byu Law on November 5, 2025.
Building Lawful Societies
I went to byu–Hawaii, and I titled my remarks “Lawyers and the Atonement of Christ.”1 The title wasn’t meant to be a joke. It was the result of my pondering over several years, “What does my career have to do with building the kingdom of God? What does my vocation have to do with bearing witness of Christ? And what does my work have to do with engaging in Christ’s greatest work, which is the work of bringing people together?”
So I played those thoughts out in front of that audience. The other day I went back and watched the recording of my remarks, and every once in a while the camera pans across the audience and you see students with their heads down! Even if my words didn’t resonate with the audience, voicing my thoughts had a big impact on me. Doing this changed my life because it got me to realize that lawyering, properly understood, is the work of Christ’s Atonement.
Here is what I mean by that. Let’s go back in Church history to 1830. The first assignment the Lord gave Joseph Smith after the Church was organized was to study the Bible and to be engaged in the inspired revision of the Bible. So first he reads the book of Genesis, and through that process we get the book of Moses and the chapters about Enoch. He’s barely mentioned in the Bible, but in the book of Moses we have this great revelation describing Enoch and the creation of Zion.2
If you were a Latter-day Saint in 1831, you didn’t have the Word of Wisdom. You didn’t have temples. You didn’t have byu football. You didn’t have any of the distinctive Latter-day Saint things that we focus on today. What were you doing as a Latter-day Saint? You were building Zion. That is what excited you. Now think about Enoch. What was his job? How did he build Zion? He didn’t go out in the countryside and live by himself. He built a city. And when you build a city, you build it on law, right? This wasn’t tribalism; this was building a city, and that requires law. And so, properly understood, the work of building cities and communities on law is the highest and most noble endeavor in which we can engage. To be sure, the Atonement of Christ starts at the individual level, as we reconnect with our Heavenly Parents. But there is also the horizontal element to it—allowing the Atonement to work in our families, our wards, and our communities.
But that is just the beginning. The real work of the Atonement is in society and in the whole world. Figuring out that lawyering is the work of the Atonement changed my life. And so I would encourage you to think deeply about what you are doing. Ask yourself, “Why am I studying law? What motivates me?” If your primary motivation in practicing law is to make a lot of money to spend on yourself or to have power that you can lord over people—if that is what is driving you, it’s too late. You are going to hell.
In all seriousness, no bishop is ever going to ask you in a temple recommend interview, “Why do you get up in the morning and go to law school?” or “Why do you get up in the morning and go to work?” But I’m telling you (with no authority to do so) that question might be the most important one we ever ask ourselves: “Why am I doing this? What is motivating me?” We need to get to the point where we are motivated by our love for Christ and for our brothers and sisters.
Figure out how that works in your legal career. It doesn’t mean you’re all going to be civil rights lawyers. Many of you are going to handle mergers and acquisitions, and that’s good; I’m all for creating wealth. But this is about how to make your profession part of the law of consecration. Because, in the law of consecration, what is the first thing you consecrate? Yourself. Each one of us needs to consider how our profession contributes to that. If you do that, you will have guardrails around your ambition. You will also have guardrails around your politics because it will change and affect the way you view the world and how you act in the world. So that’s my grandfatherly advice to you.
Defending the Constitution
That was all introductory to my main theme today, which is that as lawyers and future lawyers we are all called to support and defend the US Constitution. Most state bars consider lawyers to have an ethical and professional responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution. And for those of you who are Latter-day Saints, there is an added obligation because we have a special stewardship with regard to the Constitution, particularly at a time when the Constitution is in trouble.3
I’m going to give you my personal opinion, which you may dismiss as “This guy is so old, he doesn’t like our music, and times have changed.” But look beyond that and see if there is some truth here: We are in a time of constitutional crisis. I will go so far as to say that, in my opinion, the Constitution is hanging by a thread—but not for the reasons you might think. I have a great deal of confidence in the US Supreme Court, and the issues we are seeing played out are dramatic. We have never had a president who has had such a robust view of the power of the executive; this is new. We have never had a Congress that has been so compliant; these issues are going to work out. This is not the source of the constitutional crisis I’m speaking about, and neither is cancel culture or threats to free speech. We are going to have free speech in the United States, and we are not going to lose our religious liberty. Religious liberty has never been stronger in America than it is right now. You want to win a case in front of the Supreme Court? Go find a church to represent. When I think of the Constitution hanging by a thread, it’s not that I think my religious liberties are in serious question right now, although we need to be vigilant.
Reconciling Disagreements
Here is what I think is the greatest threat to the Constitution today: the toxic polarization that surrounds us. Unfortunately, it’s possible that some of you participate in this toxic polarization. What is going on right now is different from anything we’ve measured in our country. Now, I chose those words carefully. We didn’t have social science researchers in 1863 and, yes, the Civil War was awful. But since we started keeping track, it has never been as bad as it is now. What is unique about this moment is not that we are disagreeing with each other. We’re Americans, for crying out loud, so we had better disagree! I don’t trust a decision by any decision-making body that isn’t the product of disagreement. I want to know things have been thought through and argued thoroughly, whether that is in the White House, at the US Supreme Court, on Capitol Hill, or at 47 E. South Temple in Salt Lake City. But the type of disagreements that are not good for our country are what political scientists call affective polarization. 4 These create divisions that aren’t just disagreements over tax rates or policies, but rather they manifest hatred and contempt for those who have opposing views. These attitudes become the driving force in political commitments—you hate the other side because they are immoral. Polls show that 63 percent of Democrats think that Republicans are immoral, while 72 percent of Republicans say the same about Democrats.5 I’m telling you that the Constitution cannot succeed under these circumstances.
Jonathan Haidt, a great social psychologist who has done so much research on the negative effects of screens and the digital world, made a stark statement several years ago. He predicted “a catastrophic failure of [American] democracy,” saying, “We just don’t know what a democracy looks like when you drain all the trust out of the system.”6 Well, Haidt said that in 2019, and I think now we do know: It looks like the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. Michael Gerson, a conservative Washington Post columnist who passed away a few years ago, wrote, “Our political system is designed for vigorous disagreement. It is not designed for irreconcilable contempt. Such contempt
loosens the ties of citizenship and undermines the idea of patriotism.” 7 In my view, that is the greatest threat to the Constitution today. It’s not that you’re going to lose your guns. It’s not that you won’t be able to worship. The greatest threat to the Constitution today is what is happening on social media and what goes on in political campaigns in which there is such contempt displayed for the other side.
Fostering Unity
We know what our role is at this moment. We have been told—in the most direct terms that I can remember in my long life—by President Russell M. Nelson that our role is to be bridge builders and peacemakers.8 President Dallin H. Oaks echoed this directive in his fabulous talk “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.” There is a lot of great stuff in there, but for me the money line is, “On contested issues, we should seek to moderate and unify.”9 That is our role. And if that is not what your latest posting on social media reflected, or if it doesn’t describe your latest conversation or argument with someone—repent. This peacemaking role hasn’t always been ours as lawyers. This is new for us. We’ve been told to do something very specific: to be peacemakers, to be builders of understanding on contested issues, and to seek to moderate and unify. What does it mean to moderate? I don’t know, but we’re supposed to figure that out, because that is our new role.
Several years ago, I was asked to give a presentation on toxic polarization to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Presiding Bishopric, and the Presidency of the Seventy. This group meets several times a month, and they bring in scholars and researchers to present about current events for an hour. I got my hair cut, I wore a white shirt, and I was a little nervous, right? It’s a very friendly audience, but you want to do well. I was told beforehand that there is one rule: I was there to report and not to recommend. At about the 15-minute mark, when I had gone through all of the data, I said, “Brethren, I understand that I’m here to report and not to recommend. For the next part of my presentation, I’m going to come really close to that line and I’m going to try not to
step over, but if I do, I hope you’ll be forgiving.” They laughed at that, and one of them raised his hand and said in an accent, “Recommend! Recommend!”
So I shared a series of stories about conversations I’ve had with thought leaders, university leaders, and political leaders over the last couple of years. These leaders tell me that the Latter-day Saints— “Your church, Tom!”—can lead us out of this divisive time. They’re watching us. They know what President Nelson has been saying. They know what President Oaks has been saying, including in his 2021 remarks at the University of Virginia titled “Going Forward with Religious Freedom and Nondiscrimination.”10 They know we can put boots on the ground. They know we’ve got the resources, the doctrine, and the people, and they’re saying, “Lead.” One of the people in the meeting asked, “Why is it that so many people outside of the Church see something in us that perhaps we don’t see in ourselves?” Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institution wrote a book published last year titled Cross Purposes: Christianity’s Broken Bargain with Democracy, and in it he criticizes American evangelicalism for failing our democracy. A gay atheist, Rauch lauds the Latter-day Saint approach, which he describes as “a civic theology which aligns scriptural and constitutional values, not merely as a matter of expediency but as an intrinsic element of God’s plan.”11 This is our moment.
How do we save our democracy? We can be people who, by example and action, bring others together and encourage people to tone down their arguments. This is now a religious imperative—prophetic leaders have told us to do it. But another reason is because the Constitution itself requires this of its citizens. Now, I’m not a scholar, but I have been studying the Constitution since high school. And yet for decades I completely missed what I now believe is the primary purpose of the Constitution. I thought the Constitution was primarily about protecting rights and about the structure of government and the separation of powers. But that is not the primary objective of the Constitution. Do you know what it is? Yuval Levin in his book American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation—and Could Again, which is the most important book on the Constitution I’ve ever read, describes it best: The fundamental purpose of the Constitution is answering the question “How can people [in a diverse nation] act together when they don’t think alike?”12
Creating common ground is the key purpose of the Constitution. Levin says the Constitution does this by compelling Americans with different views and priorities to deal with one another, compete, negotiate, and build coalitions in ways that drag us into common action, especially when we disagree.13 Levin is right. The Constitution requires citizens who are willing to listen to their opponents, understand their concerns, and then be willing to compromise so that
they find common ground. This hearkens back to President Oaks’s remarks at the University of Virginia, when he said, “[Seek] harmony by finding practical solutions to our differences, with love and respect for all people. . . . [A] way can be found to reconcile divine and human law—through patience, negotiation, and mutual accommodation.”14
The Constitution creates a system of government that only works when people reconcile. In our democratic republic, when you win an election you have won a seat at the negotiating table. You don’t win an election and then get everything you want; winning doesn’t allow you to dominate. Winning allows you to sit down at the table and negotiate and compromise.
Renewing America
Let me finish by going back to the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787. We all know the story: Things weren’t going well. In the middle of July, some delegates were threatening to pack their bags and leave. And yet, by September 17 they had pulled it off—they succeeded in reaching a consensus. Some people have called it a miracle.
Well, I’m a Christian. I practice my Christianity as a Latter-day Saint. I believe in miracles. I believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that the Book of Mormon was translated miraculously. I have no idea how Jesus was resurrected. I have no idea how Joseph Smith did what he did, but I believe it. When Howie Kendrick hit that home run in
the seventh inning of Game 7 of the World Series in 2019 and the Washington Nationals won, that was a miracle. I’m a miracle guy.
I don’t think a miracle occurred in Philadelphia in 1787. Why? Because, as I understand a miracle, it is something that we can’t explain rationally. We can rationally explain exactly what happened in Philadelphia in 1787 to get them from almost certain failure to success in creating the most enduring constitution in the world and establishing the bedrock principles that have allowed our country, as well as others, to flourish. How did they do that? It wasn’t a miracle. We know how it happened because George Washington told us. This is what Washington wrote in a letter transmitting the Constitution to the Continental Congress: “And thus the Constitution which we now present is the Result of a Spirit of Amity and of that mutual Deference & Concession which the Peculiarity of our political Situation rendered indispensable.”15 This is what supporting and defending the Constitution looks like.
There is your roadmap: amity, deference, and concession. I think this is what we are called to do, and it is my hope and prayer that we will do it. Let’s rise to this moment and seize the opportunity to help renew our democracy.
notes
1 See Thomas B. Griffith, “Lawyers and the Atonement,” byu–Hawaii devotional address, Mar. 23, 2000; printed in Clark Memorandum, Spring 2001, 8–15.
4 See Shanto Iyengar, Gaurav Sood, and Yphtach Lelkes, “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization,” Public Opinion Quarterly 76, no. 3 (Fall 2012): 405–431.
GRIFFITH ENDOWED SCHOLARSHIP FUND
The Judge Thomas B. Griffith Endowed Scholarship Fund at byu was established by HL and Randall Rogers. Judge Griffith shares the following fond memories from when HL Rogers was his law clerk.
I want to thank HL Rogers for his generous endowment of a scholarship in my name. I am so honored. He was the first law clerk I hired. He and I used to get to chambers at six in the morning, and we would be there together for hours before anyone else showed up. That turned out to be a really bad thing in terms of getting things done at the court because we would start talking—and we weren’t talking about the law. Sometimes it would be about byu sports, but most of our talking was about the gospel. Suddenly it would be ten o’clock, and I would say, “Get out of here. We’ve got work to do!”
HL is a brilliant lawyer who has had a fabulous career. But the thing you need to know most about HL Rogers is that his primary commitment is to the gospel of Jesus Christ. He lives it. He breathes it. He thinks it. And he is a great example of what we all should be.
5 Pew Research Center, “As Partisan Hostility Grows, Signs of Frustration with the Two-Party System,” Aug. 9, 2022, pewresearch.org/politics/2022/08/09 /as-partisan-hostility-grows-signs-of-frustration -with-the-two-party-system.
6 Jonathan Haidt, in Paul Kelly, “‘Very Good Chance’ Democracy Is Doomed in America, Says Haidt,” The Australian, July 20, 2019.
7 Michael Gerson, “A Primer on Political Reality,” Opinion, Washington Post, Feb. 19, 2010.
8 See Russell M. Nelson, “Peacemakers Needed,” Liahona, May 2023, 98–101.
9 Dallin H. Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Liahona, May 2021, 107.
10 See Dallin H. Oaks, “Going Forward with Religious Freedom and Nondiscrimination,” Joseph Smith Lecture at the University of Virginia, Nov. 12, 2021, newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/president -dallin-h-oaks-speech-university-of-virginia.
11 Jonathan Rauch, Cross Purposes: Christianity’s Broken Bargain with Democracy (Yale University Press, 2025), 117.
12 Yuval Levin, American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation—and Could Again (Basic Books, 2024), 269.
13 See Levin, American Covenant, 280.
14 Oaks, “Going Forward.”
15 “George Washington to the President of Congress, 17 September 1787,” Founders Online, National Archives, founders.archives.gov/documents /Washington/04-05-02-0306; in The Papers of George Washington, Confederation Series, vol. 5, 1 February 1787 – 31 December 1787, ed. W. W. Abbot (University Press of Virginia, 1997), 330–333.
Is of God
Con ten tion IS OF THE DEVIL Confrontation
NBY STEPHANIE PLAMONDON
Bruce C. Hafen Professor of Law at byu Law
ormally, I explore topics in intellectual property law, but today I’m going to focus on something very different. I’ve been giving a lot of thought to the underappreciated distinction between contention and confrontation. For a long time, I didn’t appreciate this distinction; learning about it has been a significant source of growth for me, and I hope that some of what I’ve learned will be useful to you as well.
Illustrations by Emanuela Carnevale
I titled my remarks “Contention Is of the Devil; Confrontation Is of God.” I realize that this is a bold title, so I want to dispense my first piece of advice to you as law students: Always include a disclaimer! I will do that here and say that although I may quote from the scriptures, prophets, and other experts, these thoughts are my own. I hope they can serve as a starting point for your own thoughts and conversations on the topic.
To begin to explain my title, I would like to back up to when I was a little girl growing up with four sisters. Our family didn’t have a lot of money; consequently, we lived in tight quarters. You might expect, with five headstrong little girls of about the same age in a small space, that we would butt heads a lot—and we did. In response to many of these conflicts, my beleaguered mom would often remind us that “contention is of the devil.”
My mom was on solid doctrinal grounds in telling us this. After all, her words were inspired by the scripture in 3 Nephi where Jesus, speaking to the Nephites, says: “For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.”1
More recently, President Russell M. Nelson in his talk “Peacemakers Needed” also spoke of contention. He said, “[C]ontention is evil! . . . Those who foster contention are taking a page out of Satan’s playbook, whether they realize it or not.”2 Clearly, contention is something that as disciples of Christ we seek to avoid.
What Contention Isn’t
Unfortunately (though understandably), in those chaotic moments, my mom didn’t have the time to tell us exactly what contention was. Was it the fact that we were disagreeing? That someone had hurt someone else’s feelings or wronged them in some way and we were speaking up about it? Or was it that we were trying to resolve these conflicts through yelling, pulling each other’s hair, or doing other harmful and exasperating things? Because this distinction was never made clear, I began in my young mind to group it all together. I began to believe that any type of disagreement or conflict, no matter how civil, was “contention.”
This belief of mine was strengthened as I noticed how people at church handled disagreement. They seemed to be quite uncomfortable with it. Whenever someone in a Sunday School lesson brought up a challenging question or expressed a view that wasn’t the dominant one, I could sense people’s unease. Often when this happened, one or more people would rush in to smooth over this discomfort, usually without really addressing the initial speaker’s underlying question or concern. My friend Professor Jason Kerr in byu’s English Department has a gift for turn of phrase and refers to those who rush in like this as “sweepers.” They hurry in with their brooms and dustpans and immediately sweep up any metaphorical mess that comes with disagreement. Do you know any of these sweepers? Have you ever been one? I know I have. I offer no disrespect to the sweepers. I know that they are very well intentioned. In fact, there was a time when I also believed, through these and other formative experiences, that any kind of disagreement or conflict was contention and that it was my duty to be a sweeper.
It wasn’t until I was in law school, well into my adulthood, that I began to realize that disagreement wasn’t always bad. In the law school setting, I observed people taking very different positions on what were very often charged topics. As students we were even encouraged to do so. We learned to confront each other with our thoughts, our beliefs, and our values. And although people argued passionately for their positions, they mostly did it in a respectful way, without animosity. I learned so much through witnessing and participating in these confrontations—both about the topics we discussed and about the way these confrontations can take place so that people are helped and not harmed by them.
Back, then, to my title: Contention is of the devil; confrontation is of God. I’d like to talk, first, about confrontation and how it’s different from contention. Next, I’d like to explore why, who, when, and how we should confront. Finally, I’d like to urge each of us to be confrontable.
What Is Confrontation?
First, what is confrontation and how is it different from contention? The confrontations I witnessed in law school involved the sincere and honest expression of people’s feelings, beliefs, values, needs, and wants. I think this is a good working definition of what confrontation is. There is nothing inherently wrong with expressing these things, even if our beliefs, feelings, or values conflict with someone else’s. We should regularly be expressing these things.
The etymology of the word confrontation also supports this positive view. The word comes from the Latin confrontātio, meaning to bring “face to face.”3 When we confront, we face toward each other. We also face up to our unique perspectives, differences, and relational issues without sweeping them under the rug.
But the trick is learning how to do this in the appropriate ways and at the appropriate times, because if we don’t, we can easily slip into the realm of contention. According to Professor Byron R. Merrill, who taught ancient scripture at byu (and who was a lawyer for many years, so he presumably knows something about confrontation and contention), the main difference between healthy confrontation on the one hand and unhealthy contention on the other is hostility. In his article titled “There Was No Contention,” he explains:
Contention, then, as used in the Book of Mormon, is not just a matter of asserting or defending a position, but of doing so with anger as the added element. The Saints may honestly and forthrightly differ in opinion on ideas, insights, or approaches while still remaining calm; but it is when hostile feelings are added that disagreement turns into contention.4
This address was delivered at byu Law on October 15, 2025.
Another way to think ab out the difference between healthy confrontation on the one hand and unhealthy contention on the other is to consider our purpose in expressing our beliefs and values. If we’re expressing ourselves to increase mutual understanding, learn from each other, and solve problems, then we’re probably in the world of healthy confrontation. But we
have to be honest with ourselves. Are we confronting someone in a way that will humiliate or embarrass them? Are we doing it to prove that we’re right and they’re wrong or to compel them to adopt our view? If these latter things are true, then we’ve probably crossed the line into the unhealthy world of contention.
Why We Should Confront
Now that we have an idea of what healthy confrontation is, we can move to the second question: Why should we confront? The answer to this question is that confrontation is necessary for many aspects of our spiritual development: personal growth, relationships with each other and with God, growth in our professional and spiritual communities, and even the proper functioning of society.
PERSONAL GROWTH
In order for us to develop into the people God wants us to be, we need to both confront and be confronted in our lives. Articulating our beliefs, feelings, and values in various settings helps us better understand what they are. It helps us refine them. It helps us understand how to better live in accordance with those beliefs and values. A simple example of how some of us have confronted others with our beliefs and values is when we have voiced an opinion in testimony meeting, in Sunday School, or in other church meetings. These spiritual-confrontation practices help strengthen and refine us. They foster personal growth.
And because we all have blind spots, we also need to be confronted by others. We need people to tell us when we’re heading off course or when we’ve inadvertently hurt them, so that we can repent and change our behavior. There is no shame in this. In fact, this is God’s plan for us!
HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS
This leads me to my second point about why confrontation is necessary: It’s essential for healthy and functioning relationships God built us to be in relationship with each other. Researchers, including byu Professor Julianne Holt-Lunstad, have found that loneliness is as harmful to our health as smoking and physical inactivity.5 We need relationships. But we can’t have fully functioning relationships unless we get comfortable with confrontation. Without good confrontation skills, our relationships tend to suffer in one or more of a few identifiable ways. As I mention them, think about whether you have experienced any of these.
these issues can create distance or even lead to the end of these relationships. They can also manifest at unexpected times and without an ideal measure of thoughtfulness and emotional control, sometimes harming innocent people. Finally, not having a good understanding of confrontation can harm relationships because when people confront us in honest and sincere ways, we might misinterpret the confrontation as contention or an attack; consequently, we might respond with defensiveness or anger or in an otherwise unproductive manner.
These are just some of the ways in which not having good confrontation skills can harm relationships. On the other hand, getting comfortable with confrontation can bring us closer together. It can help us resolve differences, understand each other better, develop empathy for one another, and learn to act in ways that are more loving toward each other.
Without good confrontation skills, our relationships tend to suffer.
Sometimes we might allow people to repeatedly treat us in disrespectful or harmful ways because we are afraid or because we don’t know how to effectively confront their disrespectful behavior. This is not a situation that our Heavenly Father wants for us. But even in healthier relationships with well-meaning family and friends, if we don’t regularly confront others in productive ways, small hurts and relational issues can build up over time. If left unresolved,
People . . . who have diverse viewpoints must be comfortable expressing their views, and others must be willing to listen.
PROFESSIONAL AND SPIRITUAL ENDEAVORS
The third reason we need confrontation is because it is essential for growth, problem-solving, and success in our professional and spiritual communities. There is a large body of social science research that highlights the benefits of what researchers call “viewpoint diversity” in professional settings.6 Viewpoint diversity can come from many sources. It can come from members of a group having different geographic origins, socioeconomic or ethnic backgrounds, educational experiences and training, or political views, among other things. The research is very clear that when groups have viewpoint diversity in their membership, they are more productive, better at problem-solving, and more innovative and creative.7 Part of the reason for this is because viewpoint diversity counteracts the human inclination to fall back into lazy assumptions and patterns of thinking. It is difficult to caricature the interests and perspectives of members of other groups when people you know and respect from these groups are ready to challenge your assumptions and spur you on to more nuanced thinking. The catch to these findings, however, is this: People within the group who have diverse viewpoints must be comfortable expressing their views, and others must be willing to listen to these views.8 In other words, there has to be a culture of healthy confrontation within the group to reap the benefits of viewpoint diversity.
Just as we need viewpoint diversity in professional settings, we also need it in our religious and spiritual settings. In Corinthians, the Apostle Paul speaks of the body of Christ and of how the body needs different members with different gifts to be successful. He says:
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
For the body is not one member, but many. . . .
And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.9
What is Paul speaking about here? I submit that he’s talking about viewpoint diversity. The foot can (and will) have a different perspective from the hand in the body of Christ, but the benefit of that perspective will be greatly attenuated if the foot doesn’t speak, or if we don’t listen to the foot. Just as we come together in professional settings to learn and solve problems, so too do we come together in our religious worship to grow spiritually and advance the gospel. The respectful exchange of differing perspectives is an essential part of this progression.
PROPER FUNCTIONING OF SOCIETY
The last reason I suggest we need confrontation is because it’s necessary for a functioning society. If you look at our systems of government in the US, so much of it is built on a premise of healthy confrontation. You can see this in all three branches of government. Take the courts, for example. Our criminal justice system is built on the premise of confronting, in an orderly way, those who have committed wrongs against society. Likewise, our civil justice system helps people confront those who have wronged them personally, such as the person who trespassed on their property or the person who breached a contract with them. In the legislative branch of government, we see a process of congressional debate, as our elected representatives confront each other about the pros and cons of various policies and legislation. And in the executive branch, we have presidential and vice presidential debates, as candidates vying for our votes confront each other about the wisdom of their proposed plans and policies. Even the US Constitution has principles of confrontation built into it. The confrontation clause, for example, provides that criminal defendants have the right to confront witnesses who are testifying against them.10 And the First Amendment states that the government cannot abridge citizens’ rights to confront each other with their opinions and views.11 It seems that the founding fathers appreciated the necessity of healthy confrontation for a functioning democratic society.
I hope you can see how, in every important aspect of our lives, confrontation plays a key role. So it makes sense that we should learn more about when to do it and how to do it.
Who and When We Should Confront
We now come to the question of who and when we should confront. My initial, easy answer to this question, building on our previous discussion, is that we should confront everyone, all the time. But perhaps not. I think we all know a person who is very comfortable with confrontation and goes around confronting people constantly, perhaps with little self-awareness. I’m not suggesting that we aspire to be that person. However, there are times when it is very appropriate to confront another person.
OUR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
Take our personal relationships, for example. If we see someone we love acting in ways that are harmful to themselves, to others, or to us, it is loving to confront them. We do so not to shame them, humiliate them, force them to act differently, or convince them to adopt our point of view, but to honestly let them know our perspective about how their actions are affecting themselves and others.
GOD
We also can and should confront God. God wants us to honestly communicate with Him our needs, wants, questions, and desires. The prophet Alma advises, “Counsel with the Lord in all thy doings, and he will direct thee for good.”12
A good biblical example of confronting God with our desires and questions comes from the book of Job. There is somewhat of a myth in the broader culture where people think of Job as a very patient person who just accepted all the trials that came his way without complaint. As BYU alumnus Michael Austin points out in his book Re-Reading Job: Understanding the Ancient World’s Greatest Poem, however, this couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, as he explains, the bulk of the 42 chapters in the book of Job are mainly a chronicle of Job complaining to God—“Why did you do this to me?”, “Why don’t you just kill me?”, and so forth.13 Job was honestly expressing his feelings to God, and God found no fault in him for doing that. And in the end, Job’s prayers were answered and he emerged as champion.14
OUR PROFESSIONAL AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES
Third, we should confront people in our professional and religious communities. For most of you students right now, your main professional community is byu Law School. I feel so grateful that this law school has a measure of viewpoint diversity. Although we all share
some things in common, we come from different geographic locations, have different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds, and hold different political views. I love this for me and for you! It’s such a great opportunity to practice the art of confrontation in a relatively safe space. I urge you to take advantage of this opportunity. Take classes from professors who may have a different ideological bent from yours. Express your views honestly and respectfully in your classes. Honestly listen when a classmate or professor expresses a view that is different from yours. I know that many of you are sincerely seeking out this practice, and it will serve you well in your future professional and personal lives.
What may be a little more difficult for all of us is learning how to be comfortable with confrontation in our religious and spiritual communities. Often we go to church to feel comforted. There is nothing wrong with this. But we should also remember that healthy confrontation can sometimes feel a little uncomfortable. For the body of Christ to function as it should, however, the feet, the hands, the ears, the eyes—all have to offer up their different perspectives.
One thing I’ve learned about confrontation in a church context is that I don’t always have to be a sweeper. People can put difficult ideas and questions out there, and we can learn as a community to consider those ideas and questions with curiosity. We can sit with challenging issues; we don’t need to come up with quick and easy resolutions.
I’ve also learned that I can offer up my views in Sunday School or Relief Society, even if they may differ from what I think may be the dominant perspective. There is value in that. If our church becomes solely a church of hands, eyes, or ears, that would be a very sad thing and we would all be poorer for it. So I urge you to express your honest views and perspectives in the church setting. They are valuable and needed.
AS LAWYERS
Finally, as lawyers we are specifically trained in the art of confrontation in order to serve society. We are learning to be advocates for those whose voices may otherwise not be heard and to participate in crucial but often difficult conversations that help move
society forward. I’m grateful that you are learning how to do this, and I have confidence that you will take this charge seriously and use your training for good.
How We Should Confront
The last issue I’d like to address on this topic of confrontation is how we should confront. In many ways, when it to comes to confrontation, the how is everything and can spell the difference between productive confrontation and unproductive contention.
EMPATHY AND LOVE
When possible, we should confront with love. When we confront a friend, family member, or colleague, we should keep in mind the love we feel for that person and the ultimate goal of the confrontation, which is to strengthen relationships and build mutual understanding rather than to create distance or division. This compassion can help keep us on the confrontation side of the confrontationcontention line. In his “Peacemakers Needed” address, President Nelson said the following:
My two noble counselors, President Dallin H. Oaks and President Henry B. Eyring, are exemplary in the way they express their feelings—especially when they may differ. They do so with pure love for each other. Neither suggests that he knows best and therefore must rigorously defend his position. Neither evidences the need to compete with the other. Because each is filled with charity, “the pure love of Christ” (Moroni 7:47), our deliberations can be guided by the Spirit of the Lord.15
Realistically, it may not be the case that we feel love for every person we will confront in our personal and professional lives. But at the very least, we should consider whether we are holding a baseline of empathy for that person. And again, we should consider our motivation in confronting. If we are confronting someone to increase mutual understanding and to solve problems, then we are probably on solid ground. But if we are doing it to prove we are right, to look good in the eyes of others, to shame or embarrass the other person, or to try to force the person to come around to our point of view, then we probably have more work to do before we are ready for the confrontation.
A SCRIPTURAL GUIDE
The scriptures also give us guidance on how we should confront others. For example, in Matthew 18, Jesus explains:
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church 16
True to the spirit of building relationships and increasing understanding, Jesus advises that we confront others one-on-one when possible to minimize the chances for embarrassment and to maximize the potential for resolution. And if that doesn’t work, we can bring in others to help us, ideally in a spirit of love.
LESSONS FROM LEGAL INSTITUTIONS
I spoke earlier of how our systems of government are based on a model of healthy confrontation, and I think these institutions offer some lessons on the “how” of confrontation as well. Many of these systems of confrontation have built-in guardrails that help keep on track charged situations that could otherwise slide into contention. Our legislative and executive debates have rules, time limits, and mediators, for example. Our court system also uses lawyers and judges as mediators and intermediaries. And evidentiary and court rules try to minimize the introduction of evidence or rhetoric that could inflame emotional responses.
A NOTE ABOUT ANGER
With that, I’ll turn to emotion—in particular the emotion of anger. Anger sometimes gets a bad rap, and we might believe that we should never feel anger. But anger is a God-given emotion that can serve an important purpose in our lives. It can help us understand when we’ve been hurt, when we don’t like something, when there is injustice, and when a confrontation may be necessary. But before we engage in that confrontation, we have to do the work of taking responsibility for our anger and processing it so that when we do confront, we can do it with love, without our anger controlling us. We should do everything we can to prevent the confrontation from turning into hostile contention.
We also need to be wary of people who would try to make us angry in order to manipulate us for their own ends. Often these ends are not our personal interest or even society’s well-being but instead the instigator’s own accumulation of wealth, influence, and power. I’ll reiterate the passage from 3 Nephi that specifies that it’s the devil who “stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.”17 If someone is doing this—and there are plenty of people out there right now from all ideological perspectives who are—you should ask yourself whether they are doing the devil’s work (knowingly or not). If so, you should take steps to shield yourself from their efforts and not engage with them or follow their example.
Be Confrontable
Lastly, I’ll remind us all to be confrontable. Just as we need to confront others for their personal growth and our own, so too do we need to be confronted. We all need to be challenged and made aware of our blind spots—this is how we grow. Proverbs 9 says, “Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.”18 In other words, if we want to be wise, we need to learn to embrace healthy confrontation.
In today’s world, where we can very easily enter echo chambers on the one hand or fields of contention on the other, this is easier said than done. The world might feel so divisive and full of contention that we may want to retreat into a sphere where everyone thinks like we do and to avoid situations where we will be confronted at all. Though understandable, I think this would be a mistake.
But we should be wise about putting ourselves in situations where what we encounter will be healthy confrontation and not unhealthy contention. What are some of these situations? I would submit that in-person interactions have the greatest chance of yielding healthy confrontations. Gathering with friends, getting to know neighbors, attending church activities, participating in community groups, and volunteering in service opportunities are the types of situations that naturally lead to growth-promoting confrontations. On the other hand, online debates are not likely to lead to growth-promoting confrontations.
We also need to exercise our discernment to distinguish situations where someone is honestly expressing a feeling, question, or belief, versus situations where someone is baiting us or trying to stir up contention. While we should avoid the latter situation, we need to learn to get comfortable with the former situation when it happens in our personal relationships, at school, at work, or at church—even when we disagree with the speaker’s position.
One way to be open to this positive type of confrontation is by responding to a confronter with deliberation and curiosity. Even if every fiber of your being disagrees with what the speaker is saying, if they are being sincere, take a moment to digest what they are saying and see if it contains a kernel of truth or something you can agree with. You could then ask the confronter one or more questions to clarify what they are saying and get more information on why they hold this view. Taking these steps can open the door to greater understanding and to productive conversations where everyone involved feels heard and where misunderstandings are minimized.
In the spirit of being confrontable, as my parting challenge I invite you to be proactive by inviting someone in your life to confront you. Evangelical Christians and psychologists Henry Cloud and John Townsend, who write a lot about these issues, offer the following template in their book Safe People. They suggest picking someone in your life (it could be God, your spouse, your best friend, your child) and asking them just two questions: “What do I do that pushes you away from me?” and “What do I do that draws you toward me?”19 Make a habit of asking these questions regularly in order to invite healthy confrontation into your life. I’m so grateful for the wisdom we have from our prophets, scriptures, and other sources that can teach us the pattern for how to grow and have healthy relationships and societies, when so many in our world are struggling with these issues. I’m grateful for the community we have here where we can learn and practice these principles.
notes
1 3 Nephi 11:29.
2 Russell M. Nelson, “Peacemakers Needed,” Liahona, May 2023, 99; emphasis in original.
3 Oxford English Dictionary , “confrontation (n.),” accessed December 19, 2025, oed.com/dictionary /confrontation_n.
4 Byron R. Merrill, “There Was No Contention,” in The Book of Mormon: Fourth Nephi Through Moroni, From Zion to Destruction, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Brigham Young University, 1995), 167–83.
5 See Julianne Holt-Lunstad, Timothy B. Smith, and J. Bradley Layton, “Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-Analytic Review,” plos Med 7, no. 7 (2010): e1000316; see also James S. House, Karl R. Landis, and Debra Umberson, “Social Relationships and Health,” Science 241, no. 4865 (1988): 541.
Invite healthy confrontation into your life.
7 See Andreas Hundschell et al., “The Effects of Diversity on Creativity: A Literature Review and Synthesis,” Applied Psychology 71, no. 4 (2022): 1598–634; see also Somendra Narayan et al., “From Attention to Action: The Influence of Cognitive and Ideological Diversity in Top Management Teams on Business Model Innovation,” Journal of Management Studies 58, no. 8 (2021): 2082–110.
8 See Laurel Smith-Doerr et al., “How Diversity Matters in the US Science and Engineering Workforce: A Critical Review Considering Integration in Teams, Fields, and Organizational Contexts,” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 3 (April 2017): 146: “However, outcomes-oriented scholarship misses the relational dynamics that generate inequality at the interactional level. The mere presence of women and underrepresented minority scientists
6 See Adam Gjesdal, “Viewpoint Diversity and Its Epistemic Benefits,” Philosophy Compass 20, no. 3 (2025): e70021; see also Arthur C. Brooks, “What Social Science Knows About the Value of Diversity,” The Atlantic, Aug. 28, 2025.
is not, in itself, sufficient to ensure that these scientists are able contribute their ideas, knowledge, and resources. Teams need both representative diversity and interactional integration to benefit fully from diversity.”
9 1 Corinthians 12:12–14, 21.
10 See U.S. Const. amend. VI.
11 See U.S. Const. amend. I.
12 Alma 37:37.
13 See Michael Austin, Re-Reading Job: Understanding the Ancient World’s Greatest Poem (Greg Kofford Books, 2014), 7–8.
14 See Job 42:12–17.
15 Nelson, “Peacemakers Needed,” 100.
16 Matthew 18:15–17.
17 3 Nephi 11:29.
18 Proverbs 9:8–9.
19 Henry Cloud and John Townsend, Safe People: How to Find Relationships That Are Good for You and Avoid Those That Aren’t (Zondervan, 1995), 180.
MYS TERY , FAITH, AND LAW
BY JUDGE ROWAN D. WILSON
Chief
Judge
of the State of New York and the New York State Court of Appeals
This article is adapted from remarks delivered at the 2025 Forum on Faith in New York City on October 9, 2025.
Ihave no business serving as the keynote speaker in between His Eminence Cardinal Timothy Dolan and United States Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. But here I am, thanks to my friend and former colleague Elder David Marriott, one of the principal organizers of the Forum on Faith. He has invited me to say a few words over lunch.
What is faith and why does it matter? According to St. Augustine, “Faith means believing what you don’t yet see, and the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.”1 The Pew Research Center recently reported that 76 percent of the world’s population are people of faith.2 The religious traditions to which the world’s faithful adhere are varied—as are the specifics of the rituals they practice and the doctrines they uphold.
religious faith acknowledges mysteries
But there are also significant commonalities among world religions. Almost all center on the belief in an eternal, creative deity. All place a strong emphasis on morals and ethics; on self-improvement and personal development; on the abandonment of material, individualistic desires to attain a Buddha-like, Christlike state of selflessness. All seek to offer their adherents the answers to the ultimate questions: “Why are we here?” “What are our lives about?” and “How should we live in this world?”
In addition, most religions encompass the idea of mystery. By mystery, I don’t mean a problem for Sherlock Holmes to solve. Rather, I understand mystery in the context of faith to be more like a secret—a truth that, but for divine revelation, would remain unknowable to us humans with our limited faculties.
For instance, the concept of the Divine’s ineffability is central to Judaism. Jewish people believe that the Divine’s true nature is beyond human comprehension and cannot be expressed or even described in human language. This is why God’s true name is never said but reverently replaced with words such as Adonai, meaning “Lord,” or Hashem, meaning “the Name.”
Islam emphasizes al-ghayb, an Arabic word that means “the unseen” or “the hidden.” It occurs more than 45 times in the Quran. Al-ghayb includes the truths just beyond the horizon of human perception, knowable only through revelation from Allah, who is described in Surah Al-Jinn as the “Knower of the unseen.”3
The Greek word for mystery—mustērion—appears more than 25 times in the Christian New Testament. Like al-ghayb, the Christian understanding of mystery encompasses truths
When it comes to law,
FAITH IS ESSENTIAL
even for those who lack religious faith.
hidden within God. The belief that God can and does reveal such mysteries to us is a central teaching of Christianity. Each week at Mass, Catholics proclaim “the mystery of faith.”4 Paul writes in his letter to the Ephesians that he prays that words may be given him so that he will fearlessly “make known the mystery of the gospel.”5
In all faith traditions, the beauty of mystery is that it requires us to open our hearts with wonder, humility, and trust. Mystery reminds us that we are not all-knowing or all-powerful, and the reminder displaces from the center of our universe our individual desires and allows us to consider the needs of others. Mystery is the starting point of faith.
mystery permeates the law
Law, like religion, depends upon faith. And by law, I do not mean only what courts and lawyers do but more broadly. Governments and legal systems, whether monarchies, democracies, or anything in between, depend on popular faith for their legitimacy. Like the world’s various religions, the world’s various legal systems are grounded in conceptions of morality, of right and wrong, which in turn rest on popular faith that those foundational precepts matter and will be pursued.
The public’s faith in its institutions bears some relation to religious faith, in that much of the workings of government, for better or for worse, are mysterious—unseen and unknowable by the governed. Consider legislators for a moment. There are 535 members of the US Congress. The New York State Legislature has 213 members. And there is an almost unknowable number of local elected officials—city or town council members, city clerks, school board officials—in every municipality throughout the nation. Why and how they do what they do is, for the most part, a mystery to the governed. We expect each and every one of them to act in the public interest, although different legislators may hold honest and diametrically opposed views about whether a particular action is in the public interest. The rule of law depends on faith—faith that our public servants are acting beneficently to serve the public, not deliberately acting against the public interest. In the rare instances in which we discover that a public servant has breached the public trust, we have historically attributed that failing to the individual, not the system. We have not generally allowed our lack of faith in a person to erase our faith in the law.
The mystery about why government does what it does is compounded by the unknowability of the body of extant law. As an example, no one knows how many federal laws, rules, and regulations exist, but estimates are around 300,000.6 In 1982, the Department of Justice attempted to count just the number of federal criminal offenses; no count was ever arrived at, and the official in charge of the project said the answer was unattainable even if “you will have died and resurrected three times.”7 I suspect that no one here, not even Justice Breyer, knows that it is a federal crime to sell onion rings made from diced onions unless you expressly say they are made from diced onions.8 For a system of laws, for a system of government to foster peace, justice, freedom, and equity where so much is unknowable, faith in the system is essential—including faith that a first-time or small-scale onion ring offender will not be prosecuted.
We cannot see that our votes are counted fairly, but we must believe that they have been. We cannot see that juries follow the court’s instructions or base their verdicts on the evidence, but we must believe they do. We cannot see that those making campaign promises or answering questions at a confirmation hearing mean what they say or that persons taking an oath to uphold the Constitution mean to do so. These are, for all practical purposes, mysteries that require our faith if systems of law and government are to survive.
What would happen if people stopped believing in God? Many think of religion as man’s search for God, but in his canonical book God in Search of Man, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel posits the opposite. “[T]he mysterious paradox of Biblical faith,” he writes, is that “God is pursuing man.”9 He notes that in the book of Genesis, when Adam and Eve hide from God after eating the forbidden fruit, God looks for them, calling out, “Where art thou?”10 He notes that Job, at one point, exclaims to God, “Thou dost hunt me like a lion.”11 C. S. Lewis, regarding his conversion to Christianity, wrote that he remembered
night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England.12
If people stop believing in God, the loss would be wholly ours. God would still be there, undiminished—still loving and calling us.
But the rule of law is different; it exists only as long as people believe in it. In that very limited context—supremely important while we are here on earth—faith in the law facilitates our faith in the divine. Our laws and governmental structures exist to preserve and protect our natural rights so that we may live in peace and have the chance to devote our lives to whatever we wish—be it country, community, craft, kin, or creed. When it comes to law, faith is essential even for those who lack religious faith. A little over a decade ago, the press reported an exchange in which Justice Antonin Scalia asked counsel for the Town of Greece, New York, “What is the equivalent of prayer for somebody who is not religious?” Finding counsel unable to answer the question, Justice Breyer offered, “I suppose he’s asking me that question, and I can answer it later.” 13 Whatever the answer to that question, the answer to the question “What is the equivalent of faith for somebody who is not religious?” is much easier: “Faith.”
It is worrisome that public faith in the government has been waning over the past several decades. In May 2024 a survey showed that 22 percent of Americans said they trust the federal government to do what is right “just about always or most of the time.”14 A survey conducted a week ago by The New York Times and Siena Research Institute concluded that “Americans have markedly less faith in the ability of the country’s political system to solve problems than they had five years ago,” with a majority saying our government could not meet the challenges before us.15 That declining faith is no doubt driven by many factors—including political polarization, media fragmentation enabled by the rise of social media, disassociation from local
The public’s faith in its institutions bears some relation to religious faith, in that much of the workings of government, for better or for worse, are
MYSTERIOUS.
community events and involvement, and a crisis in civics education that has led directly to a steep decline in civic engagement.
Some of the loss of faith in our institutions may be based on those institutions’ own failure to embody the principles that underly them. When people come to believe that there is a two-tiered justice system, one for the rich and one for the poor; when people come to believe the law is there to punish, not rehabilitate; when people come to believe that the law is working against rather than for them; when people believe that most public servants are not serving the public but are serving themselves at the expense of the public—that is when people will stop having faith in the law and in government, and things will fall apart.
seeing and believing
It is easy to find countless stories in today’s news if you wish to believe that things have irretrievably fallen apart. But I return to St. Augustine’s words that “the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.” Allow me to illustrate the point with two horrific stories that have dominated the news lately: the murder of Charlie Kirk and the murders of worshippers at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Michigan.
It would be simple to read the news stories about those events and conclude that the murderers had lost faith in God, in the law, in government, and in humankind—end of story. Reading story after story about bad news day after day, year after year, could lead to one’s own loss of faith. But looking closely, you can see examples of faith shining through suffering and darkness, and seeing it can uplift you. Those two events have given us, in their aftermath, extraordinary examples of faith that allow us to see what we believe, and they can strengthen our own faith in law, in each other, and in the divine.
At the memorial service for her husband, Erika Kirk forgave his murderer. She said: “I forgive him. . . The answer to hate is not hate. The answer we know from the gospel is love and always love. . . . Choose a life of faith.”16 It is almost unfathomable how someone in such
grief, having suffered such a terrible tragedy, could immediately turn to forgiveness. Such an act of grace required extraordinary faith— foremost in God, as she herself said, but also in humankind and in the ability of the rule of law, not hate-driven vigilantism, to address her husband’s murder. Faith in God and humankind makes faith in the law easier to come by.
A survivor of last month’s massacre at the Michigan church had her hands on her father as he died there. She said, “I never took my eyes off [the shooter’s] eyes, something happened, I saw pain, he felt lost. I deeply felt it with every fiber of my being. I forgave him, I forgave him right there, not in words, but with my heart.”17 A few days later, David Butler, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, started a fundraiser for the family of the killer. Expecting to raise perhaps a few thousand dollars, he raised more than $300,000 in less than a week, in donations averaging about $40.18 These too are extraordinary acts borne of deep faith—including the acts of the thousands of people who donated to
When one strand of faith frays, we must
STRENGTHEN
the others to repair the frayed fabric.
help the widow and son of the attacker. If we see only the horror, faith is hard to come by. But if we look for the divine, we can see it, and when we see it, it becomes real, both for us and for those around us.
God willing, none of us here will be placed in circumstances that will test our faith to such an extreme. But everyday life gives each one of us the chance to practice our faith, whether in God, in law, or in our fellow human beings—all of which are intertwined and symbiotic. The smallest of kindnesses, from holding a door open for someone to offering directions to someone who appears lost, repays itself manifold by reemphasizing one’s own faith and encouraging faith in others. A few weeks ago I was on the subway, and a young man offered his seat to an older man, who thanked him but politely declined. Even the act of observing that interaction bolstered my own faith.
Those of us who are public servants or whose acts are more visible to others have a greater opportunity and greater responsibility to restore the public’s faith. Since I became the steward of the New York State Unified Court System, I have made restoring the public’s faith in the law our top priority. Our work aligns with many of the religious traditions represented in this room.
repairing the world
Dorothy Day, born in Brooklyn in 1897, helped found the Catholic Worker Movement at the height of the Great Depression, a movement devoted to direct aid for the poor. Day often echoed a saying by her fellow cofounder, Peter Maurin: “We must make the kind of society where it is easier for people to be good.”19 The 340 “problem-solving courts” throughout New York State aim to do just that; these courts operate on the premise that a criminal case is an opportunity to put those with treatable mental illnesses or substance abuse problems on the road to obtaining the support that they desperately need—instead of incarcerating them at great public expense and with poor outcomes for them and the public at large. Our mentalhealth courts connect defendants to mental-health services they need; our drug courts do the same for those struggling with substance abuse. These courts default to treatment instead of punishment. Their work helps fulfill Dorothy Day’s vision of making it easier for New Yorkers to make productive choices in the complicated world we live in.
Peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh taught that the Buddhist precepts of understanding suffering and cultivating compassion allow each of us to not only look inward but also to engage actively with the world’s struggles. Hanh taught that societal injustice must be addressed through legal systems that reflect humanity’s interdependence and emphasize equity and healing.20 His work helped shape the restorative justice movement, which advocates for shifting the focus from retribution to transformation. There is legislation pending in New York—the Second Look Act and other criminal justice reform legislation—that seeks to effect that shift from retribution to transformation. The Second Look Act would allow an incarcerated person who has served a significant part of his sentence to demonstrate to a court that he has put in the work, he has turned
his life around, and he is ready to return home to family and community safely.21
In February 2025, in support of that legislation, I shared the podium for my annual State of the Judiciary address with four individuals—two formerly incarcerated, and two who remain incarcerated with no end in sight—whose lives illustrate humanity’s great capacity for redemption. The Jewish concept of tikkun olam—Hebrew for “repairing the world”—charges humanity with making the world a better place. I often hear tikkun olam explained as mending societal brokenness, or repairing the fabric of the world.22 The Quran similarly teaches,
The truly good are those . . . who give away some of their wealth, however much they cherish it, to their relatives, to orphans, the needy, travellers and beggars, and to liberate those in bondage; . . . who keep pledges whenever they make them; who are steadfast in misfortune, adversity, and times of danger. These are the ones who are true, and it is they who are aware of God.23
The Bhagavad Gita instructs, “Acts of sacrifice, charity and penance are not to be given up; they must be performed. Indeed, sacrifice, charity and penance purify even the great souls.”24
Many years ago, one of my daughters, then about 5 years old, went through a few months of repeatedly asking, “Why am I here?” She didn’t mean why was she physically in that spot; she was asking why she was here in this world. My repeated response to her was, “I know I am here to help you. You are here to help others.” Perhaps the recognition that our purpose is to help others is the fundamental principle underlying faith: Whether that comes from faith in the divine, faith in law, or faith in our fellow humans, all are interconnected. When one strand of faith frays, we must strengthen the others to repair the frayed fabric. Those of you who have chosen to be here today know that, and you know that our mission is to spread that faith to others in whatever way we can, from the tiny act of holding a door open to the monumental act of forgiving someone who has wronged us terribly.
Let me close by extending my heartfelt thanks to the organizers of the Forum on Faith as well as to all of you who chose to devote your time today to spend it contemplating how faith fortifies us. Let us, as the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “walk on in the days ahead with an audacious faith in the future.”25
notes
1 Augustine, “Sermon 43,” in The Works of St. Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, Part 3— Sermons, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Edmund Hill, vol. 2, Sermons 20–50 (New City Press, 1990), 238.
2 See Conrad Hackett et al., “How the Global Religious Landscape Changed from 2010 to 2020,” Pew Research Center, June 9, 2025, pewresearch .org/religion/2025/06/09/how-the-global-religious -landscape-changed-from-2010-to-2020.
3 Quran 72:26 (Sahih International Translation).
4 “The Liturgy of the Eucharist,” in The Roman Missal, 3rd ed. (Liturgical Press, 2011).
5 Ephesians 6:19.
6 See John C. Coffee Jr., “Does ‘Unlawful’ Mean ‘Criminal’?: Reflections on the Disappearing Tort/ Crime Distinction in American Law,” Boston University Law Review 71, no. 193 (1991): 216.
7 Ronald Gainer, quoted in Gary Fields and John R. Emshwiller, “Many Failed Efforts to Count Nation’s Federal Criminal Laws,” The Wall Street Journal, July 23, 2011, wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405270 2304319804576389601079728920.
8 See 21 USC §333 and 21 CFR §102.39 (2016).
9 Abraham Joshua Heschel, God in Search of Man: A Philosophy of Judaism (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1955), 136.
10 Heschel, God in Search of Man, 137; quoting Genesis 3:9 (KJV).
11 Heschel, God in Search of Man , 136; quoting Job 10:16 (RSV).
12 C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life (Harcourt Brace, 1955), 221.
13 Transcript of Oral Argument at 18–19, Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 US 565 (2014) (No. 12-696); see also “Justices Weigh Constitutionality of New York Town’s Prayers,” New York Times, Nov. 6, 2013, nytimes.com/2013/11/07/nyregion/supreme-court -justices-consider-new-york-towns-prayer-practice .html.
Fall 2024, pew.org/en/trend/archive/fall-2024 /americans-deepening-mistrust-of-institutions.
15 Jeremy W. Peters and Ruth Igielnik, “Most Voters Think America’s Divisions Cannot Be Overcome, Poll Says,” New York Times, Oct. 2, 2025, nytimes .com/2025/10/02/us/politics/times-siena-poll -political-polarization.html.
16 Erika Kirk, speech given at the memorial service for Charlie Kirk, Sept. 21, 2025, Glendale, AZ; in “Erika Kirk’s Tribute: ‘Let Charlie’s Miracle Be Your Turning Point,’” Religion Unplugged, Sept. 22, 2025, religionunplugged.com/news/erika-kirks-tribute -let-charlies-miracle-be-your-turning-point.
17 Associated Press and Ed White, “Woman Who Was Confronted by Church Gunman Said She Instantly Forgave Him for Killing Dad,” KBTX, Oct. 3, 2025, kbtx.com/2025/10/03/woman-who-was -confronted-by-church-gunman-says-she-instantly -forgave-him-killing-dad.
18 See Bill Hutchinson, “Latter-day Saints Church Member Raises More Than $300,000 for Family of Gunman in Deadly Michigan Chapel Attack,” ABC News, Oct. 2, 2025, abcnews.go.com/US/day-saints -church-member-raises-300000-family-gunman /story?id=126160910.
20 See Thich Nhat Hanh, Vietnam: The Lotus in the Sea of Fire (SCM Press, 1967).
21 See SB S321, 2023–2024 Leg., Reg. Sess. (NY 2023).
22 See “Tikkun Olam: Repairing the World,” My Jewish Learning, accessed Jan. 8, 2025, myjewishlearning .com/article/tikkun-olam-repairing-the-world.
23 Quran 2:177 (Abdel Haleem Translation).
24 Bhagavad Gita 18.5 (A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada Translation).
25 Martin Luther King Jr., “Where Do We Go from Here?” speech given at the 11th Annual SCLC Convention, Aug. 16, 1967, Atlanta, GA, kinginstitute .stanford.edu/where-do-we-go-here.
Ralph W. Hardy Jr. Professorship
by maren hendricks
Anew professorship at byu Law has been established in the name of Ralph W. Hardy Jr., a prominent lawyer in Washington, DC, who was instrumental in founding the J. Reuben Clark Law Society. Richard and Nancy Marriott endowed the professorship, honoring Hardy’s career, his material contributions to diplomatic endeavors related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, and their lifelong friendship with him.
At an event on January 12, 2026, celebrating the professorship, former Senator Gordon H. Smith remarked that he was a
young boy when he first got to know Hardy, and he admires how Hardy approaches the Savior’s standard for greatness. Smith cited Christ’s admonition in Mark 9:35, “If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.” Smith recalled Hardy’s 30 years of service on the Church’s Public Affairs Committee (including 13 years as chairman), their work together on Capitol Hill to promote legislation impacting the Church, and their efforts with foreign embassies regarding missionary visas.
President D. Todd Christofferson said, “I have Ralph to thank for my first job.” He also recalled traveling with Hardy to the byu Law School dedication in 1975. In his remarks, Hardy shared an anecdote about telling Christofferson, then a junior associate at his law firm, “They’re dedicating this beautiful building for the law school. Maybe we ought to go out there.” Hardy noted, “We weren’t invited . . . and we sat down behind the rows of chairs on some closely cut but wet green grass.”
Hardy enjoyed a long career as a sought-after communications lawyer and successful media entrepreneur. His uncommon humility and wisdom have made him a trusted advisor and leader. Richard Marriott— a friend for nearly 80 years— lauded Hardy’s ability to multitask as he balanced a busy legal career with his extensive Church service, which included callings as bishop, stake president, and Area Authority Seventy. This new professorship in Ralph Hardy’s name recognizes his legacy of excellence and service to others.
BYU Law Honored Alumni
Senior District Judge Denise Posse-Blanco Lindberg, ’88, and Neil Lindberg, ’90
At byu Law’s Honored Alumni Lecture on October 16, 2025, the Lindbergs shared wisdom from their careers and life experiences.
Focus on education, not possessions.
Judge Lindberg’s childhood in Cuba was uprooted when a change in regime forced her family to flee to the United States. She left belongings behind and prioritized her education.
Pivot when opportunities arise.
Judge Lindberg was married with two children and happy in her career with the Utah State Office of Education when an acquaintance insisted that she belonged in law school. When she was admitted to byu Law, Lindberg was hesitant to upend her family life, but her employer gave her a year’s leave of absence to try it out. Ultimately, both she and her husband attended byu Law. Judge Lindberg observes, “While it is useful to plan and to prepare for the life that we hope to have, we can’t be so locked into our plan that we miss the off-plan opportunities that God sends our way. Plan, but be prepared to pivot.”
Prayerfully chart your path.
The Lindbergs took turns going to school, working, and taking the lead in caring for their children. Their approach didn’t fit the prevailing norm, but they moved forward, confident that their choices were acceptable to the Lord. They insist that it is possible to blend career and family as long as both partners are committed to making it work.
Pursue growth in your career and life.
Neil Lindberg was 39 when he began law school. Eager for a career change and seeing his wife excel at byu Law, he decided to follow her path. He found law school intimidating, especially given his wife’s success—she graduated with honors and clerked for US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. However, he persisted and enjoyed a productive career in land use law.
Be a problem solver.
Neil Lindberg worked to find legally creative ways to solve client problems rather than simply telling them something couldn’t be done. He says, “I try to be a taxi driver who maneuvers around obstacles rather than a traffic cop who simply says, ‘You can’t go there.’”
Leaving behind the picturesque landscape of Yuncos, Spain— a small town near Toledo— was difficult enough. But when Eross Coito-Paz, 2L, and his family relocated to Chicago in the dead of winter, fleeing the economic hardships of the Great Recession in Spain (2008–2014), life became a real test of resilience. His mother’s chief concern was keeping him away from gang influence, so she insisted he find a Christian youth group. The first one he discovered happened to be affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “The Church is great at marketing—it sure worked on me!” he laughs.
He began attending the Church’s weekly youth activity. Over time, he and his entire family joined the Church. “The missionaries were so kind to us,” he recalls. “They found out a local restaurant was going out of business, so they went and rescued all these unwanted kitchen tools and dishes and gave them to us, asking nothing in return. That made a big impression on my parents.”
Ready for Adventure
Coito-Paz’s life journey continued at full speed. He served a mission in Brazil and afterward enrolled at byu, where he majored in linguistics, focus-
Eross Coito-Paz
Faith and Grit
by maren hendricks
ing on the intersection of neurolinguistics and sociolinguistics—essentially, how the brain responds to unexpected grammatical constructs and processes deviations from expected patterns.
Fascinating as linguistics was, Coito-Paz recognized it as a stepping stone rather than a destination. His true goal was a career in diplomacy or with an international organization like usaid. Deciding that a law degree was the ideal path forward, he applied to byu Law. As soon as he was accepted, he got to work. Before his first year was even underway, he had already secured a 1L summer internship with the Legal Aid and Consultancy Center (lacc) in Nepal, an organization that partners with usaid to support marginalized communities. His byu Law career advisor, Cameron Thomas, took notice. “Eross arrived at law school with a career plan and had already
targeted a 1L internship to set him on that path,” says Thomas. “That kind of focus is rare.”
Setbacks and Faith
Then came an unexpected obstacle. In early 2025, the Trump administration significantly defunded and restructured usaid—and Coito-Paz’s internship evaporated overnight. Having assumed his summer was settled, he hadn’t pursued other opportunities, leaving him scrambling. “I panicked,” he admits. However, with Thomas’s indispensable guidance, Coito-Paz was able to salvage the situation. He spent half the summer in Nepal with lacc as originally planned then pivoted to a position at ArentFox Schiff in Washington, DC, for the remainder.
The experience reshaped his thinking. Working at a firm opened his eyes to the possibility of beginning his career in private practice before transition-
ing to diplomatic or nonprofit work later. His participation in the 1L Chancery Academy in Delaware also proved unexpectedly meaningful. “I’ll be honest—I signed up because the name sounded fancy!” he says. But the corporate work and the attorneys from sponsoring firm Potter Anderson left such a strong impression that he is returning to the firm for his 2L summer.
Coito-Paz credits his faith for much of his ability to pivot gracefully, often leaning on Thomas’s counsel to trust in the Lord’s plan as it unfolds. “These last few years have been stressful,” he affirms. “I couldn’t have navigated them without the Lord, my family, and my friends at byu Law.”
As Coito-Paz heads into the rest of his law school journey, he does so with hard-won confidence and a proven ability to adapt. In addition to Thomas, he is deeply grateful to Professors John Fee, LeeAnn Glade, and Curt Anderson, all of whom have served as important mentors. “The byu Law community has allowed me to figure out that I am capable of many things all at once,” Coito-Paz reflects.
“I’ve also learned to trust that the Lord has a big-picture plan for me—and that I have the education and abilities I’ll need to be resourceful and capable in anything I set my mind to.”
