Judge Thomas Griffith: Is the Constitution Hanging by a Thread?

Summary

Faith Matters Podcast: “Is the Constitution Hanging by a Thread?”
Guest: Judge Thomas Griffith
Host: Bill Turnbull
Release Date: May 28, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this thoughtful and timely episode, Faith Matters co-founder Bill Turnbull interviews Judge Thomas Griffith—a noted constitutional scholar and former Federal Judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The conversation centers on the current state of the U.S. Constitution, escalating political division, the erosion of social trust in democracy, and how Latter-day Saints are uniquely positioned to be agents of reconciliation.

Judge Griffith draws on historical precedent, contemporary social science, and recent statements by Latter-day Saint leaders—especially President Dallin H. Oaks’ strong counsel to Church members—to advocate for civic engagement grounded in mutual respect, compromise, and unity. The discussion is both a warning about the fragility of democratic institutions and a call to action for peacemaking.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Constitution “Hanging by a Thread”

Timestamp: 04:37–07:08

• Judge Griffith frames the present as “a really perilous moment,” possibly the gravest threat to the Constitution since the Civil War.

  “What we're experiencing right now is far more serious a threat on the Constitution than we've ever seen in my lifetime.” (04:37, Griffith)

• He discusses the metaphor of the Constitution “hanging by a thread,” noting that while the phrase’s origins are somewhat unclear, its sense is now acutely relevant.

2. Lessons from the 1787 Constitutional Convention

Timestamp: 07:08–12:47

• Drawing on scholar Derek Webb’s work, Griffith describes the small-group dynamics at the Constitutional Convention:
  • Rules enforced active listening and required “mutual deference.”
  • Delegates formed dinner groups intentionally mixing regions and ideologies.
  • The pivotal moment: delegates agreed to compromise for the sake of union before knowing the specific terms (10:55).

  “They would compromise for the sake of union before they knew the terms of the compromise.” (10:55, Griffith)

• He stresses that compromise and reconciliation are foundational to defending the Constitution.

3. The Danger of Lost Trust and Social Division

Timestamp: 12:47–18:59

• Jonathan Haidt’s stark prediction: “There would be a cataclysmic failure of American democracy...because we just don't know what happens when you drain all trust out of the system.” (13:17, paraphrased by Griffith)
• Discussion of widespread belief in election fraud—even absent evidence—is a symptom of eroded trust.

  “75% of Republicans...don't believe the last election was fair and square. That's a serious problem.” (15:17, Griffith)

• The persistence of misinformation is attributed to entrenched narratives, often driven by political leaders and amplified by media.

4. The Role of Media and Social Media in Polarization

Timestamp: 19:04–23:07

• Both hosts critique cable news, dubbing it the “outrage industrial complex.”

  “If your primary source of information...is from cable news or social media, you need to understand you’re being played.” (20:49, Griffith)

• Social media algorithms reinforce biases and create echo chambers, perpetuating division.

  “If you’re spending a significant amount of time on social media, you are getting played.” (21:19, Turnbull)

• The antidote: intentional, diverse consumption of news sources and a willingness to challenge personal biases.

5. Unique Resources in Latter-day Saint Community-Building

Timestamp: 23:45–26:20

• Richard Bushman’s assertion: the Church’s greatest gift may be its ability to build community.
  • The ward structure brings together diverse individuals, forcing real engagement and mutual service.

  “Gene England described the workings of a Latter Day Saint ward as creating one of the most radical engines for social transformation on the planet.” (24:30, Griffith)

• Parochial boundaries and lay ministry foster cooperation across social and ideological divides.

6. President Dallin H. Oaks’ Call to Political Unity

Timestamp: 26:20–32:05

• The hosts discuss and quote from President Oaks’ recent General Conference address:

  “We insist, and we ask our local leaders to insist, that political choices and affiliations not be the subject of teachings or advocacy in any of our church meetings.” (28:20, quoting Oaks)

• Members are urged to refrain from judgment, be open to changing political alignments, and prioritize church unity above political allegiance.

• The Church handbook now counsels members to “back away” from sources promoting “fear, contention, [or] conspiracy theories.”

  “It's not just that we disagree, we believe the other people, the other side is evil. And we create narratives around that.” (31:45, Turnbull)

• The Constitution can withstand disagreement but not contempt and division.

  “The Constitution anticipates vigorous disagreement, but what it cannot withstand is a citizenry that holds each other in contempt.” (32:05, Griffith, paraphrasing Michael Gerson)

7. Bridging the Divide: The Latter-day Saint Opportunity

Timestamp: 33:17–39:47

• Latter-day Saints can uniquely model bridge-building civic engagement due to their culture and doctrine.

  “We really can be the people who are the builders of bridges... working across ideological divides to unify our country. That's what Latter Day Saints are about.” (35:14, Griffith)

• Judge Griffith references John 17 and points out that the unity of the Church is its chief witness of Christ to the world.

  “By covenant, my primary obligation is to help the church be unified so that we can bear witness of Christ in all the world.” (38:43, Griffith)

• Strong warning: agents of division undermine both the Constitution and the witness of Christ.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “If you want to support and defend the Constitution, I believe you need to be an agent of reconciliation.” (11:01, Griffith)
• “If you're causing division in the church over your political views or in the community, you're undermining your witness of Christ.” (39:30, Griffith)
• “It's a republic, sir, if you can keep it.” (33:42, Turnbull, referencing Benjamin Franklin)
• “Once you drain all trust out of the system...we just don’t know what happens.” (13:17, paraphrasing Jonathan Haidt)
• “We also insist...that political choices and affiliations not be the subject of teachings or advocacy in any of our church meetings.” (28:20, quoting Oaks)
• “The Constitution anticipates vigorous disagreement, but what it cannot withstand is a citizenry that holds each other in contempt.” (32:05, Griffith paraphrasing Gerson)

---

Key Takeaways

• Democracy is in a perilous moment, marked by declining social trust and rising division.
• The original spirit of compromise and reconciliation—crucial in the founding of the Constitution—must be revived.
• Latter-day Saints’ community structure and doctrine position them to be “agents of reconciliation,” both civic and spiritual.
• Church leaders currently plead for members to practice unity, avoid political litmus tests, and refrain from importing division into church settings.
• Both echo chambers and outrage-based media are identified as key drivers of current polarization, and overcoming them requires intentional, sometimes uncomfortable effort.
• The prime Christian—and civic—mandate now is amity: “for the sake of union,” principle-based compromise and willingness to see the humanity in those with whom we disagree.

---

Timestamps & Sections

| Segment | Timestamps | |----------------------------|------------------| | Constitution’s Peril | 04:37–07:08 | | Lessons from 1787 | 07:08–12:47 | | Crisis of Trust | 12:47–18:59 | | Media & Outrage | 19:04–23:07 | | Latter-day Saint Community | 23:45–26:20 | | Pres. Oaks’ Counsel | 26:20–32:05 | | Path Forward/Conclusion | 33:17–39:47 |

---

Final Thought

“By covenant, my primary obligation is to help the church be unified so that we can bear witness of Christ in all the world... If you're causing division in the church over your political views or in the community, you're undermining your witness of Christ.”
—Judge Thomas Griffith (38:43 & 39:30)

---

This episode offers both a warning and a hope: that healing the deep rifts in American democracy will require intentional bridge-building, humility, and a return to the values of compromise and unity—not only for civic survival, but as a Christian calling.

Transcript

[A]

Hey everybody. The third annual Wayfarer Summer Festival is coming up on July 11th, and you are not going to want to miss this. We're bringing in some amazing speakers like Thomas McConkie, Christine Hogland and Katherine Sontag to talk about spiritual attention in the age of AI, the history and future of Mormon utopianism, and what a Latter Day Saint cultural renaissance might look like. Plus, just lots of amazing time to connect with friends old and new. And we've got catered lunches, poetry readings, musical performances, breakout sessions, an art gallery, and everything taking place in the gorgeous Heber Valley. Space for this is extremely limited, so you won't want to delay. You can get [e-mail] or look for the link in the show notes. Hey everybody, this is Aubrey Chavez from Faith Matters. This week, wards across the United States will be having a really unique 5th Sunday discussion centered on the Constitution, moral agency and peace building. So today we want to reshare a conversation that Originally aired in 2021. In this episode, Faith Matters co founder Bill Turnbull joined Judge Thomas Griffith, an expert in constitutional law, to explore the constit and the rapid erosion of goodwill and trust in American politics, including among Latter Day Saints. Judge Griffith sees the possibility of a serious crisis and believes that Latter Day Saints can and must play a critical role in healing today's divides. We've also compiled lots of additional resources that we hope will be helpful for you as you prepare for this special Sunday school lesson. You can find all of those in the show notes. Thanks, as always, for listening and we hope that you enjoy this episode.

[B]

Hello everyone. This is Bill Turnbull with Faith Matters, and I'm here with my good friend Tom Griffith. So Tom is coming to us from Virginia today, where you've lived most of your life with some notable excursions out west at various times. Tom has is a lawyer by background. We've brought him in because he's a constitutional scholar. He's been a federal Judge on the D.C. court of Appeals for a number of years. Before that was immediately before that you were the chief lawyer for the Senate.

[C]

I was actually the general counsel of BYU immediately before that, and then before that was the chief lawyer for the Senate.

[B]

Okay, okay. During the Clinton impeachment hearing. So that must have been. That must have been, yeah.

[C]

So actually longer than that, I was for four years the chief lawyer for the Senate. One of the things that happened while I was there, notable things, was the Clinton impeachment. So.

[B]

Yeah, well, we've had a lot of great conversations over the last Few years, Tom.

[C]

Some.

[B]

Really, some. Some fun ones. And quite often they start with some missive that you send out, usually a text or an email and something interesting. Start something to a group of our friends. And the most recent one was about the General Conference address by Dallin Oaks. We'll get to that a little bit later. Because he made some, I think, to some of us, a rather startling plea to the church. Maybe strong plea is probably not strong enough. Word. What word would you use?

[C]

I think he said, we insist. Right.

[B]

Yeah. Yes. That's kind of.

[C]

That's the language of command.

[B]

Exactly. So we're gonna. We're going to get to that probably by the end of this conversation. But he started out by talking about the Constitution and

[C]

the.

[B]

Which was kind of an odd address. It started that way for me anyway. I thought we were past talking about sort of American exceptionalism to a worldwide church. But he semi apologized before he started into it. And then it became a little bit more evident why he chose that topic as he got toward the end of his talk.

[C]

Right? Yeah, I think so. I think so. Yeah.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

I think he was very careful to try and not make this just for Americans, that he was trying to root it and ground it in larger principal forms of governance and with democracy, what a republic is about, our obligations as citizens in the world. I think he did a good job of making it universal.

[B]

Yeah, I do, too. Well, he. Let's start kind of where he started out. He started with the Constitution before he made his more specific point to the church. He started talking. He went back to the forming of the Constitution. I know, I know you have. You've written a lot on this topic. You teach. Do you teach constitutional law now at Harvard? Is that what you teach?

[C]

Yeah, it's a form of it. And it's called the. It's about the role of the federal judiciary under the Constitution.

[B]

Well, give us your background because you've written really eloquently on this subject. We'll link to some of these, maybe in show notes.

[C]

So let's start with the idea that this is a really perilous moment. You know, in our culture, we talk about the Constitution hanging by a thread. And I don't know exactly what that looks like, but I suspect it looks a lot like today, at least in my lifetime. And I'm an old man now. I remember the Cold War well. I remember Watergate well. I was living in the D.C. area. Went to school with the sons and daughters of the Watergate conspirators. Right. Was that an assault on the Constitution, you better believe it. That was a serious assault on the Constitution. And yet, in my view, what we're experiencing right now is far more serious a threat on the Constitution than we've ever seen in my lifetime. People I admire and write about, they say it's the most serious threat since 1860. And as we recall, things didn't go well in 1860, and we're still living

[B]

with

[C]

what happened there. So. So I think it's. I think it's a perilous moment, and I think we need to draw upon our best resources to meet the moment if we want the Constitution to continue to be the vital source of democracy that it has been in our country and around the world. And the suggestion I have to offer is that if we look at the way the Constitution was created, at least the draft of the Constitution was created in the summer of 1787. I think there's some really surprising and profound insights that apply, and I'm relying largely on the scholarship of the young man named Garrett Webb, who was a student of Michael McConnell's at Stanford the constitute at the Senate Connells, the constitutional study center there. And I got to know this young man, Derek Webb, when I, when I used to teach at Stanford. And he wrote an article almost a decade ago, but with, at least for lawyers, it's a very catchy title. It's called the Original Meaning of Civility Colon Democratic Deliberation in the Philadelphia Convention. And I won't. Maybe you can put. I've written about this.

[B]

I won't bore be with the details that.

[C]

Here's the gist of it. Here's the gist of it. He looks at small group dynamics and sees how they played out in the summer of 1787 and created what Washington described as the spirit of amity and mutual deference, which the peculiarity of our political circumstances rendered indispensable. I mean, Washington recognized, everyone there recognized something really remarkable happened because the whole convention was about to crater in July, six, seven weeks later, it succeeds. And Washington says the reason it seceded was the spirit of amity and mutual deference, which was necessary at that moment. So my, my point is, I think the spirit of amity and mutual deference is necessary at this.

[B]

What happened then?

[C]

What did it, what did it look like?

[B]

Constitutional Convention. Yeah.

[C]

According to Webb, it is very interesting. He, he said, he, he looks at the rules of the convention and they were set up so that you had, you had to attend if you were in Philadelphia, you had to attend if someone had the floor, you had to listen to them. The rules forbade you from talking to someone else, from reading anything else, or from working while someone was. Was talking. I mean, the value there is that the presumption there is you're going to listen to people. The other rules, it was in secret, right? No official record was taken of those. And Webb suggests that what's going on with those rules is a presumption that, that you will actually change your mind. You know, that you. You're going to be listening to. To people and they're going to persuade you to change your mind. So in other words, there'd actually be absolutely nothing wrong with a delegate in Philadelphia in 1787 saying, yeah, I voted for that before, I voted against that. Now when someone says that, you know, we just, we pillory them. Like, what a hypocrite. In the summer of 1787, that wasn't a hip. That was a hypocrisy that was called statesmanship. Changing your mind based on persuasion. But the real, I think the fun part of it, but it's the significant part, is Webb talks about the sociality that existed amongst the delegates. They worked every day, Monday through Friday, Monday through Saturday, 10 to 4 in convention. But then they would. They would go to taverns and have dinner and have tea and spend time with each other. And this is. This is just such a cool thing. After a couple of weeks of being in Philadelphia doing that, they formed dinner groups. They had dinner groups and, and it wasn't dinner groups chosen by region or by ideology. We're just thrown together. And they, as George Mason wrote to his son about this, and Beck said, yeah, I'm getting to know people that I never knew before. Do you know what I'm finding out? They're not so. They're not so bad. That all leads up to what I think is the key insight from Webb scholarship and looking at the way small group dynamics worked in Philadelphia that summer, and that is when things were about to fall apart. We all know from high school history of civics what happened. They came up with the grand compromise, right? You create a House and a Senate, and everyone's happy that. But what Webb suggests is there's something more fundamental that took place before they agreed to the grand compromise. And it's this. And this is the money point. I think this is the real takeaway is that the delegates decided that they would compromise for the sake of union before they knew the terms of the compromise.

[B]

That's almost too risky, almost impossible to imagine today, but they

[C]

is really risky. But they did it for the sake of union. Okay, so here's my, here's the lesson. I try and extrapolate from that and I, I think this works. And I, I think it's important for us. If you want to support and defend the Constitution, and we all say we do, military personnel take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Civil officers take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. And everyone else wants to. Right. We all talk about that. Well, if you want to support and defend the Constitution, I believe you need to be an agent of reconciliation. You need to get into that spirit that created the Constitution in the first place. You've got to be willing to, we've got to be willing to say for the sake of union, I'm going to pull some punches, I'm going to compromise. I'm not going to compromise everything. I mean, there's some core things that I'm not going to give up, but those core things are probably a lot smaller than we might think. And the idea here is I reach, I hold on to my core things, I give up a lot of other things so that you can hold on to your core things. And I do that willingly because I want to live with you, I want to be in community with you. Hard work, it's a long way from where we are today. But I think, I believe if you want to support and defend the Constitution, that's what you do. If you are an agent of division, if you're stoking up fire, the passion and anger to divide people, you are undermining the Constitution. You're working against it.

[B]

So are you pessimistic, optimistic? Where are we going to be successful doing anything like what you're talking about here? Let's talk about Jonathan Haidt for a minute.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

I think we both really value his insights on this one.

[C]

Yeah. And the great thing about height, I mean, he's the author of the Righteous Mind. That helps us understand why people think so differently about things. And it's not that they're bad people, it's, it's just that they see the world differently.

[B]

Right. If any book should be required reading for voters, it's not a bad idea.

[C]

It's not a bad idea before you read the Righteous Mind. Well, so, so he's not, he's not a very political guy. He's certainly not a partisan guy. I, I think he identifies what he's pressed on it, that he, you know, he identifies as a progressive sort of thing, sort of center left guy, but he's not he's not a partisan. And that's why it struck me that a couple years ago, I read a quote that he gave. He was, I think he was doing a, a book tour for one of his books, and he said, direct quote. But it's pretty clear. He said, in the next 20 to 30 years, he predicted there would be a cataclysmic failure of American democracy. Why? He said, because we just don't know what happens when you drain all trust out of the system. We're all used to hearing cataclysmic predictions for end times and things like that. And the standard joke, the New Yorker cartoon of the guy standing on the street corner saying, the end is near. And in our own tradition, we've had, you know, people that had made dire predictions about the future. And I gotta tell you, I've never paid much attention to them. I'm sorry, I just, I'm not into the dire prediction, end of the world scenario. I just don't think much good can come of it. And so when someone like Jonathan Haidt, who isn't in the apocalyptic space, says something like that, that captures my attention. I think he's right. And the problem is the lack of trust. You drain trust from the system. And we're living through that moment right now. Right now.

[B]

And it's reflected in. Well, it's something as obvious as how people, how people perceive the results of the last election.

[C]

Yeah. This is the big one right now with 75% of Republicans. I don't believe the last election was fair and square. That's a serious problem.

[B]

They think it was stolen.

[C]

It was stolen. Yeah.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

And that's a serious problem for our democracy that is draining all trust from the system.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

And the problem is that's not true. It's demonstrably not true.

[B]

It's a good example of how misinformation gets into public discourse. You can, you, you tell something, you know, now we know that agree or not agree, with support or not support President Trump as president. We have to remember that he began telling that, that lie before he got elected, the first time that the election was going to be stolen. And then of course, he found out it wasn't stolen, but he know, he knew. And this time he started telling that story well before the election. And you tell a story long enough, loud enough, and your supporters are going to want to tend to believe it. But the truth is the election wasn't close. And, and, but we have a significant number of people who think it was. Now, I was con. I have to say I was concerned on election night and after election night I was seeing things coming and like, because that is that shenanigans. And then I cared enough to look at what actually happened and as the days unfolded, explanations for what happened and it was just people making stuff up basically. And I agree with you, that's true.

[C]

That's not to say there are issues that are worth exploring. And the good news is there are a lot of outfits out there that are doing that right now and trying to do it in a nonpartisan way to get to study the bats, present them in a fair way and present them in a way that gives respect to people who have been told otherwise. Senator Mitch McConnell spoke of this in the Florida Senate when he was talking about the insurrection Catlin. He said, you know, these people believed things that they were being told by people. Those things happen to not be true. But we need to do a job, we need to do a better job of getting the story out there and not doing it in a partisan way. Doing it a way that treats our fellow citizens with respect and acknowledges that no, there are problems in our election system. We can do better. But there's the evidence that somehow the outcome of the election was stolen here. That's not. Go to the nationally elected, go to Senator Lee, go to Senator Romney. Ask them what do they think. Neither of them thinks it was stall running.

[B]

Nobody went towards joint. I want to be careful here.

[C]

I mean there, there are things to look at and, and to incur in the election.

[B]

Absolutely. You always want, you want elections to be perfect. We probably never had one. But nobody of any in, in any position of responsibility believes that the election was stolen, Republican or Democrat, that I

[C]

know, I, I think that's true.

[B]

But the fact remains we believe that so many people believe it was stolen. So what. Why have we arrived at this position? What is it that's causing this?

[C]

Boy, that's way beyond, that's way beyond my pay range.

[B]

Let's talk about media, social media, cable.

[C]

I mean, so they're the easy targets, right? And, and, and to be fair with that, I'm a big fan of Arthur Brooks. And, and, and when he describes, when he talks about cable news, he refers to it as the outrage industrial complex. And it's a clever phrase but he drills down on that and he points out that it's all economics driven. The cable news outlets have discovered that the way ad revenues are driven is by getting people outraged. And they have figured this out and they do it wonderfully. I mean when I speak at Law schools. And when I teach my clients, I make the point. There is not breaking news every 10 minutes. There's just not. Except on cable news. Right? And so you go, you watch, you get your passions all inflamed by the latest outrage from the left or the right. And, and it, and it, it. And it. It just generates a willingness to be used. I tell my students this. If, if, if you're get. If your primary source of information states is from cable news or social media, you need to understand you're being played. Okay. You're being played because the best news here is how to get. How do you get out of that? Right? And, and here's. This is really bad news. It's hard work. It's hard work.

[B]

Well, awesome. Bring a challenge there. It's not too hard work to go turn off CNN or Fox News or. Because I, I go into homes and maybe around here that latter channel was playing in homes almost 247 and I turned it off. Turned off. Yeah. Turn it on. You're getting. All you're doing is getting your biases confirmed. You're getting your outrage triggered.

[C]

Triggered.

[B]

They. They're experts at keeping the amygdala and the brain fired up. It needs constantly to be fed. You know, and we.

[C]

That's.

[B]

That's the environment in which a lot of people live for younger people and, and more and more people our age. It's social media and social media, they figure out how to do exactly the same thing. They find out what you believe and they're going to feed you sources that confirm that belief that that wonderful movie that Netflix had the social dilemma. If you re. If you watch that and don't understand that if you're spending a significant amount of time on social media, you are getting played. If you don't understand by the end of that movie, you haven't seen the movie. So you know, it is their expert at it. And it's driving. That's one of the big reasons that's creating tribes. So you get these echo chambers and almost everyone I know lives in an echo chamber.

[C]

Now. That's part of it is not hard work. Yeah, turn off cable. Just turn off. But here's the hard work. It's a complicated political ecosystem that we live in. There are lots of issues and these are important issues. And to stay informed as a citizen actually is hard work because you got to read lots of different sources. You know, I reckon to my recommend my students that they read the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal every day. Right. So that you get. You get the same news story from perhaps a different slant, that they read the Atlantic and the National Review. Right? Yeah. Get outside your echo chamber, for sure.

[B]

Yeah. And I think being able to open your mind and heart to other points of view is absolutely critical right now. And that's what we're being asked to do by our leaders on a more regular basis, and particularly in this last General Conference. There's also in our. In our church, a bit of a generation gap, it seems. So we're divided. We come to church. First of all, tell me what it is, particularly about the Latter Day Saint church that holds promise for creating more amity, for creating more open.

[C]

I think we have great resources to do this. I mean, Richard Bushman, I've heard him say that he thinks perhaps our greatest gift to the world. I just paused for a second. Fill in the blank, go to a gospel doctrine class and say, okay, what is our greatest gift to the world? And there'll be lots of great answers. I heard Richard Bushman on one occasion say our greatest gift to the world could be that we know how to build community, that we're really good at, that we don't have much iconography in the church. Right. But one thing we do, the beehive. Right. We're the people of the beehive. And I think that's a powerful symbol of our success at building community. Gene England described the workings of a Latter Day Saint ward as creating one of the most radical engines for social transformation on the planet. And Gene said it came from two factors which, working in tandem, produced something transformational. The first is we're. We're parochial in the sense of, you live here, you go to church in this ward, you don't get to choose. Right. So I don't get to, you know, I don't get to choose Bill Turnbull's ward. And so that we can, you know, feed on each other and, And, And. And exercise confirmation bias between us. No, I. I have to go to the Catoctin Ward. And you know what? I may not like any of the people there. I may not. These may not be people I would choose to socialize with or do a movie with or have lunch with. But under the Lord's system, I'm going to church with them. Right. Okay. That's the first point. The parochial nature of the ward organization. Then you combine that with the lay ministry, everyone's got a piece of the action. Right. The sweat equity that comes from everyone having callings. And now I'm not just sitting on the pew next to this person. But I'm going to be working with them in the primary or the mutual or some other project. And, and, and so for that to succeed, I've got to learn to like that person. Right. And, and of course we've all, hopefully we've all had that experience that over time we find out that this person who has different views than we do about music and politics and these sorts of things, that we begin to discover that the board loves that person every bit as much as us, that he died and lives for them every bit as much as us. And that's the beginning of wisdom. So we know how to do this. We do this in our wards all the time.

[B]

Yeah. We're at a point now though, where it has become challenging to come together and forget like leave our echo chambers and come together. It's a challenge to do that. Right there will be. But that's what we're be being challenged to do. And particularly Elder Oaks brought this with very strongly in this last. Do you want me to read this is.

[C]

Yeah, that'd be great. This is from Tom.

[B]

This is from Tom's text. I got this text right after general conference and I think it was sent to six or eight of our friends. Concept the money quotes from Dallin Oaks Easter Sunday Talk. Listen carefully to this. These are excerpts from the talk. Uncontested issues we should seek to moderate and unify. There are many political issues and no party platform or individual candidate can satisfy all personal preferences. Each citizen must therefore decide which issues are most important to him or her at any particular time. Then the member should seek inspiration on how to exercise their influence according to their individual priorities. This process will not be easy. It may require changing party support or candidate choices even from election to election. Well, that, you know, that's quite a statement right there.

[C]

It goes on. Yeah,

[B]

this I don't believe. I don't believe I've heard a general authority take quite such a strong stand. But then listen to what he says next. Such independent actions will sometimes require voters to support candidates or political parties or platforms whose other positions they cannot approve. You can imagine what some of those might be. Gosh, I can't be that party. Because they believe in blank. Now he's challenging that. That's one reason we. We encourage our members to refrain from judging one another in political matters. We should never assert that a faithful Latter Day Saint cannot belong to a particular party or vote for a particular candidate. We teach correct principles and leave our members to choose how to prioritize and apply those principles on the issues presented from time to time. Listen what he says here. We also insist. He said insist. And we ask our local leaders to insist that political choices and affiliations not be the subject of teachings or advocacy in any of our church meetings. And I remember after that talk, and he sat down, Elder Rasvan got up to give his talk next and he made a point to turn to Elder Oaks and said, thank you, Elder Oaks, for that very important message. So this is something that the 12 have, have been really concerned about. What is the issue that they're concerned?

[C]

Well, I certainly don't want to speak for them, but as I, as I hear them in General Conference and elsewhere, I think the issue is unity in the church, that, that too many of us have allowed our dearly held political views, carefully considered political views to become more important than our church membership. I think so. I, all my adult life I was a conservative Republican, right. Until I became a judge. And then I. Not partisan at all, but, and I had, you know, I had strongly held views and I was active in Republican party politics and. But I never thought that my views were the result of some insights into the nature of the gospel that compelled me to be a Republican. I just thought that thinking is so short sighted and not very humble. Right. I've always thought I've had my political views. I may be wrong about them. I may be dead. I don't think they am, but I may be dead wrong about that. One of my favorite quotes is from the Puritan revolutionary Oliver Cromwell, who told his men, I beseech, or told his people, I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ think that he might be mistaken.

[B]

Right.

[C]

And so, you know, I've had my.

[B]

Yeah, the problem is I might be wrong. We get very wrapped up. We get very wrapped up in narratives that these days, yeah, it's so easy to get them enforced because we can always find that little corner, that little echo chamber where these things get enforced and sometimes crazy things come out of that. So beliefs that are quite extraordinary. And I think that's, that may be one of the reasons that recently the, this is also kind of extraordinary that the, the church changed, made a change to its handbook.

[C]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

Basically said something to the line, something along the lines are if, if you, if you're listening to people who promote fear, contention, conspiracy theories, back away from those sources. That shouldn't be where you're getting. So if you're feeling those things when you're, when you are engaging in your favorite media and you're kind of going down that rabbit hole, taken about face. That's that if you're feeling those kinds of feelings, you. In these conspiracy theories, it's really quite remarkable how evil we can, we can believe our fellow, our fellow human beings are. And it's. That seems to me to be the problem with the direction we're going. It's not, not just that we disagree, we believe the other people, the other side is evil. And we create narratives around that.

[C]

No, to paraphrase Michael Gerson, the Constitution anticipates vigorous disagreement, but what it cannot withstand is a sinistery that holds each other in contempt. I think that's the disagree. We're supposed to be arguing and disagreeing about marginal tax rates, national security, how to, how to expand equality, how to preserve liberty. I mean, these are big issues, right? We're supposed to be disagreeing about it. We cross the line, however, when we think that the person we're disagreeing with is evil because of their views. But what do we hold them against? That, you know, that Lincoln's first inaugural, you know, you know, we cannot be enemies. We must be friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not rate our bonds of affection. And you're right, so many of these conspiracy theories, they shred the bonds of affection. You don't want to be part of people who disagree with you. That's a pretty good sign that whatever is motivating us isn't a good thing.

[B]

Okay, so let's try to maybe conclude this if we can, on a positive note. Okay, yeah, point. Well, you don't have to because you, I think, I think maybe one of your conclusions is, yes, the Constitution is hanging by a thread, that Jonathan Haidt may be right, that in the next two or three decades we may not be able to keep this thing together. It is a republic, sir, if you can keep it.

[C]

Right, exactly. I want to be cautious about the hanging by a thread thing. I've always been worried about that in our culture. What does that mean? But if you were to ask me, what does it mean? This isn't a conclusion. This is my opinion maybe wrong. No, this is pretty scary. It's pretty scary right now. And I say that with some experience and some knowledge about the Constitution, its history and how it works. So, yeah, it's a scary moment. Is it hanging by a thread? I don't know exactly what that means, but.

[B]

Well, it's. It's when things become very tenuous. Can the republic. There is. That phrase emerges from our history. Apparently Joseph actually did say Something like that, probably on more than one occasion. I think what, what we've been asked to do now is it's not correct. We've been asked to engage the way Latter Day Saints have been taught to engage, the way we're structured to engage the genius of the ward which brings us together and makes us, helps us. We can model something important for the, for the earth. But beyond that, Elder Oaks is calling us a civic engagement and peacemaking and getting beyond, not, not buying into what seems to be dragging this nation toward division. And boy, the messages from conference were so on point and so resonant to that.

[C]

I think we have a great. You know, once again, Richard Wishman talks about radiant Mormonism, right? He used that phrase before. We're trying not to use Mormonism, but radiate radiant Latter Day Satanism, right, that Latter Day Saints in the diaspora and in Utah as well have a. Have done really well at becoming influential citizens in positive ways. And I think this moment presents us with a unique opportunity because of our doctrine, because of our experience that we really can be the people who are the builders of bridges. But we're not going to be doing that if we're just sticking in our echo chamber listening to that people were beating up on, on the left or the right. That, that can't. You know, I came of age when Spencer W. Kimmel was president of the church and for the youth, he, he talked about the style of our own in dressing, grooming standards. Well, I, I think I tend to see a Latter Day Saint style of our own in politics. Why can't we be known as the people, Hope? Oh, you're the builder of bridges, right? You're the we as Daniel Brooks. You're the weavers, right? You're the people who are working across ideological divides to unify our country. That's what Latter Day Saints are about. So can I end on a high spiritual note? I think so. We all know John 17 from our missionary days, right? We use that when the Savior is praying to Heavenly Father on the eve of his trial, the eve of his betrayal, and we do a good job pointing out the nature of the God. Then you know that the Father and the Son are separated, distinct. We know that passage. We use it. We use it well. It was only recently that listening to a lecture by N.T. wright, that it struck me that there's something else in that passage that's really important, that when the Savior is praying to Heavenly Father, he's praying for the church, that they may be one. As thou, Father, art in Me and I, indeed, that they may be one in us. And once again, I've always used that to talk about, you know, the nature of the Godhead. Wright points out that the Lord goes on to say that the world might believe that thou has sent me. In other words, the purpose of that prayer was to pray that the church would be unified. Because the primary witness that we offer to the world of the divinity of Christ is unity in the church. And so my plea to me, look, President Hooks was speaking to me. He was calling me to repentance. I've been a single party voter all my adult life, right. And he was saying, hey, Griffith, you need to think that through a little bit more carefully. Right. So there's a, there's a lot of work that I've got to do with, with his talk.

[B]

I grew up a Republican like you. I was chairman of the Young Republicans. But I have switched back and forth between not so much party affiliation, but

[C]

certainly I actually grew up a Democrat and became a Republican. When I learned to read Bill, that

[B]

was a joke to everyone out there.

[C]

But, but the point, the point is, from John 17, I'll just finish with this, is that by covenant, my primary obligation is to help the church be unified so that we can bear witness of Christ in all the world. That's what we're primarily about. And to the extent that my political views get in the way of that happening, abandon those views or shut up about them or get off social media. Because if you're causing division in the church over your political views or in the community, you're undermining your witness of Christ. So here we go. Two things I've said, okay. If you're an agent of division, you're undermining the Constitution. If you're an agent of division, you're undermining the church's witness of Christ. So maybe that's not a positive note to end on, but I think. But, but I think, I think those are important messages.

[B]

I think that message is clear from Elder Oaks.

[C]

Yeah, I think you get a 500 foot home run on that.

[B]

Thanks for exploring that with us, Tom. Thank you, good friend and just a. Just a lot of fun to talk to.

[C]

Thanks. Take care.

[A]

All right, thanks so much for listening. We really hope that you enjoyed this conversation. You can find a link for additional resources for this special fifth Sunday lesson in the show Notes. Thanks again for listening.