How Accurate Is Your Worldview?

Access to limitless information was supposed to broaden our understanding of the world. And in many ways, it has — we can learn more, see more, and connect more than any generation before us. But at the same time, our reality has become strangely narrowed. What we consume is no longer a neutral cross‑section of the world; it’s a stream shaped by algorithms that decide what rises to the surface.

So the question becomes: is our media diet actually balanced, or are we mistaking a curated feed for the full picture? When our exposure is filtered by what is most clickable, most emotional, or most likely to keep us engaged, the world can appear more dire, more chaotic, more extreme than it truly is. The distortion doesn’t just affect how we see the present — it quietly reshapes how we imagine the future.

How to recalibrate:

Re‑grounding in Reality

Balance your environments: 

• If you work in crisis or illness (hospital, social work, etc.), spend time in spaces of vitality — parks, gyms, laughter, art.
• If you work indoors, make a ritual of stepping outside daily.
• If your world is digital, touch something tangible — soil, wood, fabric, another human hand.

Diversify your inputs: 

• Read from multiple sources, especially those that challenge your assumptions.
• Follow creators who build rather than react — gardeners, makers, teachers, healers.
• Seek long‑form content over short emotional bursts; depth steadies perspective.

Re‑training the Algorithm

Interrupt the feedback loop: 

• When you see something extreme, pause before clicking — algorithms learn from engagement.
• Search for the opposite viewpoint or a neutral explanation.
• Regularly clear your watch and search history to reset what’s “fed” to you.

Feed it balance: 

• Like a garden, algorithms grow what you plant.
• Watch or read content that uplifts, educates, or restores — it teaches the system to offer more of that.
• Engage with truth‑seeking voices, not outrage‑seeking ones.

Re‑centering the Self

Practice embodied awareness: 

• Notice how media affects your body — tension, breath, heart rate.
• Step away when you feel pulled into fear or anger; those are signs of manipulation.
• Replace scrolling with stillness — prayer, journaling, or quiet observation of nature.

Seek lived balance: 

• Spend time with people whose lives differ from yours.
• Let real conversations recalibrate what feels “normal.”
• Remember: the world is larger, kinder, and more complex than any feed can show.

Why Reconciliation Requires Two Voices

The Sacred Work of Mutual Understanding: Why Reconciliation Requires Two Voices

Takeaway: Real healing in relationships—whether marriage, family, friendship, or ward community—requires mutual understanding. Even when one person feels entirely at fault, reconciliation cannot be completed by a single apology. Research from John Gottman, Sue Johnson, and teachings from the restored gospel all affirm that hearts heal only when both people speak, both are heard, and both feel understood.

---

We Exist in Relationship—Which Means We Exist in Turn‑Taking

Human beings are created for relationship. We learn who we are through connection, conversation, and shared meaning. Healthy relationships require:

• taking turns
• suspending premature conclusions
• listening before interpreting
• ensuring both people feel understood

When one person speaks and the other listens deeply, trust grows. When both speak and both feel understood, connection strengthens. But when only one person apologizes, feels relieved, and moves on, the matter remains unresolved for the other person—even if the apologizing person believes they are completely at fault (which is rarely true).

---

Gottman: Repair Attempts Only Work When Both Hearts Participate

John Gottman’s research shows that relationships thrive not because people never hurt each other, but because they know how to repair. However:

• A repair attempt is only successful if both people accept it.
• If one person apologizes but the other hasn’t yet shared their experience, the repair fails.
• Repeated failed repairs erode trust.

Even when one partner believes they are entirely responsible for the rupture, the impact of the event belongs to both people. The other person still needs space to express their feelings, articulate their needs, and participate in rebuilding trust.

Learn more about Gottman’s work on repair attempts:
Repair Attempts – The Gottman Institute

---

Sue Johnson: Attachment Injuries Heal Through Mutual Engagement

Sue Johnson’s Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) teaches that people need to know their emotions matter to the person they’re in relationship with. She emphasizes that:

• Apologies without emotional engagement feel incomplete.
• Injuries heal only when the injured person can express their pain.
• The offending partner must respond with empathy and accessibility.
• Both partners must co‑create a new emotional experience.

Even if one person feels fully responsible, the other person still needs to speak—not to assign blame, but to restore connection.

More on Sue Johnson’s EFT approach:
Emotionally Focused Therapy – ICEEFT

---

LDS Teachings: Reconciliation Is a Two‑Way Covenant

Christ’s Pattern: “Be Reconciled”

In Matthew 5:24, Christ teaches:

“First be reconciled to thy brother.”

He does not say, “Confess and move on.” He says be reconciled—a relational, two‑person process.

Matthew 5:24

Mosiah 26: Hear Both Sides

When Alma faced conflict, the Lord instructed him to hear both parties before resolving the matter.

Mosiah 26

Doctrine & Covenants 98: Mutual Peace

The Lord teaches patience, forgiveness, and repeated attempts at peace—but also acknowledges that unresolved patterns require dialogue, not silent endurance.

Doctrine & Covenants 98

President Hinckley: People Need to Be Heard

President Gordon B. Hinckley frequently taught that people flourish when they feel heard, valued, and understood.

President Hinckley – Standing for Something

---

Even When You Think You’re Entirely at Fault

Even if you believe you caused 100% of the harm, you did not create 100% of the meaning.

The meaning of the event belongs to both people. Even if your behavior was clearly wrong, the other person still has:

• a story
• an emotional experience
• a perspective
• a need for validation
• a need for reassurance
• a need to express how the injury affected them

If they don’t get that space, the injury remains partially unhealed—even if they forgive you.

---

Why One‑Sided Resolution Doesn’t Work

When only one person speaks, apologizes, and moves on:

• the other person’s experience remains unvalidated
• the emotional injury stays unaddressed
• trust does not rebuild
• the relationship becomes asymmetrical

This is not punishment. It is protection. People step back from relationships where their voice is not welcome.

---

What Healthy Reconciliation Looks Like

• Turn‑Taking: Each person speaks without interruption.
• Suspend Assumptions: You don’t decide what the other person meant until you’ve heard them.
• Invite Their Voice: Especially when you feel fully responsible.
• Validate Their Experience: Their feelings matter.
• Co‑Create the Path Forward: Together, not alone.
• Rebuild Trust Over Time: Trust is restored through consistent behavior.

---

Final Reflection: The Covenant of Mutual Understanding

Healthy relationships require shared airtime, mutual understanding, and emotional responsiveness. Apologies matter. Accountability matters. But the other person’s voice matters just as much.

Healing happens when:

• both speak
• both listen
• both understand
• both feel safe
• both feel valued

This is the pattern of Christlike reconciliation—mutual, humble, relational, and healing. It is how hearts become one. It is how relationships endure. It is how Zion is built, one conversation at a time.

Are We Pathologizing the Wrong Things — and Missing the Real Message?

When Society Defines “Normal”: What Our Diagnoses Reveal About Us

Mental health diagnoses are often presented as objective, scientific categories—clean, clinical, and neatly defined. But anyone who has watched the DSM evolve over the decades knows the truth is more complicated. The manual is now in its fifth edition, and each revision reflects not only advances in research but also shifts in cultural norms. What society considers “abnormal” changes, and the diagnostic criteria change with it.

This raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: If certain diagnoses are increasing, is it the people who are sick—or the society producing them?

The Social Mirror Behind the DSM

Diagnostic categories don’t emerge in a vacuum. They are shaped by:

• prevailing cultural expectations
• what a society rewards or punishes
• what behaviors it finds tolerable, inconvenient, or threatening
• what emotional expressions it considers acceptable

When entire concepts shift—when something once pathologized becomes normalized, or when a previously ordinary behavior becomes a clinical concern—it’s worth asking what changed in the culture itself.

The Growth of Certain Diagnoses: A Symptom of Something Larger?

If we’re seeing a rise in particular mental health diagnoses, it may not simply mean more people are “ill.” It may mean more people are struggling to function within a cultural landscape that has become fragmented, overstimulated, or emotionally dysregulated.

A society that is:

• chronically anxious
• addicted to outrage
• overstimulated by technology
• disconnected from community
• confused about identity
• exhausted by constant change

…will naturally produce individuals who manifest those pressures in personal, psychological ways.

Are We Becoming Unmoored?

Many people feel that modern culture is drifting—unanchored from shared values, shared meaning, and shared reality. When the cultural center cannot hold, individuals lose their footing too.

If society becomes unmoored, then the behaviors we label “disordered” may actually be signals that something in the environment is off-kilter. And the behaviors we label “normal” may simply be what the culture has decided to tolerate, even if they are corrosive to long-term well-being.

A Call to Look More Closely

Perhaps the question isn’t simply, “Why are diagnoses increasing?” Perhaps the deeper question is, “What kind of society are we creating?”

If the DSM reflects cultural norms, then changes in diagnosis patterns are reflections of us—our anxieties, our values, our blind spots, and our collective health.

Maybe it’s time to stop asking what’s wrong with individuals and start asking what’s happening in the culture that shapes them.

The Horse and the Passenger

There was once a traveler who loved horses and a rider who loved speed.

The rider had spent years learning to handle a magnificent horse named Tempest. Tempest was powerful, quick, responsive, and full of spirit. The rider delighted in feeling the wind against his face and the strength of the horse beneath him. To him, riding at full gallop felt like freedom.

One day he invited a companion to ride with him.

The companion accepted gladly, because she loved the rider and wanted to share in what brought him joy.

As they rode, the rider urged Tempest forward. The horse accelerated. The trail curved and dipped. The rider laughed as the speed increased.

But the companion grew quiet.

Her hands tightened around the saddle.

The rider noticed and called out, "Isn't this wonderful?"

The companion hesitated. She did not want to diminish his happiness.

After all, nothing bad was happening.

The horse was sure-footed.

The rider was skilled.

The sky was clear.

And yet her heart was pounding.

When they stopped, the rider said, "You seemed distant."

The companion answered carefully.

"I know you feel freedom on this horse."

"I know you trust him."

"I know you are capable."

"But while you are feeling alive, I am feeling afraid."

The rider frowned.

"You think I am reckless?"

"No," she replied. "I think you are riding according to your experience, and I am riding according to mine."

The rider sat silently with that.

For the first time, he realized that they were not sharing the same ride.

They were sharing the same horse.

Days later, he sought counsel from an old stable keeper.

The stable keeper listened and then said:

"When you ride alone, your task is mastery of the horse."

"When you ride with another, your task is mastery of yourself."

The rider considered this.

The stable keeper continued.

"The measure of a ride is not how fast the horse can run."

"It is whether both riders arrive with their trust intact."

The rider then asked, "Should I never ride fast again?"

The old man laughed.

"That would be as foolish as asking the horse never to run."

"The question is not whether the horse runs."

"The question is whether your companion feels carried or endured."

On the next ride, the rider tried something new.

Before urging Tempest forward, he asked, "How does this pace feel?"

As the trail changed, he checked in.

When excitement rose within him, he noticed it instead of surrendering to it.

And when he felt the urge to prove his skill, he remembered that no proof was necessary.

Meanwhile, the companion had work of her own.

She learned to speak sooner when discomfort appeared.

She stopped hiding fear behind silence.

She learned that trust does not grow from enduring what frightens us, but from sharing honestly what we experience.

Some days she would say, "A little slower."

Some days she would say, "I think I can go a little faster."

And sometimes she surprised herself.

Over time, neither became exactly like the other.

The rider remained spirited.

The companion remained sensitive.

The horse remained fast.

But something changed between them.

The rider no longer believed that love meant bringing the companion into his experience.

The companion no longer believed that love meant enduring an experience she could not share.

Together they discovered a deeper truth:

A journey shared is not about finding one perfect speed.

It is about learning a rhythm in which neither person must abandon themselves, and neither person must be left behind.

And so they rode many miles together.

Not because they had eliminated fear.

Not because they had eliminated freedom.

But because they had learned that trust grows whenever freedom cares about fear, and fear learns to speak to freedom.

On Safety, Trust, and the Ways We Carry One Another

Love is not only experienced through affection, commitment, sacrifice, or shared joy. It is also experienced through the subtle ways we create safety for one another. Safety is easy to overlook because it often becomes visible only when it is absent. We notice it when our body tenses, when our breathing changes, when we brace ourselves rather than rest in the presence of someone we care about.

Trust grows in those moments when we feel that our well-being matters to another person as much as it matters to us.

Much of life requires balancing different needs. One person may seek intensity, challenge, excitement, or passionate expression. Another may seek calm, steadiness, predictability, and peace. Neither set of needs is inherently right or wrong. They are simply different ways of moving through the world.

Difficulty arises when one person's expression creates distress in another.

An excited drive may feel exhilarating to one person but frightening to another. A passionate conversation may feel energizing to one person while feeling overwhelming to the person listening. What is experienced as confidence, urgency, or enthusiasm by one person may be received as unpredictability, aggression, or danger by another.

These differences do not necessarily reveal a failure of character. Often they reveal a difference in experience.

The challenge of intimate relationships is not eliminating those differences but learning to understand them well enough that neither person has to abandon themselves in order to remain connected.

When fear enters a relationship, it often does so quietly.

Fear is not always about physical danger. Sometimes it is the fear that one's comfort will not be considered. The fear that emotional intensity will become overwhelming. The fear that irritation will dictate decisions. The fear that one's needs will be dismissed as less important than another person's impulses in the moment.

When fear takes root, trust becomes more difficult.

The mind becomes vigilant. The body prepares. Relaxation gives way to anticipation. Instead of feeling carried by the relationship, a person begins carrying their own sense of safety alone.

Yet the answer is rarely found in blame.

Most people do not intentionally frighten the people they love. Often they are acting from habits, frustrations, preferences, excitement, stress, or ways of communicating that have become familiar to them. The impact of those actions may be significant even when the intention is not harmful.

Understanding grows when both intention and impact are allowed to coexist.

One person can sincerely say, "I never meant to scare you."

The other can sincerely say, "I was scared."

Both statements can be true.

Reconciliation begins when neither truth is used to erase the other.

The deeper invitation is not to become less passionate, less expressive, less adventurous, or less alive. The invitation is to develop enough awareness that those qualities can be expressed without eroding another person's sense of security.

Strength becomes more powerful when paired with gentleness.

Conviction becomes more persuasive when paired with restraint.

Passion becomes easier to receive when it is accompanied by care.

Likewise, the person who feels afraid bears a responsibility of their own. They are tasked with speaking honestly about their experience rather than silently accumulating hurt. They must learn to articulate their needs before resentment hardens around them. They must distinguish present circumstances from old wounds and communicate clearly about what helps them feel safe.

Healthy relationships ask both people to participate in the creation of trust.

One person cannot create safety alone, and one person cannot create understanding alone.

Trust emerges through countless small moments in which people demonstrate that they are willing to consider how their actions affect one another.

At its heart, this is not a request for perfection. It is a request for partnership.

It is the hope that both people can remain curious about one another's experiences. That they can make room for realities different from their own. That they can recognize that love is not only expressed through what we intend, but also through our willingness to understand the effect we have on those we cherish.

Safety is not the absence of intensity.

It is the confidence that intensity will remain guided by care.

When two people learn how to protect both connection and individuality, trust deepens. Fear softens. Defensiveness relaxes. What was once a source of distance can become an opportunity for understanding.

And in that understanding, reconciliation becomes possible.

Possible Approaches

• Checking in about comfort levels during stressful or intense moments.
• Adjusting driving style when sharing a vehicle.
• Lowering volume, pace, or intensity during emotionally charged conversations.
• Pausing when irritation begins influencing decisions.
• Asking, "How is this experience landing for you?"
• Practicing self-regulation before responding from frustration.
• Viewing consideration as an act of love rather than a restriction.

• Communicating fear before it becomes resentment.
• Being specific about what behaviors create discomfort.
• Identifying what would help them feel safer instead of only describing what hurts.
• Distinguishing current experiences from past experiences that may amplify sensitivity.
• Setting respectful boundaries when a situation feels overwhelming.
• Learning techniques to self-soothe during moments of activation.
• Acknowledging and appreciating efforts toward change, even imperfect ones.
• Remaining curious about the other person's intentions while still honoring the impact of their actions.
• Inviting collaboration by asking, "How can we create an experience that works for both of us?"
  

  
  

  
  

An example 

"I am not asking you to become a different person. I am asking us to understand each other well enough that neither of us has to choose between being ourselves and feeling connected. I want to feel safe with you, and I want us to discover together what helps create that safety."

How Culture Turns Comfort into Commandment

Reflections on an Unexpected Debate About Inclusion

Recently I found myself in a discussion about a church activity that appeared—at least from the wording of the announcement—to be exclusive. The flyer described an evening to “connect, share ideas, and strengthen families.” It was titled Parent Forum, but did not specify any attendance restrictions. When I asked for clarification, several long‑time attendees insisted that the event was for parents only.

For a time, no one could explain why it needed to be restricted. I asked about the purpose of limiting attendance, whether broader participation might enrich the discussion, and whether inclusion could strengthen families across the board. Instead of receiving a rationale, I encountered a series of responses that did not address the question at all.

The tactics used included:

• Reframing my question as emotional dysregulation
• Repeating the premise (“it’s for parents”) without explaining it
• Using personal experience as justification for a general rule
• Claiming group consensus without evidence
• Introducing unrelated comparisons
• Deflecting to my motives rather than answering the question

My questions were not answered. They were redirected, psychologized, or dismissed—but never addressed.

Meanwhile, while my reasoning followed a straightforward chain: Purpose → Benefit → Inclusion → Questioning restriction. Their reasoning relied on circular logic, false equivalence, pathologizing disagreement, and shifting the burden of proof.

Eventually, the person who actually shared the flyer stepped in with a clarification: the event was never restricted. Anyone interested in strengthening their family—current, future, extended, or otherwise—was welcome to attend. The perceived restriction was simply an extrapolation of personal preference into an assumed rule. In other words, the exclusivity was cultural, not structural.

The pushback did not come from the organizers, who clarified that the event was open to anyone wishing to strengthen their family. The resistance came from past attendees who had internalized a preference as if it were a policy. Their interpretation felt authoritative, but it did not actually represent the church’s intent or the event’s purpose.

Moments like this invite us to pause and examine our own assumptions. Are we responding from principle or from habit? From logic or from comfort? From what is written or from what we’ve always believed? It’s easy for cultural norms to masquerade as doctrine, and for personal preference to be defended as if it were a rule.

When we encounter situations like this, it’s worth checking ourselves: Are we being consistent with our stated values? Are we welcoming when we claim to be welcoming? Are we open to enrichment, or guarding familiar boundaries? Are we reacting logically, or emotionally?

Communities grow stronger when we align our actions with our principles — especially the principle of inclusion. And sometimes, all it takes is one sincere question to reveal where culture has drifted away from intent.

What do you think?

Happy 250th USA

I’ve often heard the United States described as a “great melting pot.” Once I sat with that metaphor, I realized I disliked it. A melting pot suggests substances dissolving into one another until they’re homogeneous — no distinct notes, no recognizable origins, just a single uniform product. That’s never felt true to me, and honestly, it undersells what this country actually is.

I think the United States is better understood as a great stew. Every ingredient keeps its shape, its texture, its character. Each addition brings its own flavor, and together they create something richer than any one element could offer alone. It’s ever‑changing, deeply seasoned, and full of variety — but never at the cost of individuality.

We’re the only nation built from so many disparate parts that we had to craft an allegiance to define ourselves as a collective. Most countries root identity in culture, ancestry, and generations lived on the same soil. Americans, by contrast, have a chosen identity — a created identity — one we step into rather than inherit. That’s rare in the world.

So why melt ourselves down into something uniform? Why erase what makes us distinct? Stews are hardier than fondues. They endure. They nourish. They let every ingredient matter.