President Dallin H. Oaks of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints delivered this speech on Wednesday, September 16, 2026, at Washington National Cathedral. The gathering was part of the cathedral’s “A Better Way” series, which encourages Americans to find common ground and move forward together in polarized times. See a news summary of the event.
I am grateful to be here in this sacred setting with many scholars, civic leaders, and others I respect. I am here to speak as part of the National Cathedral’s ongoing effort to find a better way to embody the love of God in public life, offering hope for unity and a moral framework to move forward in a divided world.
I.
In my professional work I have always regarded the United States Constitution as a model for a diverse people to achieve self-government. Along with Professor Yuval Levin and others, I read our history to teach that “Creating common ground is a key purpose of the Constitution.”1 The Constitution requires us to deal constantly with people who disagree with us. It compels a divided people to build coalitions that allow them to act together for the common good.
There is no better place to study this than my native state. As a writer recently summarized:
“Utah’s history—and Latter-day Saint history, in particular—tells a tale of trial and error, push and shove, give and take, compromise and concession, as the quest for freedom, fairness and equality moved along its bumpy, twisty, never-ending and never-perfect course.”2
In his letter of invitation, Professor Jeffrey Rosen asked me to build on my previous discussions of “the way our constitutional order and rights—grounded in compromise and pluralism—reflect and extend the command to love and live with those with whom we disagree.” I welcome that invitation.
I begin with some of our Church members’ experiences living with, serving with, and loving some with whom we disagreed. Here I mention our early history as refugees—surviving expulsion from Missouri in the 1830s by a unique “extermination” order, and in the 1840s forced to flee the borders of the United States to try to establish a separate society in a land then claimed but not settled by Mexico. In 1847, when our pioneers arrived in what would soon become the western United States, their only governing authority was their Church President, Brigham Young. When the Territory of Utah was created in 1850, he was appointed as its first governor. In 1858, our unique status as a theocracy and a democracy changed with the appointment of a new governor by the President of the United States. He was a “gentile,” as we then called all nonmembers of our Church. We gradually learned to live with dual authorities.
In our more recent history, we have survived the burdens of a small minority and the sting of rejection when our differences of religious faith have caused some to deny that we are Christians and to reject our association. You might say we have become peacemakers and advocates of freedom and unity by necessity. We have learned to forge those compromises on policy necessary to achieve the freedom and unity to live at peace with those with whom we disagree on religious faith. At the same time, we have preserved the freedom required for us to continue with our most important doctrines and practices.
In these remarks I do not speak for any political party or pressure group. I speak for the United States Constitution, which I have studied for 70 years. I speak from my experience as a law clerk to Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, my 15 years as a professor of law and my 3½ years as a justice on the Utah Supreme Court. More recently, I speak from 42 years as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, responsible to study the meaning of the divinely inspired principles of the United States Constitution.
As a religious person who has served in government at both federal and state levels and now as leader of the worldwide Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have always known of the tensions experienced when persons who rely on the free exercise of religion are conflicted between duties to God and duties to country. More recently, I have come to understand better the distress of other minorities who feel that some of us are invoking constitutional rights like free exercise of religion and freedom of speech to deny or challenge their own core beliefs and their basic constitutional rights.
II.
What became the United States was founded and built by people of different nationalities, ethnicities, and beliefs. Its unifying purpose was not to establish a particular religion or to perpetuate any of the diverse cultures or tribal loyalties of the old countries. Our founding generation, whom we honor in this 250th anniversary, sought to be unified by a new constitution and laws. That is not to say that our unifying Declaration and initial Constitution or the then-current understanding of their meanings were perfect. The history of the first two centuries of the United States showed the need for many important changes, such as voting rights for women and, particularly, the abolition of slavery. New laws had to ensure that those who had been enslaved or disadvantaged would have all the conditions of freedom.
Many different groups—political and cultural—needed to participate to resolve the diversities that had separated us. These different groups included scholars, cultural, civic, and religious organizations, all of which are represented in today’s gathering. Speaking for my own Church, the U.S. Constitution is of special importance to our members. We have a revelation that identifies the Constitution as divinely inspired. This does not mean that every word is inspired, but that it is based on inspired principles. First, is the principle that the source of government power is the citizens—what is often called popular sovereignty. Second, is the division of delegated power between the nation and its subsidiary states. A third inspired principle is the separation of powers among the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Fourth, is the cluster of vital guarantees of individual rights and specific limits on government authority such as in the Bill of Rights. Fifth, we see divine inspiration in the vital purpose of the entire Constitution, which is that we are to be governed by law and not by individuals. Our loyalty is based on the Constitution and its principles and processes, not to particular office-holders.3
III.
In addition to these foundation commitments to freedom and unity, are a few corollaries.
As a practical basis for unity, all of us should accept the reality that we are fellow citizens who need each other. This requires all of us to obey some laws we dislike and to live peacefully with some persons whose values differ from our own. We should make every effort to understand the experiences and concerns of others, especially when they differ from our own.
We should be especially careful not to seek total dominance for all our own positions. Even though the First Amendment obviously guarantees the right to exercise or practice religious beliefs, that vital right is not absolute. Advocates for absolute religious freedom should yield to the reality that in a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs or disbeliefs, the government must sometimes limit the right of some to act upon some of their beliefs when it is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of all.
Where there is genuine conflict on the effect of constitutional rights, contesting positions need to be balanced legally and negotiated politically in a way that upholds all essential rights to the greatest extent possible. We need to work for a better way forward—a way to resolve differences without compromising core values. We should seek fairness for all. This is not easy when we differ on what are fairly judged as fundamental rights in a pluralistic society. As our friend Professor Robert P. George said,
“We need to remind ourselves that our fellow citizens with whom we disagree — even deeply disagree about fundamental matters of justice and the common good — are not our enemies.”4
Living together in peace requires goodwill among those who differ. The effort also requires time and patience to sort out what is truly non-negotiable for each major participant. The goals of both sides are best served by resolving differences through mutual respect, shared understanding, and good faith negotiations. And all participants must accept and respect the rule of law.
IV.
Far from being a weakness, reconciling adverse positions through respectful negotiation and coalitions is a virtue. As Jesus taught, “Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God.”5 The Apostle Paul followed this by teaching Christians to “follow after the things which make for peace.”6 And “[I]f it be possible … live peaceably with all men.”7 As noted at the beginning of my remarks, the Constitution compels a divided people to build coalitions to allow them to act together. “Compels” is a strong word, but it is exactly what the Constitution does. It puts what we now call “peacemaking” at the heart of the Constitution’s process for achieving freedom and unity, and fairness for all.
Unfortunately, a major way that contending parties pursue unity is not through peacemaking but through litigation. When the basic beliefs over which parties contest are very fundamental to them, they often see this expensive and prolonged method as the only way to resolve disputes. But courts are constitutionally limited to resolve the specific cases before them. They are ill suited to the overarching, complex, and comprehensive policy-making that is required in a circumstance like some of the current conflicts between two great values. Notwithstanding my years of working with judicial opinions, on some issues I prefer the less contentious route of legislative law-making.
I find wisdom in the observation of Professor (later Dean) Martha Minow of the 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
I appreciate what David Brooks said in his final column in the New York Times.
“Despite what the cynics say, I still believe we’re driven not only by the selfish motivations but also by the moral ones – the desire to pursue some good, the desire to cooperate, to care for one another and to belong.”10
Unfortunately, what Brooks calls “moral” motivations are rarely given the time to prevail by a peacemaking process. But there is one outstanding example, the history of the so-called Utah Compromise.
The issue there was a Salt Lake City ordinance on housing and employment, first proposed in 2009. This was a head-to-head conflict between free exercise of religion and non-discrimination. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and non-discrimination advocates—adversaries in that contest—reached out to each other and participated in negotiations. This was previously thought impossible. However, both sides learned to understand each other’s positions, including what they deemed most important to be protected by law. The two sides worked together with the Utah legislature, which amended the Utah anti-discrimination act in 2015.
The outcome 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. This win-win outcome could not have been obtained without the balancing of interests made possible by the dynamics of a legislative process.
One participant told me that he recalls the discussions as “an effort in peacemaking, learning how to live together” with mutual respect, even love. Troy Williams, then 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.”11
When a contentious issue arises, one filled with major conflicts, we ought to see this as an opportunity to listen and to learn, both about the issues at hand, and about those who differ from us. When we approach conflict in this way, we are pursuing a “fairness for all” objective. As we negotiate and form coalitions in this spirit, we seek to “moderate and unify” without compromising core values. This process calls upon common moral instincts. It produces peacemakers, even in those instances when competing core values may preclude ultimate conciliation.
V.
Good examples of this are the effects of our Church’s helping hands program. These volunteers in yellow shirts—tens of thousands of them—help cleanup efforts to relieve destruction and suffering from natural disasters and serve in many other humanitarian projects worldwide. In the process, relationships are formed people-to-people that would be impossible by institutional declarations.
There is an important lesson in the “helping hands” experience. It is an effort that brings peace to people who are in distress. But it also teaches us the power that comes when individuals put aside their differences and work together to find common ground. When our volunteers bring help, people in distress do not ask for their beliefs. Likewise, the volunteers help everyone, not just fellow believers. Why? Simply because deeper moral needs about safety and family and hope take center stage. What is important is giving help and getting help, people-to-people.
This is the way to unite people who face a common problem. Peacemaking involves finding common ground. A minister who seeks to heal a troubled marriage or resolve a personal controversy is working for peace. Young men and women are peacemakers when they forgo the temporary pleasure of self-gratifying activities and involve themselves in service projects and other acts of kindness. Persons who seek to reduce human suffering and persons who work to promote understanding among different peoples are also workers for peace.
People of goodwill, compassion, and a desire to understand and help one another are at the core of peacemaking and fairness for all in the constitutional process of achieving freedom and unity, as difficult and slow as it is. It is all about trying to understand the deep needs, the deep commitments, on both sides and then to forge solutions that yield peace and fairness for all.
Knowing that we are all children of God gives us a divine vision of the worth of all others and the will and ability to rise above prejudice and racism. As I have lived for many years in different places in this nation, the Lord has taught me that it is possible to obey and seek to improve our nation’s laws and also to love our adversaries. While not easy, what makes it possible is the help of our Lord, Jesus Christ. He gave this command to love, and He promised His help as we seek to obey it.
I close with a prayer here in the National Cathedral, “the house of prayer for all.” I pray to our Heavenly Father for His blessings upon us that we will all seek to be peacemakers. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Notes
1. Yuval Levin, American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation—and Could Again (New York: Basic Books, 2024), 2.
2. Lee Benson, “Pioneering Patriotism,” Deseret Magazine, July/August 2026, 6.
3. Dallin H. Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Liahona, May 2021, 105-108.
4. Robert P. George, “America 250 Years: A Conversation with Robert P. George,” National Catholic Register, June 26, 2026.
8. Martha Minow, “Should Religious Groups be Exempt from Civil Rights Law?,” 48 B.C.L. REV 781-849 (2007).
10. David Brooks, “Time to Say Goodbye,” New York Times, January 30, 2026.