Disagreeing Better—Or Disagreeing Bravely?

A Latter-day Saint Defense of Truth-Telling in an Age of Marxist Counterfeits

Over the past few months, I’ve experienced firsthand what it means to be caught between two extremes. I’ve been labeled a RINO by those on the right for refusing to join their circular firing squad of purity tests, and branded a radical by the left for boldly confronting the neo-Marxist takeover of higher education. In a world where both sides—progressive journalists and anonymous keyboard warriors—insist that strong language about ideology is unchristian or dangerous, I have come to realize that true faith demands more than quiet compliance. It demands courageous, prophetic truth-telling.

In today’s polarized climate, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are called to a higher standard of public discourse—one that combines conviction with compassion. President Russell M. Nelson invites us to “build bridges of understanding rather than create walls of segregation,” and Elder Dallin H. Oaks has urged us to defend liberty with both peace and principle. Standing for truth with civility is a spiritual assignment, demanding both charity and clarity—but civility must never become cowardice, nor bridge-building an excuse to bless ideological falsehoods.

That’s why the popular political slogan to “disagree better,” recently embraced by Utah’s governor, risks missing the mark. If misunderstood, it can become a license for lukewarm engagement—an invitation to prioritize tone over truth, or to mistake silence for civility. In an age of ideological deception—when Marxist frameworks like CRT, DEI, and liberation theology infiltrate schools, churches, and civic life—merely disagreeing politely isn’t enough. We must also disagree bravely.

PoliticIt Radio – Stand in the Fire

---

I. The Gospel vs. Counterfeit Ideologies

Modern iterations of Marxist thought often arrive cloaked in moral language—“equity,” “inclusion,” “social justice.” But their central assumption remains unchanged: that salvation comes not through repentance and divine grace, but through restructuring power and seizing institutions. These frameworks promise justice but deliver coercion.

President David O. McKay warned, “The entire concept and philosophy of Communism is diametrically opposed to everything for which the Church stands.” President Harold B. Lee added, “No true Latter-day Saint can be a Communist or a Socialist because Communist principles run counter to the revealed word of God.” These weren’t Cold War slogans—they were spiritual diagnostics.

Liberation theology, too, attempts to blend gospel language with Marxist analysis. But while it sees the oppressed, it misplaces the Redeemer—substituting the state for the Savior. The Church of Jesus Christ does not endorse such movements because they invert the gospel’s central pillar: agency, as taught in 2 Nephi 2:27, where Lehi declares, “Men are free according to the flesh… to choose liberty and eternal life… or captivity and death.”

Nuance matters: The Church actively combats injustice, as seen in President Nelson’s partnerships with the NAACP to root out racism and promote fairness. Gospel truth demands boldness against coercion, but moderation in recognizing that social justice, when voluntary and Christ-centered, aligns with divine principles.

---

II. Eternalism vs. Secularism: Elder Maxwell’s Prophetic Lens

Elder Neal A. Maxwell framed the ideological divide not merely as political, but spiritual:

“In secularism, the good life results from a good environment. In eternalism, all systems except the word of the Lord are temporary, and the only way to have a good life is to make a good man.”

That single sentence disarms half the ideological battles of our time. It clarifies why DEI, CRT, and liberationist ideologies often falter: they judge the world by externals—group status, systems, structures—while the gospel begins within.

Maxwell warned of “secular smog” that obscures eternal perspective and leads souls to trust coercive systems over divine agency. “Secularism,” he wrote, “tends to want to deal increasingly with systems, governments, labels, groups, etc.—with adjustments in the things outside man, apparently hoping that, somehow, changing the external scenery will change the things inside man.” He cautioned against “random do-goodism,” stating, “The wrong kind of help isn’t really helpful; it is often harmful.”

The solution to injustice is not greater institutional control—but inner conversion through Christ. “If we push onto the government the management not only of our economy, but also the management of our morals,” Maxwell warned, “the civil servants of the future will be neither civil nor servants.”

---

III. Critical Race Theory, Agency, and Accountability

Some Saints see CRT as a tool to expose injustice, aligning with President Nelson’s efforts to root out prejudice. But others rightly note that CRT shifts the locus of guilt from sin to skin—and from soul to structure. That’s not the gospel of Christ. The gospel invites every person to repent, be accountable, and find redemption through grace—not to be imprisoned by history or group identity.

Elder Maxwell’s words echo prophetically: “It will not do to pretend that our agency has been taken away when we are not free to exercise it without unwelcome consequences.” True gospel inclusion is based on eternal identity. It unites us not by grievance, but by grace—as Doctrine and Covenants 101:78 teaches, moral agency ensures “every man may be accountable for his own sins.”

Nuance here is key: Boldly oppose systemic blame that erodes personal responsibility, but moderately affirm the Church’s call to dismantle racism through individual and collective repentance.

---

IV. Christ Was Not a Socialist

There’s been a lot of well-meaning discussion lately suggesting that supporting policies of fiscal restraint—or opposing government expansion—is somehow incompatible with Latter-day Saint covenants. Let’s be clear: our covenant of consecration is a sacred, voluntary commitment to the Lord—not a political mandate to endorse state redistribution.

When we make fast offerings, we don’t demand they fund government-run programs. We give out of faith, trusting the Lord’s pattern of agency, stewardship, and local accountability. The second great commandment—to love thy neighbor—is a personal call to action, not a commandment to expand federal control.

Jesus was not a socialist. He lifted the poor through personal ministry, not by empowering Caesar to tax others on His behalf. Nowhere in scripture did He advocate for coerced giving or state-run charity. His call to serve was individual, relational, and freely chosen—not imposed by the state. The Gospel elevates voluntary sacrifice, not institutional compulsion.

Supporting policies that preserve liberty while sustaining meaningful programs is not a betrayal of Gospel covenants—it’s a principled fulfillment of them.

---

V. A Present-Day Warning: China and Religious Repression

In July 2025, Chinese officials revoked permission for Latter-day Saint congregations to meet, citing “unauthorized religious activity.” The incident is not merely diplomatic—it is the visible fruit of authoritarianism.

Elder D. Todd Christofferson has warned:

“Religious liberty protects not just believers, but everyone. It is the taproot that sustains and nourishes many other fundamental freedoms.”

He added: “The lack of internal control by individuals breeds external control by governments.”

Christofferson teaches that moral agency is God’s gift for growth: “We are moral beings and agents unto ourselves, free to choose but also responsible for our choices.” Satan, he warned, seeks to “replace the influence of the Holy Spirit with his own domination.”

When moral relativism reigns, agency erodes. And when agency erodes, so does liberty.

This global threat demands bold vigilance at home, nuanced by moderation in how we engage—focusing on truth without unnecessary provocation.

---

VI. Senator Mike Lee and the Politico Hit Piece

Politico’s July 11 article painted Senator Mike Lee as an unhinged ideologue for warning that Marxist ideology fuels instability. The article invoked a now-deleted Father’s Day tweet referencing the tragic shooting in Minnesota—where a suspect killed two state lawmakers. Lee’s language—“This is what happens when Marxists don’t get their way”—was provocative, poorly timed, and lacked clear evidence, drawing bipartisan backlash.

But let’s also be honest about what the media refused to acknowledge: his broader concern about Marxism in American institutions is grounded in prophetic precedent. President Benson called communism a “satanic conspiracy.” He warned of infiltration into education, media, and culture.

If Lee’s warnings are disqualifying, what do we say of Benson’s?

Beyond optics, Lee’s record on school choice, religious liberty, pro-life policy, justice reform, and constitutional guardrails speaks to principled statesmanship—hardly the behavior of a mere troll.

And as for the media’s attempt to quote a single emeritus Seventy as if he speaks for the Church—let’s be frank: that’s disingenuous at best, and desperate at worst.

---

VII. The Romney–Flake Model: Civility Without Substance

Senators Mitt Romney and Jeff Flake have styled themselves as defenders of political civility and institutional dignity. But their most vocal critiques of President Trump weren’t centered on his policies—they were fixated on his personality.

They condemned his tweets, his tone, and his perceived vulgarity, yet said little about the ideological battles he was actually fighting: against globalism, woke corporatism, Marxist drift in academia, and judicial overreach. In so doing, they surrendered the field of ideas, content to wage a war of manners while others contended over the future of liberty.

This rhetorical avoidance mirrors Saul Alinsky’s Rule 13:

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

By focusing obsessively on Trump the man, they personalized politics to avoid grappling with the deeper movements reshaping our culture—Critical Race Theory, DEI mandates, the erosion of moral agency, and the rise of technocratic soft tyranny. They didn’t oppose Trump’s policies; they avoided them.

Their version of civility became a convenient retreat—a shield from conflict and controversy rather than a call to engagement. In prioritizing decorum over discernment, they helped normalize a political climate where tone is everything, and truth becomes optional.

Civility matters. But without courage and clarity, it becomes little more than cosmetic compliance—an aesthetic of virtue without the substance of conviction.

---

VIII. The Courage to Be Civil Without Being Silent

Civility is not cowardice. Christ was compassionate, but never timid. He confronted falsehood, rebuked hypocrisy, and overturned tables when sacred spaces were profaned.

As President Benson declared:

“We should continue to speak out for freedom and against socialism and communism,” even when it’s unpopular.

These days, I’m somehow a RINO to the right and a radical to the left. Why? Because I’ve refused to join the right’s circular firing squad—where anyone who won’t join in the latest social media purge gets labeled a traitor. And because I’ve dared to confront the left’s ideological colonization of schools, churches, and civic life—where Marxist ideas are disguised as compassion and sold as justice.

I haven’t moved. I still believe in liberty, agency, and truth. If that makes me impure in the Twitter temple, or unfit for polite society, so be it.

To disagree bravely yet moderately: focus warnings on principles (e.g., agency erosion), use evidence, show compassion (as Nelson models), and avoid personal vilification. Bold like Lee, but refined by gospel charity.

---

Final Question: Whose Shoulder Is the Devil Really On?

If Senator Mike Lee is the devil’s whisperer for warning about Marxism, then what do we say about prophets who warned louder, longer, and more clearly? If boldness is now considered extremism, what becomes of Benson? McKay? Maxwell? Christofferson?

Far from channeling darkness, Lee is echoing light—imperfectly, yes, but faithfully. The true danger lies not in strong language, but in soft retreat. Disagreeing better is not enough. We must also disagree bravely.

So let us ask plainly:

If speaking truth is the new blasphemy, then whose shoulder is the devil really on?

Call to Action:

We, as covenant Saints, are called not to get along at all costs but to stand firm in truth, even when it’s unpopular. Let this be a rallying cry for every parent, professor, legislator, bishop, and student who cares about the soul of our society—whether in our schools, our communities, or our government. It’s time to reject ideological smearing, embrace our duty to bear witness, and disagree not merely better—but bravely.