Russell M. Nelson, in his youthful apostolic messages, taught that truth was important, but must be paired with mercy and more. He warns that simply knowing the truth does not excuse us from thoughtfully considering its use and power. He relates a story of a surgeon who spoke the truth bluntly and ended up hurting feelings, and the moral of this story, which the church has adopted, is that “in some instances, the merciful companion to truth is silence.” Nelson claims that “some truths are best left unsaid.” He clarifies that he does “not decry the revealing of negative information per se” as he lists professions that deal with truth, like prosecutors, journalists, or physicians. But he also speaks with the warning that truth can destroy and must be used wisely, hinting that being silent about certain truths is an honorable form of mercy.
If my message deserves a title, I would choose “Truth—and More,” inviting you to consider the deficiency of the notion that simply knowing truth somehow frees us from any thoughtful consideration of its use and its power.
The mission of the university is indelibly intertwined with the glory of truth. Its researchers discover the truth, its teachers proclaim the truth, and its service to society applies the truth. …
Truth literally makes us free from the bondage of ignorance. …
My experiences as a surgeon taught me the remarkable potential for truth. It is a powerful sword—an instrument that can be wielded just like a surgeon’s knife. It can be guided well to bless. But it can also be crudely applied to wound, to cripple, to damage, or even to destroy! …
Important as truth is, often we need truth and more. …
The sword of truth, cutting and sharp as a surgeon’s scalpel, might not be governed by righteousness or by mercy, but might be misused carelessly to embarrass, debase, or deceive others. …
Indeed, in some instances, the merciful companion to truth is silence. …
Some truths are best left unsaid. My mother expressed that thought to me often with this simple phrase: “Russell, if you can’t say something nice about someone, say nothing.” …
Don’t misunderstand. I do not decry the revealing of negative information per se. A prosecutor who uncovers an embezzlement combines both truth and justice. A journalist who rightly reports betrayal of official trust combines truth with righteousness. Physicians who determined that old-fashioned “blood-letting” did more harm than good strengthened truth with light. …
Each member of the Church bears the weight of responsibility to consider the instrument of truth and more. If truth is used by anyone in any degree of unrighteousness, others, in the spirit of unity, must act, bearing a responsibility to turn and to help enlarge that person’s perspective. For if the true and righteous people are silent, those who use truth in unrighteousness will prevail.
Elder Russell M. Nelson, Truth—and More, Ensign January 1986
Edited version of a talk delivered at Brigham Young University on 27 August 1985.https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1986/01/truth-and-more
He warns that the truth can be “crudely applied to wound, to cripple, to damage, or even destroy.” Does Nelson know that the church is vulnerable to the truth? Does he know that the truth could destroy it? This mirrors what J. Reuben Clark said about the church and the truth.
Companion to Truth is Silence
When Russell M. Nelson says, “the merciful companion to truth is silence,” it suggests an approach to communicating uncomfortable or potentially harmful information. He implies that silence is a compassionate way to avoid causing unnecessary pain or discord, especially in situations where sharing information could be more damaging than constructive. This perspective is however problematic, it allows those in authority to withhold information under the guise of “mercy” or “protection,” which stifles transparency and accountability.
In a religious context, where leaders are trusted to guide followers spiritually and morally, using silence to withhold truths—especially those that might challenge beliefs or expose uncomfortable realities—is a way to maintain control over the narrative and retain authority. This approach creates an imbalance, where leaders are empowered to decide what information is deemed suitable for members to know. When applied selectively, it risks becoming a tactic for preserving institutional authority at the expense of individual understanding and informed consent.
From a psychological standpoint, silence can sometimes act as a defense mechanism, a way to sidestep conflict, or avoid discomfort. However, repeated silence on important issues erodes trust and fosters an environment where individuals feel manipulated or excluded from decisions affecting their beliefs or lives. In the end, while silence can sometimes seem merciful, consistent suppression of truth may have the opposite effect, diminishing transparency and accountability, which are essential for a trusting and healthy community. Wouldn’t it be more kind to be an example of accountability and transparency?
If You Can’t Say Something Nice, Say Nothing
The phrase Nelson’s mother taught him is more famously attributed to the character Thumper from the Disney movie “Bambi,” where he is told by his mother, “If you can’t say somethin’ nice, don’t say nothin’ at all.” Nelson would have been 18 when the movie was released, though the saying was popular already and didn’t originate with the film. It recalls the time when children were to be seen and not heard, and while it does encourage children to speak more kindly of each other, it also fosters a culture where speaking up is shameful.
This saying promotes positivity, avoids negativity, and encourages respectful communication. By encouraging people to focus on positive comments, it aims to cultivate a more supportive and kind environment. It discourages spreading rumors or making hurtful remarks about others. It emphasizes the importance of considering how your words might impact others. But is it realistic? When should one speak up, even if it may not be nice?
While the intent is to prevent unnecessary negativity, the phrase can discourage honest communication, especially around issues needing constructive criticism or open discussion. Avoiding difficult topics altogether can lead to passive aggression, unaddressed conflicts, or a buildup of unspoken frustrations. For example, if people feel they shouldn’t express dissatisfaction in a friendship, workplace, or family setting, they may ignore or avoid issues that could ultimately be resolved with respectful conversation and potentially even end up in an abusive relationship.
This phrase silences voices who need to speak out against injustice or harmful behavior. It leads people to withhold important feedback that could foster personal or societal growth, making it especially problematic in contexts that demand accountability, such as relationships or community organizations. Instead, balanced communication that includes both positive reinforcement and honest, constructive critique fosters growth while maintaining respect and empathy.
Is being nice more important than holding people accountable? Balancing accountability with kindness is complex. Both qualities play important roles in healthy relationships, communities, and personal growth. Kindness is critical, as it fosters empathy, understanding, and emotional safety, helping to create environments where people feel valued and open to growth without fear of harsh judgment. Accountability, however, is essential for setting boundaries, promoting integrity, and ensuring that actions align with values. Holding people accountable encourages personal responsibility and fosters trust because people know they’ll be expected to uphold commitments and rectify mistakes. The challenge lies in striking the right balance. Excessive focus on accountability without kindness can make interactions feel harsh or punitive, which may lead to defensiveness or resentment, ultimately hindering growth. In contrast, kindness without accountability can lead to permissiveness, enabling harmful behaviors to persist unaddressed.
Abusors Prioritize Kindness over Accountability
Yes, prioritizing “niceness” over accountability can be a tactic used by abusive individuals or predatory organizations to control narratives, suppress dissent, and avoid criticism. By framing any critical feedback or questioning as “unkind,” these individuals or groups create an environment where speaking out or holding them accountable is discouraged or even punished. This tactic functions as a tool for manipulation.
Deflecting Responsibility
By emphasizing “niceness” over accountability, abusive individuals or organizations can deflect from their own actions, making it seem as though those who bring up issues are at fault for being “negative” or “unkind.” This shifts attention away from their behavior and places the burden on others to “be nice.”
Creating Guilt and Shame
Encouraging or enforcing a “be nice” mentality can make victims feel guilty for questioning harmful actions. This approach is particularly effective in close-knit or hierarchical groups where loyalty and unity are emphasized, creating an atmosphere in which questioning leadership feels like betrayal.
Stifling Communication and Transparency
This tactic suppresses open dialogue and criticism, creating a culture where problems are ignored rather than addressed. This lack of transparency can protect abusers by isolating individuals from collective support and preventing them from recognizing patterns of abuse.
Gaslighting and Emotional Manipulation
Abusers can manipulate perceptions of “kindness” to make victims doubt their judgment. They may frame accountability efforts as mean-spirited, portraying themselves as the wronged party to elicit sympathy and further isolate victims.
Weaponizing Forgiveness
Some predatory organizations may encourage immediate forgiveness without accountability, painting it as the “kind” thing to do. This approach bypasses the need for real amends and allows harmful behaviors to continue without consequences.
Clear is Kind
Prioritizing kindness while disregarding accountability often creates an environment where exploitation can flourish unchecked, as it silences victims and discourages individuals from calling out harmful actions. Social Psychologist Brené Brown notes that “clear is kind,” emphasizing that holding others accountable while communicating openly and compassionately is key. This approach encourages growth and change while maintaining respect and empathy, making it possible to uphold standards without sacrificing kindness.
Of the ten behaviors and cultural issues that leaders identified as barriers to courage, there was one issue that leaders ranked as the greatest concern: Avoiding tough conversations, including giving honest, productive feedback.
Some leaders attributed this to a lack of courage, others to a lack of skills, and, shockingly, more than half talked about a cultural norm of “nice and polite” that’s leveraged as an excuse to avoid tough conversations.
Whatever the reason, there was saturation across the data that the consequences of avoiding tough conversations or tapping out of a difficult rumble as soon as it gets uncomfortable include:
- Diminishing trust and engagement;
- Increases in problematic behavior, including passive-aggressive behavior, talking behind people’s backs, pervasive backchannel communication (or “the meeting after the meeting”), gossip, and the “dirty yes” (when I say yes to your face and then go behind your back); and
- Decreasing performance due to a lack of clarity and shared purpose.
Over the past several years, my team and I have learned something about clarity and the importance of hard conversations that has changed everything from the way we talk to each other to the way we negotiate with external partners. It’s simple but transformative: Clear is kind. Unclear is unkind.
Brené Brown, Clear is kind. Unclear is unkind.
https://brenebrown.com/articles/2018/10/15/clear-is-kind-unclear-is-unkind/
“Clear is kind” highlights the value of straightforwardness in communication, especially when difficult truths are involved. According to Brown, being “clear” means openly, honestly, and transparently expressing what you expect, want, or need from someone else. This approach avoids miscommunication, hurt feelings, or unnecessary tension by not forcing others to guess what we’re thinking. In contrast, being vague or indirect, even if intended to spare someone’s feelings, often leads to misunderstandings or resentment.
Brown argues that being clear shows respect, while ambiguity is unkind because it often leaves others feeling uncertain, criticized, or unsupported. In her view, avoiding clarity to “be nice” isn’t truly kind—it actually fosters a lack of trust and accountability. For instance, instead of offering vague or soft critiques, giving specific, constructive feedback helps someone know where they stand, which is kinder than giving an unclear answer that leaves them guessing.
In professional and personal relationships, “clear is kind” supports a culture of accountability, trust, and genuine support, as everyone can act on honest, constructive information rather than second-guessing intentions. It’s about creating a sense of safety through transparency, which makes it easier for people to feel respected, trusted, and capable of growing.
Russell M. Nelson’s belief that “the merciful companion to truth is silence” prioritizes discretion over transparency, suggesting that withholding certain truths can be a form of kindness. This perspective may aim to protect individuals or preserve harmony, but it risks creating an atmosphere where critical truths remain hidden, fostering mistrust and leaving harmful issues unresolved.
In contrast, Brené Brown’s principle that “clear is kind” calls for honest, direct communication as an essential foundation of respect and personal growth. Brown advocates that truth-telling, even when uncomfortable, ultimately strengthens relationships and builds mutual trust. Rather than evading hard truths, Brown’s approach encourages sharing them with compassion, viewing clarity as the most respectful way to interact.
In a world where transparency often seems elusive, embracing Brown’s philosophy can help to “disinfect” dark spaces with the light of truth. We can each contribute to a healthier, more trusting society by valuing openness over silence. Let’s share truth responsibly and remember that sometimes, light is the most compassionate remedy even if it is uncomfortable or labeled as unkind or wrong. Share your own search for truth in a wasmormon.org profile.
More reading: