Saturday, May 24, 2008

“Survey large fields and cultivate small ones”

The moratorium on lengthy entries continues, not that they consisted of “vain repetitions.” However, I believe I’m lifting it by degrees. ;-) I choose to remark briefly upon a topic that shouldn’t be shallow, but so often descends into what President Hinckley observed:

I do not worry very much about the young men and women, including many returned missionaries, who are of such an age that in all likelihood they will be married within a relatively short time. I feel they should not be put under pressure by counsel from Church leaders to rush into it. But neither do I believe that they should dally along in a fruitless, frustrating, and frivolous dating game that only raises hopes and brings disappointment and in some cases heartache. (TGBH, 603)

President Monson offered similar counsel around the very time I was born:

[Young people] have the important responsibility to choose whom to marry—not only whom to date.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie said, “Nothing is more important than marrying the right person, at the right time, in the right place, and by the right authority.” We hope you will avoid too quick courtships. It is important that each of you become acquainted with the person you plan to marry, that there is certainty that each of you is looking down the same pathway with the same eternal objectives in mind. (New Era, Nov. 1979, 7)

Long after graduation from BYU, I briefly moved back from Texas into a stake there, just because I wanted to. That stake had served in prior years as an excellent laboratory for so many of my observations on dating and life in general. One of my recorded thoughts from June 21, 2005:

I hastily write in order to include another quote from Elder H. Burke Peterson’s book, for eventual cross-referencing . . .: “Unless girls have had a model and know what priesthood qualities to look for in an eternal companion, the consequences may be that many families in generations to come will suffer because of wrong marriage choices” (74).

I actually enjoyed institute, even though it was the historically rocky subject of relationships. . . . The stake president made a remark to the effect that in 1999 over 24% of the girls in our stake had NEVER been on a date. No wonder Elder Oaks broached the subject recently—it’s passing away as a method of finding companions, and nothing as suitable has arisen to replace it!

(I might have had in mind something I scribbled out on 09/11/96: “How diff’rent this world in just one generation would be/If all girls sought were brains, character, and integrity!”) While we could certainly always expect more from the guys, it is, was, or should be the specialty of the girls to amaze with their unique sensitivities and perception. I’m reminded of something Robert Browning wrote:

Who was a queen and loved a poet once
Humpbacked, a dwarf? ah, women can do that!
Well, but men too; at least, they tell you so.
(The Poems of Robert Browning [Roslyn, NY: Black’s Readers Service, 1932], 268; I’m not humpbacked, but I can get the point—see the Moses Mendelssohn story, referenced as #6 here; Exodus 4:10-16; Moses 6:31-37 (one of my favorites) for an affliction shared by two of the prophets, along with this verse (with verses 8-10); and a description of Paul)


Anyway, you can see one of the sad results of that dating survey conducted in the BYU 15th Stake in 1999. Perhaps too many of today’s men, upon whom the prophets have placed the initiative, are pygmies. Many years ago, in that same stake, our institute class was specifically about a dating practice termed “friendshipping.” The teacher, knowing that I was in the publishing business at the time, kept trying to get me to put in a word for having his materials published. I might have been more inclined had I not had serious reservations about a lot of his assertions. (Which led to one of my observations that, “The much-loved false doctrine of friendshipping suggests that only extraverts marry.”) I recall with some pleasure what happened when he taught that if we have dating options A, B, and C running at one time, when one fails, we can always fall back on the other. Somebody raised his hand and said, “Uh...we would call someone like that a player.” Messed up as our society currently is, many of us still instinctively feel that the opposite sex would like reassurances, even if on a temporary basis, that commitment is not dead.

Hence this entry’s title use of a phrase oft-used by President Harold B. Lee, which applies well to dating. The world may be my campus, but I can only seriously exert my labors in specific regions. When a roommate pressed me about one girl, I retorted, “[She] has no marks against her in my mind. However, does she have any for her? SOMETHING must stand out, though that sound unreasonable. I can’t date ALL the girls toward whom I have a neutrality of feeling.”

Shortly thereafter, I was trying to get something through a girl’s head, who I think was on that teacher’s plan, though she’d never heard him:

Since you reassert that you want me to believe that you love me, I’ll give you the VERY KEY to my confusion. . . . Excitement to date others and “I love you” are exact opposites. . . . LOVE may have only one fishing line down. . . . What can dating mean but seeking a replacement? . . . Real love inevitably leads to increasing exclusiveness of some sort. (One cannot have eternal companion A AND eternal companion B. Or eternal companion A and flirt partner B!)

Perhaps I need not feel too proud of the fact that I have never been turned down when I asked someone out (with the exception of one of those awkward second date requests). In part, I attribute this to the fact that, with discretion being the better part of valor, I can get a good read on when it would be folly to ask. Maybe they all felt sorry for me. I have always joked that if a girl isn’t brave or honest enough to tell me no, then she deserves the punishment of having to go out with me. After some hemming and hawing, I got a date from one of the hardest-to-get girls in the ward, described on April 18, 2003:

Last night I had what I feel was a fairly reluctant date, on her part. . . . She warmed up considerably. . . .

But I couldn’t fully enjoy it. Not unless she does. “Agency,” I told a roommate, “is a more beautiful doctrine than I’ve given it credit for.” I have power, indeed, to do all things—but back to the matter of working within agency.


This is also why, as recently as August 27, 2007, I pondered, “Of a literal truth, I achieve every desire of my heart . . . and how very dangerous! I ought to discipline that more, for agency could so easily be the means of destruction. How important indeed to learn to ask for what is expedient.” (See Mark 9:23; Moroni 10:23.) You’ll recall that Elder Oaks has on more than one occasion pointed to the fact that marriage is very much concerned with another person’s agency.

Also during that formative BYU time, one of our ward committees handed out some questionnaires. They never did use them for anything, but when I returned mine the following day, somehow it immediately made its rounds through the entire complex. I found it in one of my boxes the other weekend. Everything below each heading (including references) was supplied by myself at that time. I sought my grounding in the prophets, of course.

First Date to Eternal Mate
Describe the importance of or specific characteristics of a relationship based on these principles:

Service/Church Callings
(D&C 98:11-16; 1 Jn. 2:3-6; Joseph Fielding Smith, DS, 2:78U & TGBH, 711; TSWK, 303-4; 309; TETB, 533; Heber J. Grant, GS, 150-1 & THBL, 250M & TGeAS, 115M & TSWK, 303M)
Insofar as a Christlike companion is desired, it’s crucial that she be selfless and giving. Faithfulness to the Church, even unto death, is pretty much #1 on my list. This would be plainly manifest in her approach to callings and so forth. (TETB, 558L...give me, indeed!)

Communication
(Matt. 5:37; David O. McKay, GI, 460M; THBL, 251L & THWH, 129M; 2 Cor. 6:14 & TGBH, 322, 330L, 690, 695 & THBL, 240, 251-2 & TSWK, 315-8 & TETB, 547M & TJS, 410-2 & TGeAS, 113M & John Taylor, GK, 284 & TLS, 135L)
Communication is the sine qua non of any relationship. No matter the feelings, the shared values, the aspirations, if unexpressed the structure will collapse. And absolute honesty is paramount from day one; some things are best revealed early on, with deception or denial as ridiculous options. A couple should be one in all things.

Affection/chivalry
(Rev. 3:15-16; Eph. 5:25; THBL, 241M, 241-2)
I’d say affection is one of the biggest gages by which a relationship may be judged. Why be together if you don’t like each other and why would someone stay if they didn’t know you liked them? Cold and indifferent women are almost immediately scratched from my dating list, and my E.C. should see me as her favorite man! I value sweetness a great deal, which stems, of course, from charity.

Personality/Hobbies
(TSWK, 295-6, 321-2; David O. McKay, GI, 459-60 & TETB, 531-2, 546; Amos 3:3 & DBY, 199L)
Personality=spirit. We marry a person for their spirit. Someone should be varied enough in their interests to be interesting, but have enough in common with mine to be compatible. I like zest in living above and beyond my own—hobbies are more open to interpretation. Agreement on gospel doctrine is imperative.

Commitment
(D&C 42:22-23; THBL, 259M & Joseph Fielding Smith, DS, 2:77L; TGBH, 328-9*)
This becomes progressively more important as we spend more time together. There’s no sense in committing to a dead-end relationship, in which case it’s time to stop spending time together. But if both parties are fully aware of joy in each other’s company, they ought to be prepared to take necessary steps.


After this survey, I created my own, with some things I’d like to know. I never could think of an appropriate way to get it distributed, so it remained on my computer until it was apparently deleted. I will have to reconstruct a few of the queries, as I remember them. The first was adapted from Neil Clark Warren.

1. Rank the importance of these qualities, 1 to 9, with 1 being most important:
Personality
Intelligence
Appearance
Ambition
Chemistry
Spirituality
Character
Creativity
Parenting

2. Elder Holland recently [in a talk that I’m persuaded is still one of the timeliest warnings of our day, along with one of President Hinckley’s final messages] referred to “the Church’s doctrinal campsite.” Are you:

a) a keeper of the fire
b) securely at the campfire
c) at all times within view of the campfire
d) wandering in and out
e) consorting/cavorting with the wolves

3. What are your thoughts on the saying attributed to Brigham Young that any unmarried man over 25 is a menace to society?

4. How do you feel about this statement? “No man who is marriageable is fully living his religion who remains unmarried.”

5. Do you date with a purpose, or to have fun? Please comment freely.

The remaining five questions were fairly standard fare. I don’t feel inclined to share my own answers at this time—just putting it out there as food for thought. I’m welcoming submissions from young single ladies! ;-) Since it’s highly subjective, I also won’t impose my “Dating Bill of Rights” on the public.

You [missionaries] go home and find a person that will stimulate you, one that will keep you on your toes, that will make you bigger than you are—never anyone that will let you relax. I would never be in the Council of the Twelve today if I had married some of the girls that I have known. Sister Kimball kept me growing and never let me be satisfied with mediocrity. . . .

Go all over the Church if you need to, to find the girl that is better than you are. The first time if she measures up, invite her again. If she measures up again, you are old enough to go steady! . . .

Not just a pretty face, not just a beautiful form, but the girl who will help him when life begins to get difficult, when there are questions to be answered and decisions to be made. He wants to have a girl who will help him to pay tithing, help him to get to priesthood meeting on time, help him to rear their children. He will be a man to help her to properly discipline the children who come along, and be a real father, be a real husband. That is what honorable and righteous girls want. They are not interested in the fun things so much anymore. They are mature. . . .

Every Latter-day Saint girl who grows up wholesome, sweet, clean, and personable is entitled to the best and should be satisfied with no less. (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 303-304)

I’m reminded of Bishop Richard C. Edgley’s instruction March 14, 2004 in our stake conference (as I wrote from memory):

Bishop Edgley strongly reiterated, “Don’t ever feel for a moment that you have to compromise your values.”

Oh, and last night he told of Elder Russell M. Nelson putting his hands on his shoulders and quipping that he’d married above himself (referring, of course, to Bp. Edgley). Bishop Edgley responded that they’d all married above themselves or they wouldn’t be there. He told the story of a man, wealthy CEO, who attended his wife’s high school reunion and was relieved to find an old boyfriend who merely scooped ice cream on the corner in the same small town. On the flight home he asked his wife whether she wasn’t glad she’d married him, CEO, instead of ice cream scooper. She retorted that he didn't get it after all these years: if she'd married the other guy, HE’D be CEO!


In conclusion, from that same time period:

My wife and I were comparing notes the other day. “I have a higher IQ, did better on my SATs and make more money than you,” she pointed out.

“Yeah, but when you step back and look at the big picture, I’m still ahead,” I said.

She looked mystified. “How do you figure?”

“I married better,” I replied. (Louis Rodolico, Reader’s Digest, Mar. 2004, 201)

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Do you have a short attention span? (This might be for you.)

Recently I had a once-in-a-blue-moon reader approach me with a dour expression. “How are you?” I asked. “Terrible.” “Why’s that?” “I read your blog.” “Oh?” “Yeah, I read three or four of them. Much ado about nothing. Too long.” (Something like: “Space Mountain makes me sick. I should know. I rode it three or four times!”) With a friend like this, I need a critic!!

I do have to ask myself about my purpose and approach in blogging. As addressed with the ending quote of last entry, it’s not intended like the introduction to that Series of Unfortunate Events movie. It’s also not for purposes described satirically: “What readers ask nowadays in a book is that it should improve, instruct, and elevate. This book wouldn’t elevate a cow. I can not conscientiously recommend it for any useful purpose whatever” (Jerome K. Jerome, The Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow [New York: Hurst & Company, Publishers, 1885?], 7). There is much in the gospel citing a need for that which edifies, so I at least attempt to mull over those things of which the Prophet Joseph Smith spoke:

The great plan of salvation is a theme which ought to occupy our strict attention, and be regarded as one of heaven’s best gifts to mankind. . . .

A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world, as evil spirits will have more knowledge, and consequently more power than many men who are on the earth. Hence it needs revelation to assist us, and give us knowledge of the things of God. . . .

The things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind, O man! if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity—thou must commune with God. How much more dignified and noble are the thoughts of God, than the vain imaginations of the human heart! (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, 208, 266-267)

In short, though, I ought to explain my difficulty in keeping things short. I recollect a somewhat vulgar allusion from my school days that encouraged focused writing in essays (focused meaning brief but not overly so). That’s not a difficult thing if you’re not excited about the subject matter or if you really have nothing to say anyway. I suspect that if I wanted to pare this down to carefully-crafted little packets of dynamo, I’d seldom find the time to do it. No, I just want to write. Perhaps it’s cathartic, or expressive in ways I don’t have from day to day. And I don’t want to be pedantic about it. Ruskin once expressed an interesting view that, hopefully, doesn’t ignore the needs of administering to the individual:

You may trust to the truth of my sympathy; but you must remember that I am engaged in the investigation of enormous religious and moral questions, in the history of nations; and that your feelings, or my own, or anybody else’s, at any particular moment, are of very little interest to me,—not from want of sympathy, but from the small proportion the individuality bears to the whole subject of my enquiry. (John Ruskin, 31 Oct 1867, in John Ruskin's Letters to William Ward [Boston: Marshall Jones Company, 1922], 95; see D&C 88:77-80)

It’s also not like I want to say a bare minimum and then let a firestorm of comments define the discussion. I can accept fair criticism, however, having in mind such folly as this: “The Seattle television station where I work put up a suggestion box so employees could offer comments about the work environment. The carpenter shop built a beautiful wooden box with brass hardware and placed it in our lunchroom. The next day I noticed a note taped on it suggesting: ‘Please cut a slot in the top so we can use the box’” (Charles W. Lindenberg, Reader’s Digest, Jul. 1998, 37). That’s why I’m biting my tongue off to terminate this entry very shortly.

Basically I don’t know exactly why I blog, but while I blog, no halfhearted measures for me!

And since I can’t leave well enough alone, here’s the message I wish to convey for the day. Part of our fading civility seems to be shortening attention spans.

It is not what we eat, but what we digest, that makes us strong. It is not what we hear that makes us learned, that fills us with knowledge, which is power; it is what we remember and profit by and make a wise use of. Attention is the mother of memory. (Orson F. Whitney, CR, Oct. 1919, 68)

President Hinckley often urged upon us the notion of more frequent meditation, which can invite peace and revelation. During one such sermon, he made these humorous remarks:

President McKay, I remember, said to us once, in speaking to the Council of the Twelve when I was in that circle, “Brethren, we need to meditate more.” Those were his words. We need to take time to meditate. It’s so hard. we have been cruising the highways in this part of the world. . . . And I’ve had one impression—the whole world’s going mad. Traffic! Everywhere you go! People! I hope they all know where they are going, because they are paying a lot for gasoline. But we don’t meditate. We don’t take time to think. We passed a sign somewhere on one of these roads . . . but we passed a sign on one of these roads that said Walden’s Pond, with an arrow. And I thought, “Poor old Henry Thoreau would go crazy if he saw what was happening on the highways around his pond.” The speed at which we live. Slow down, at least for an hour or two, and think of Bill Jones or whatever your name is. How am I? How am I? What am I doing to qualify for the responsibility that has been given me? Think of it, brethren, and if you’re by yourself and it’s quiet, get on your knees, and talk with the Lord about it, and ask Him to help you, because you need it. We all need it. (DPGBH, 1:269)

Thoreau happened to say, “Books must be read as deliberately and reservedly as they were written.” In my opinion, that means setting aside the time to read them properly, which might require pauses of silence to reflect. What sort of commentary is it on society when our appetites demand only the packaged and trite? When something must be written in newspaper format—that is, the most important news up front in the first 50 words or so, and the remainder hacked away mercilessly to fit the copy size—or else we will pass it by?

Concerning matters of faith affecting Latter-day Saints:

In the course of my experience I believe I have seen people in the world so surrounded by the traditions of their fathers, and so bound up by their creeds, that they could not see the light; but they were living more consistently, according to the knowledge that they possessed and the circumstances that surrounded them, than hundreds of the Latter-day Saints who have been born again of the water and of the Spirit and who ought to be, of all men and women in the world, the most faithful, the most exemplary, the most virtuous; yet they are indifferent to a great many things that they should pay strict attention to and that are really necessary to make them what they ought to be. (Joseph F. Smith, CD, 3:108)

Balanced, naturally, for these blog purposes (and conceding my personal, subjective authorship):

As we contemplate the full meaning of the phrase “Come, follow me,” it is apparent that we may have much to learn and much to do before we can fully respond to that injunction. It is of interest, however, that during the first 30 years of His life in Nazareth, Jesus apparently drew little attention to Himself even though He was living a sinless life (see Matthew 13:54-56; Mark 6:2-3). That should encourage us to do better in our own quiet and humble way without drawing attention to ourselves. (William W. Parmley, Ensign, Nov. 2003, 94)

In that sense, pay no attention to me.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

“Faith of our [mothers], holy faith . . .”

I encountered a cute tribute this afternoon:

My mom, Helen, now passed away, was a friend to everybody. When someone told her, “Helen, you are so kind, you would have something nice to say about the devil,” my mother responded, “He sure is a hard worker.” (Orrin Hatch, in Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb, “Politicians pay tribute to their moms,” Deseret News, Sunday, May 11, 2008, G1)

That reminds me of a joke—and I realize I’m quoting from this source for the second time on this blog—taken from a real occasion with a visiting general authority:

The young bishop, somewhat over eagerly, asked him if he wanted to make a few remarks to the congregation.
"No, I don’t think so, Bishop. I’m just here enjoying a vacation."
"Elder Sonne, the Devil doesn’t take a vacation from his work."
It was an embarrassing exchange, but Alma was equal to the occasion and quickly answered, "Bishop, we don’t try to follow the Devil’s example in our Church." (Conway B. Sonne, A Man Named Alma: The World of Alma Sonne [Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1988], 200)

Now for an interactive assignment (perhaps more for my own enjoyment than anything). After great reflection, I’ve concluded that I can’t offer you prize or praise. Sorry! It’s my fault for making my blog turn upon religious matters that I can’t afford to cheapen. Assuming that anyone out there reads this, including the bashful sort, I invite you to identify a quote used previously in my blog entries that ties thematically into the two quotes immediately above.

What’s the best gift to offer our mothers on this special day? (Speaking of which, am I the only one who feels that the last National Day of Prayer—May 1—passed by with absolutely no publicity?) I think an old circular in the Southern States mission captures it: “Be the man your mother thinks you are” (Liahona: The Elders Journal, 19:111). I heard a similar sentiment expressed in the movie Stardust (which I could almost recommend were it not for delivery on the promised “risque humor,” along with a strongly implied bedroom scene, and another like unto it), something from mother to son like, “Be the man I know you to be.” And I sincerely hope that no one will take this counsel to heart if their mother feels they’re a scoundrel! This line seems borrowed from a couplet:

Don’t aim to be an earthly Saint, with eyes fixed on a star,
Just try to be the fellow that your Mother thinks you are. (Will S. Adkin, in James Gilchrist Lawson, The World’s Best-Loved Poems [New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1955], 26)

I sort of take issue with the first line; it tries to oversimplify the case a bit much. President Harold B. Lee freely encouraged hitching one’s wagon to the stars, by which I don’t suppose he meant stumbling over things here because we can’t focus on the task at hand. “Then wake up and do something more Than dream of your mansion above” (Hymn 223). What of President Hinckley’s referring to Christ (as recently as his “closing testimony” in the March Ensign) in context of emulation: “Like the Polar Star in the heavens, regardless of what the future holds, there stands the Redeemer of the world, the Son of God, certain and sure as the anchor of our immortal lives. He is the rock of our salvation, our strength, our comfort, the very focus of our faith. In sunshine and in shadow we look to Him, and He is there to assure and smile upon us.” I can make a concession for the other end of that argument:

Things of the Spirit need not—indeed, should not—require our uninterrupted time and attention. Ordinary work-a-day things occupy most of our attention. And that is as it should be. We are mortal beings living in this physical world.

Spiritual things are like leavening. By measure they may be very small, but by influence they affect all that we do. Continuing revelation is fundamental to the gospel of Jesus Christ. (Boyd K. Packer, Ensign, Nov. 1989, 14)

You cannot force spiritual things. . . . Do not be impatient to gain great spiritual knowledge. Let it grow, help it grow, but do not force it or you will open the way to be misled. We should go about our life in an ordinary, workaday way, following the routines and rules and regulations that govern life. (Boyd K. Packer, in Lucile C. Tate, Boyd K. Packer: A Watchman on the Tower [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1995], 281)

A few items of the usual housekeeping....

Along with the usual regrets, that I didn’t cross-reference Matthew 25:14-46 with the opening scriptural block in last entry, which connects on so many levels. And that I didn’t include this quip: “When I asked a visitor from London what he thought about American television, he tactfully replied, ‘Trivia and violence mercifully interrupted by delightfully clever commercials’” (Angie Papadakis, Reader’s Digest, Jul. 1997, 38).

All my bluster about similarly exalted views among members was with reference to the glorious views of the gospel (i.e., 2 Nephi 1:24; Mosiah 5:3), not to encourage highness in one’s own eyes: “And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day” (Isaiah 2:17). None of that discussion negated the absolute need for charity, among the primary “redeeming” virtues. We are not to “grind the faces of the poor” (Isaiah 3:15). Those who DO “confess . . . his hand in all things, and obey . . . his commandments” (D&C 59:21) readily acknowledge that their “cup runneth over” (Psalm 23:5)...and are plenty willing to share!

Also, I normally like to allow my entries to stand just as they were when first published. That seems fair and straightforward. However, I had to add an explanatory note to a gluten comment in my last entry, concerning something undertaken for my personal well-being and consistency, only informed tangentially by doctrine and not considered binding on anyone else (or myself for the usually cited reasons, naturally). It bothered me to realize how easily that could be taken out of context, and I hope I didn’t lose any potential readership over it.

So how did I spend Friday night this week? Enjoyably. I drove down to BYU and focused for several hours on a microfilm for a small village in southeastern France. Considering that I’ve never studied French for more than five minutes in my life, the rewards are amazing. Names fairly leapt off the pages. Here’s an example, an entry for my direct ancestor, mother to the noble (in character) Jean Roque:

27 December 1589
Jean(n)e Nogaredesse[/ette?] daughter of noble[man] Antoine Nogarede and Anne Blanche [Blanc] presented for baptism . . .

Well, to ramble on with my usual carte blanche, it now appears that this family rose to nobility and participated in the garrisoning—with troops of a decidedly Protestant character—of a tower in the region. I encountered multiple entries for a family member referred to as “lord of la Garde.”

It could just be me, but I’m amused that the daughter of a fortifying family, whose name is conjectured to mean “of the nobility” (I haven’t got the technical know-how to assess that one), should marry a man whose family name (Roque) suggests a fortified place. Then their granddaughter married a man whose name (LaPierre) means “the rock” itself. This reminds me of my German pedigree, where I joke that my forebear could bear to marry a woman with the surname of Angst because his mother had prepared him—her surname was Kuehn, directly from a long-ago mayor of Dehlingen. (That joke was so much more fun to tell in German.)

It was pleasantly nostalgic to be driven out of the BYU library once more (at closing time) by speaker music at an annoying pitch of cadence. I got a good chuckle out of one college-age fellow remarking into his cell phone that he’d just “wasted a Friday night.” How little he knows that I wouldn’t trade places with him for all the world!

On my late drive back home I had the curious experience of a police car tailgating me. I said aloud, as if to them, “Uh uh, buddy. The law’s the law. Either turn on your sirens to get me to pull aside, or wait like the rest of us.” In saying nobody’s above the law, I recall a statement with an interesting turnabout on the traditional wording, by Brigham Young:

Law is made for the lawless. Let the Saints live their religion, and there is not a law that can justly infringe upon them. They are subject to the powers that be, by living so pure that no law can touch them. . . . I live above the laws. They do not in the least infringe upon me. The City Council never passed an ordinance that infringed upon me or upon my rights. Our Legislature has never passed a law that infringed upon me, because I live above the law through honouring every particle of it. In this course the law is beneath my feet and is my servant, not my master. (JD, 8:140, 208)

I have seen the latter passage deliberately misconstrued, often by quoting it only in part. This to assault our reputation—and President Young’s—of being among the most law-abiding of all people on the face of the earth (see D&C 42:78-93 and 58:19-22, which links the LDS into the long tradition of Christian lawfulness—stretching the theory of such governance is beyond the scope of this entry and my own interests)! President Joseph F. Smith contributed to a proper understanding:

Honest and honorable men need no officers of the law, no policemen, no justices of the peace, no courts, no lawyers. They live above crime, beyond the reach of the law. The law is not made for them, except to protect them from the criminally disposed. If every man was taught to do right, and did right, there would be no use for courts and for laws such as we have today. It is only because people will not do right that these things are needful, and that we have expensive forms of government and expensive officers to administer and execute the law. Latter-day Saints ought not to be so. They ought to know how to do right, and then do it; and they ought not to have to be prompted or urged to do it, either by the chastisement of God or by the counsels of His servants. (CD, 3:403)

Ignoring for the present time some variations on the meaning of "law" in scripture (up to and including modern revelation, such as D&C 88:21-24, 34-39), I’m content to say that Paul and the other “primitive” Christians taught the exact same thing. I’ll utilize a friendly phrase of Joseph Smith’s in appealing to the Bible: “Search the scriptures; they testify of things that apostates would blaspheme. Paul, if Joseph Smith is a blasphemer, you are” (Kent P. Jackson, Joseph Smith’s Commentary on the Bible [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1994], 159).

This brings me to a slightly different discussion, which I first tackled on March 19, 1999, before I really had any idea how to cite sources:

Why must the spirit of the law and the letter of the law be set at odds? Just as justice will not be robbed or mercy go unsatisfied, neither the spirit nor letter of the law will allow infractions. Do your best to be in harmony with both. Never allow yourself to be caught up in the temptation to justify actions or ease your conscience by arguing that you were keeping one of the two.

The letter of the law is that system instituted under Moses, whereby strict obedience to outward ordinances was demanded. The spirit of the law is the higher, or celestial, scheme that Christ delivered during his mortal ministry. He asked, though many never realize it, that our heart be involved in our devotions. Note that fact.

Religions today often suffer from an imbalance. Some, believing that Christ was only asking for the heart, claim that man is saved by faith. Under such a rule, any sinner may surmount a lifetime of obstacles by merely exclaiming—in fullness of heart—his acceptance of Jesus. However, faith without works is dead (James 2:17).

Still others subscribe to somewhat more Mosaic tenets. Perform the expected acts of expiation and it does not matter where your heart is. However, works without faith are also dead, being only a form of hypocrisy.

Do as James advises, then, and combine letter with spirit, works with faith. Show your faith by your works (James 2:18).

It was with no small amount of agreement and hearty like for the authors that I encountered similar sentiments (and, again, I hope you don’t think I merely surf the world’s literature and the Internet seeking things that agree with me—I like these for how they peg the “feel” of the opposing viewpoint). I’ll share several excerpt quotations from those whom I’d be happy to consider peers:

#1a - Ivan Wolfe
I always found it interesting on my mission when disobedient Elders would call obedient Elders “Pharisees.”

I would usually respond that the Pharisees problem was not obedience, but selective, outward obedience with not real inner spiritual life. The disobedient Elders would often claim they were actually following the “spirit” of the law (by sleeping in til 10 and coming in early at 5 and playing cards until midnight - this actually happened to me and I ain’t exaggerating).

Like you said - there’s nothing wrong with obedience to the small matters (like white shirts or a full length fast) as long as the weighter matters get done. A missionary who was always up on time and had starched shirts - but never did any real missionary work would be a Pharisee. But those Elders who didn’t keep the mission rules often did little to no missionary work themselves.

#1b - Ivan Wolfe
Really, it seems to me some people try to make a lack of rules a virtue to be emualted, and they preach it.

I think “spirit of the law” is the most abused LDS phrase, as it is used to justify disobedience more than it is to discover the true principle behind a commandment.

#2 - Ben
I also don’t believe “the spirit of the law” exists. It’s not a scriptural phrase. Paul seems to teach that you can live the law as it is given, down to the smallest point. Or, you can live by the spirit, a principle-guided life. As Ivan pointed out, invoking the “spirit of the law” is really breaking the law, bcause law allows for no such thing. Either it’s kept, or it isn’t. Stephen Robinson expresses this well. . . .

# 3 - John Fowles
that is the only way that the concept of the “spirit of the law” become relevant: as an ad hoc justification for the failure to comply with the law in a particular circumstance. It explains the exceptions to the rule, or in other words, it explains why someone might not be culpable in a given circumstance for not complying with the law. But I don’t see how it provides someone with a justification to pick and choose which aspects of the law that individual needs to comply with. I don’t have the empirical evidence that you demand as a conversation stopper of this observation, but it seems to me that many who who go on and on about the spirit of the law are often people who want to justify not living according to the letter.

In order to at least terminate this thread (by which I never intended to take on grace and works at one time, in one evening, and I know I haven’t satisfactorily concluded), I’ll share one of my more recent writings:

This life-giving spirit places requirements upon us which (if our hearts are truly converted) are far more taxing than ever was an animal sacrifice, but are nonetheless exceedingly joyous to the soul. We cannot help that “spirit of the law” and “letter of the law” have become current in modern language. Taking them at face value under present definition—particularly as you have utilized it—wise was the observation that “if you kill the letter, you will not have the spirit of the letter.” James has stated just as persuasively that “as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” I will not cast aside the rules, regulations, and ordinances of the true Church of Jesus Christ because you claim that their difficulty does not allow everyone the same claim upon the blessings of heaven. All may achieve if all so choose. . . .

It is not the need for repentance, but the turning thereto for which there is joy [in heaven]. It is for this that the Atonement was wrought. Celebrate the new creature in Christ, not the old one! The Lord takes no pleasure in punishing the wicked; on the contrary, He calls upon all to escape death and hell of their own volition. With our choice comes His aid—not some paltry form in which you dabble, but actual raising to new planes of existence. He delights “to honor those who serve [Him] in righteousness and in truth unto the end. Great shall be their reward and eternal shall be their glory.” . . .

You must be careful not to join the ranks of “the wicked who have voluntarily come short of the grace of God” [ Desiderius Erasmus, from “On the Freedom of the Will,” 1524, in Stevie Davies, Renaissance Views of Man [New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1979], 107. Emphasis added. See Hebrews 4:1.], and then think He will rescue you from your own poor decisions.

The nature of grace is such that He might still save, but the day of repentance is not to be trifled with. It is not, I feel, a proposition I’d care to test.

I strive to the utmost to be an honest man, and in that honesty is complete and total recognition of this pure truth: “If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us” (1 John 1:10). (Anyone who ever reads into my words that I think I’m other than mortal gives me more "credit" than I’ve dreamed of assuming. It’s the basic premise that I’ve got my faults, and generally a waste of time to repeat it. “That goes without saying.”) Of intensely interesting application is the following statement from John in defining Christian belief and practice: “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. . . . He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked” (1 John 2:6). With Christ’s original admonition, also recorded by John, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15), clearly there is something strong to keeping the commandments. Where is the reconciliation between efforts at exactness, and frequent (and only-too-natural) failures? That is the very reconciliation that Christ wrought, mentioned in the intervening 1 John 2:1, JST: “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not, And if any man sin and repent, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”

It’s not my intention to delve into the absolute necessity for obedience, or in the least to claim any special corner on the market. This is hardly even the tip of the iceberg, and I’ll happily sail on by it with my next entry, since I’m straining to be done with this and on to all the other happy things I’d wanted to write about this time.

I have over 200 pages of material assembled to show that the leading Brethren of the Church have always taught that the Savior was quite literal when He urged, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48, amplified by the JST). We only get our “out” when they explain that, among other things, (a) total perfection is a matter for the eternities, (b) perfection may only be had by and through Christ, (c) this is an issue to be handled a day at a time, and (d) there is such a thing as “relative” perfection, not taken as a redefinition of righteousness so much as “perfection within our sphere.” However, there is little that would advocate easing up on our efforts, except where it’s discerned that certain efforts are creating a counterproductive downward spiral. Yes, I continually operate under a consciousness of the volume of exhortation, and a consciousness of my own guilt. I could never take the time to demonstrate the cheerfulness and freedom of spirit that offset that attitude, at least not in this belabored entry. I think two Book of Mormon one-liners will summarize my present feelings nicely: “Wickedness never was happiness” (Alma 41:10); “O be wise; what can I say more?” (Jacob 6:12). “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).

Unless they’re genuinely redemptive in nature, guilt trips are not the way to book passage to heaven. By “heaven,” I mean the highest degree in the celestial kingdom, or exaltation. To make it there requires commitment something like working in the engine room of an old-time train. Sure, we could doze off in a luxury car, too, for all is presently permissible through agency—but then all we receive at the destination is that enormous free gift of resurrection (immortality), along with various other (undeserved) rewards according to our degree of faithfulness beyond outright reprobacy. It’s mighty hard to get thrown off the train altogether.

Okay, okay, I’ll surrender to an impulse. I obviously let this lead me wherever it will. From a single issue of the Ensign, two pertinent thoughts, with one bridging quotation:

Whenever we fall, whenever we do less than we ought, in a very real way we forget mother. . . .

Men turn from evil and yield to their better natures when mother is remembered. A famed officer from the Civil War period, Colonel Higginson, when asked to name the incident of the Civil War that he considered the most remarkable for bravery, said that there was in his regiment a man whom everybody liked, a man who was brave and noble, who was pure in his daily life, absolutely free from dissipations in which most of the other men indulged.

One night at a champagne supper, when many were becoming intoxicated, someone in jest called for a toast from this young man. Colonel Higginson said that he arose, pale but with perfect self-control, and declared: “Gentlemen, I will give you a toast which you may drink as you will, but which I will drink in water. The toast that I have to give is, ‘Our mothers.’”

Instantly a strange spell seemed to come over all the tipsy men. They drank the toast in silence. There was no more laughter, no more song, and one by one they left the room. The lamp of memory had begun to burn, and the name of Mother touched every man’s heart. . . .

May each of us treasure this truth: One cannot forget mother and remember God. One cannot remember mother and forget God. Why? Because these two sacred persons, God and mother, partners in creation, in love, in sacrifice, in service, are as one. (Thomas S. Monson, Ensign, Apr. 1998, 2, 4, 6)

Motherhood thus becomes a holy calling, a sacred dedication for carrying out the Lord’s plans . . . .

This divine service of motherhood can be rendered only by mothers. It may not be passed to others. Nurses cannot do it; public nurseries cannot do it; hired help cannot do it—only mother, aided as much as may be by the loving hands of father, brothers, and sisters, can give the full needed measure of watchful care.

The mother who entrusts her child to the care of others, that she may do non-motherly work, whether for gold, for fame, or for civic service, should remember that “a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.” (Prov. 29:15.) In our day the Lord has said that unless parents teach their children the doctrines of the Church “the sin be upon the heads of the parents.” (D&C 68:25.)

Motherhood is near to divinity. It is the highest, holiest service to be assumed by mankind. It places her who honors its holy calling and service next to the angels. To you mothers in Israel we say God bless and protect you, and give you the strength and courage, the faith and knowledge, the holy love and consecration to duty, that shall enable you to fill to the fullest measure the sacred calling which is yours. (Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., David O. McKay, in Messages of the First Presidency, 6:178)

And some final words of peace for a troubled world:

The least likely things in the world may happen, but “my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed [from thee].” After all, he has, he reminds us, “graven thee upon the palms of my hands” (1 Ne. 21:16). Considering the incomprehensible cost of the Crucifixion, Christ is not going to turn his back on us now.

The Lord has probably spoken enough such comforting words to supply the whole universe, it would seem, and yet we see all around us unhappy Latter-day Saints, worried Latter-day Saints, and gloomy Latter-day Saints into whose troubled hearts not one of these innumerable consoling words seems to be allowed to enter. In fact, I think some of us must have that remnant of Puritan heritage still with us that says it is somehow wrong to be comforted or helped, that we are supposed to be miserable about something.

Consider, for example, the Savior’s benediction upon his disciples even as he moved toward the pain and agony of Gethsemane and Calvary. On that very night, the night of the greatest suffering that has ever taken place in the world or that ever will take place, the Savior said, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. . . . Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid” (John 14:27).

I submit to you, that may be one of the Savior’s commandments that is, even in the hearts of otherwise faithful Latter-day Saints, almost universally disobeyed; and yet I wonder whether our resistance to this invitation could be any more grievous to the Lord’s merciful heart. (Jeffrey R. Holland, Ensign, Apr. 1998, 19)

Sunday, May 4, 2008

The kingdom of God or nothing

Almost as soon as I posted the last blog, I had a few twinges of regret. First, permitting the ready appearance of being overcritical (if not actually entertaining a touch of that sentiment). Second, omitting one of the Savior’s masterful summations: “Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth” (Luke 12:15).

I’ll give some attention to financial things and then hurriedly move along to many more thoughts! A few themes recurred to my mind as I recently pondered the following (and reading it in its entirety is recommended, so as not to pick up a hackneyed perception). Perhaps someone out there can take the care to see what connections I’ve made between the selected verses and my scattered thoughts in the last entry.

For verily I say unto you, the time has come, and is now at hand; and behold, and lo, it must needs be that there be an organization of my people, in regulating and establishing the affairs of the storehouse for the poor of my people, both in this place and in the land of Zion— . . .

For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;

For if you will that I give unto you a place in the celestial world, you must prepare yourselves by doing the things which I have commanded you and required of you. . . .

That through my providence, notwithstanding the tribulation which shall descend upon you, that the church may stand independent above all other creatures beneath the celestial world; . . .

Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye are little children, and ye have not as yet understood how great blessings the Father hath in his own hands and prepared for you;

And ye cannot bear all things now; nevertheless, be of good cheer, for I will lead you along. The kingdom is yours and the blessings thereof are yours, and the riches of eternity are yours.

And he who receiveth all things with thankfulness shall be made glorious; and the things of this earth shall be added unto him, even an hundred fold, yea, more. . . .

And he that is a faithful and wise steward shall inherit all things. Amen. (D&C 78:3, 6-7, 14, 17-19, 22)

I think the most important personal commentary I could offer is to take care in how one sees the interaction of heavenly things and earthly things in each verse. Along the lines of the United Order, appropriately undertaken, Orson Pratt understood precisely why it almost always fails in application:

You may divide the properties of the Church to-day, yes, if it be possible, make a perfectly equal division of it, so that every man in the whole Church should have his share, and let him call it his own; it would not be one day before there would be an inequality again introduced; and one man would possess that which is above another; it could not be otherwise; the changes, difficulties, want of judgment in the management and control of property, and all these things combined together, would serve to render these divided shares unequal; one man losing a large portion of his property through mismanagement; another by fire, by mobocracy, or in some other way, so that neither would have one half, one quarter, or perhaps one hundredth part as much as some of his brethren with whom he was only a short time before perfectly equal.

No equality can be brought about by dividing property; the Lord never intended such an order of things. It is not a division of property that is going to bring about a oneness among the Latter-day Saints in temporal things, but it is a union of property, that all the property may be united, and considered belonging to the Lord, and to every individual in the whole Church, as joint heirs with Him, or as His stewards. . . . But in regard to these stewardships, it is not needful or necessary, or the Lord never intended, that every man should possess an equal amount of stewardship with his brother. (JD, 2:100)

I can see that I’ve made it necessary to explain my position a little better on one practice that is definitely in suspension. I like President J. Reuben Clark, Jr.’s counsel:

We believe that Christ will come and reign personally upon the earth. But that is no reason why I should advocate the establishment of a monarchy to overturn the government of the United States. We believe in the United Order, something that was taken away from us because we could not live it, and the lesser law was given, the law of tithing—which we are not living either; but our belief in the United Order is no reason why we should support a movement for Communism, to the overturning of our government. . . . When the Lord wants his people to move into the United Order he will use his anointed servant to direct the way. (CR, Oct. 1934, 98; see Marion G. Romney, in George J. Romney, Look to God and Live: Discourses of Marion G. Romney [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1971], 219-221)

I’ve seen many who seek to bring about equality in the masses by pulling down, instead of elevating. People are going to have to achieve similar exalted ideas before unity can take place, for among the most frightening of possibilities is unity in evil, commiseration in filth. (Gadianton robbers wanted to partake of the fruits of others’ labors, all the while inviting that laboring class to partake of their secret combinations.) I’ve heard some fanciful LDS explanations that in order to have no poor among us we must also have no rich, but to my mind that doesn’t fully capture the rich bounties of this earth AND the more spiritual definition: “Seek not for riches but for wisdom; and, behold, the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto you, and then shall you be made rich. Behold, he that hath eternal life is rich” (D&C 11:7). “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matthew 5:3) refers to humility, and not impoverishment in sublime principles. Nonetheless, one scriptural verse upon which I refuse to place a lenient spin has me continually scrambling for a heart full of the spirit of consecration (as the JST for the next verses suggests): “Verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:23-24). As for riches arising from the earth’s resources, I won’t get into the closely related refutation of all things Malthusian or simply family-limiting, but Elder Eyring utilizes D&C 104:17 to good effect—note the absence of any call for forcible redistribution of “wealth” (a theme upon which President Benson occasionally dwelt):

A child could see that Heavenly Father would not command men and women to marry and to multiply and replenish the earth if the children they invited into mortality would deplete the earth. Since there is enough and to spare, the enemy of human happiness as well as the cause of poverty and starvation is not the birth of children. It is the failure of people to do with the earth what God could teach them to do, if only they would ask and then obey, for they are agents unto themselves. (To Draw Closer to God: A Collection of Discourses by Henry B. Eyring [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1997], 164)

This world doesn’t need radical ideas and harsher force, but constant practitioners and steady stewards. (Incidentally, there are minor ways to “go green,” even some slightly larger alterations in lifestyle, without turning it into an alternative religious expression.) “It is required of the Lord, at the hand of every steward, to render an account of his stewardship, both in time and in eternity” (D&C 72:3). If we were to continue discussing this in the lesser, earthly vein, let’s just remember that the Book of Mormon similarly teaches that God is in charge of all and can easily curse or bless this land and everything on the face of it according to our worthiness (see Helaman 13:17-23, for example). Are our riches becoming “slippery” today, that we “cannot retain them”?

Friday night I had cause to reflect on the truth that “it is not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18). Tiredness, loneliness, and, yes, boredom are dangerous conditions. The primary solution to this problem for myself remains irremediable at present, so I focus instead on avoidance of the equally wrong crowds. Hence my taking too much pleasure at a girl turning to me on November 1, 2002 and remarking that I was the most gentlemanly one there, peering by contrast at a motley assortment of other men. However, there’s a Yiddish saying, “Surrounding yourself with dwarfs does not make you a giant.” I bet you saw another connection coming: one will never address one’s own inadequacies by sinking to a comfortable lower level around oneself.

In the course of being what I heard Elder Bednar call, on November 7, 2004,“appropriately alone in a crowd,” it’s imperative to remember that the object of our efforts at shining a light is for others to “glorify [our] Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16), not to “have glory of men” (Matthew 6:2).

It is a great deal better to live a holy life than to talk about it. Lighthouses do not ring bells and fire cannon to call attention to their shining—they just shine. (Dwight D. Moody, quoted in God Bless America: Prayers & Reflections for Our Country [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999], 137)

This brings me to some of my favorite lines from one of my favorite (non-LDS) books (my Book of the Year for 2004):

For verily it is not deep words that make a man holy and upright; it is a good life which maketh a man dear to God. I had rather feel contrition than be skilful in the definition thereof. . . .

Be thou never without something to do; be reading, or writing, or praying, or meditating, or doing something that is useful to the community. . . .

Study such matters as bring thee sorrow for sin rather than amusement. . . .

Oh that we might spend a single day in this world as it ought to be spent! . . .

Remember always thine end, and how the time which is lost returneth not. . . .

He will easily be contented and filled with peace, whose conscience is pure. Thou art none the holier if thou art praised, nor the viler if thou art reproached. Thou art what thou art; and thou canst not be better than God pronounceth thee to be. If thou considerest well what thou art inwardly, thou wilt not care what men will say to thee. Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart: man looketh on the deed, but God considereth the intent. . . .

It is preferable to have the whole world against thee, than Jesus offended with thee. . . .

Jesus hath many lovers of His heavenly kingdom, but few bearers of His Cross. He hath many seekers of comfort, but few of tribulation. He findeth many companions of His table, but few of His fasting. All desire to rejoice with Him, few are willing to undergo anything for His sake. Many follow Jesus that they may eat of His loaves, but few that they may drink of the cup of His passion. Many are astonished at His Miracles, few follow after the shame of His Cross. Many love Jesus so long as no adversities happen to them. Many praise Him and bless Him, so long as they receive any comforts from Him. But if Jesus hide Himself and withdraw from them a little while, they fall either into complaining or into too great dejection of mind.

But they who love Jesus for Jesus' sake, and not for any consolation of their own, bless Him in all tribulation and anguish of heart as in the highest consolation. And if He should never give them consolation, nevertheless they would always praise Him and always give Him thanks.

Oh what power hath the pure love of Jesus, unmixed with any gain or love of self! Should not all they be called mercenary who are always seeking consolations? Do they not prove themselves lovers of self more than of Christ who are always seeking their own gain and advantage? . . .

That seemeth a hard saying to many, If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his Cross and follow Me. But it will be much harder to hear that last sentence, Depart from me, ye wicked, into eternal fire. . . .

Let temporal things be in the use, eternal things in the desire. . . .

Let not thy peace depend upon the word of men; for whether they judge well or ill of thee, thou art not therefore any other man than thyself. (Thomas a Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, trans. Rev. William Benham [New York: P F Collier & Son Company, 1909], 213, 232-233, 239, 246, 254-255, 257, 262-263, 288, 304)


So that I’ll be better understood shortly, I introduce another quote, this one from a modern apostle:

We read in 2 Nephi: “Wo unto him that has the law given, . . . that wasteth the days of his probation” (2 Nephi 9:27).

How does one waste the days of his or her probation? Turning to sin is surely part of it, but there is another, more subtle way, a way that may not seem evil at all.

In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord gave a similar warning in these words: “Thou shalt not idle away thy time, neither shalt thou bury thy talent that it may not be known” (D&C 60:13). Why would I speak of that with you? Because one of the ways Satan lessens your effectiveness and weakens your spiritual strength is by encouraging you to spend large blocks of your time doing things that matter very little. I speak of such things as sitting for hours on end watching television or videos, playing video games night in and night out, surfing the Internet, or devoting huge blocks of time to sports, games, or other recreational activities.

Don’t misunderstand me. These activities are not wrong in and of themselves (unless, of course, you are watching salacious programs or seeking out pornographic images on the Internet). Games, sports, recreational activities, and even television can be relaxing and rejuvenating, especially in times when you are under stress or heavily scheduled. You need activities that help you to unwind and rest your minds. It is healthy to go onto the soccer field or the basketball court and participate in vigorous physical activity.

But I speak of letting things get out of balance. It is not watching television, but watching television hour after hour, night after night. Does not that qualify as idling away your time? What will you say to the Lord when He asks what you have done with the precious gift of life and time? Surely you will not feel comfortable telling Him that you were able to pass the 100,000-point level in a challenging video game.

One devastating effect of idling away our time is that it deflects us from focusing on the things that matter most. Too many people are willing to sit back and let life just happen to them. It takes time to develop the attributes that will help you to be a well-balanced person.

We hear of young people, both male and female, who are so focused on academic success or moving up the career ladder that they “don’t have time for dating.” We hear some say that they will postpone marriage or having children until they can afford them. Let me tell you as a father of seven children, you will never be able to afford them. So just trust in the Lord as Sister Ballard and I did. Somehow it works, with His help.

Remember, you can be exalted without a college degree. You can be exalted without being slender and beautiful. You can be exalted without having a successful career. You cannot be exalted without an eternal mate. So focus the best that you can on those things in life that will lead you back to the presence of God—keeping all things in their proper balance. There are those who may never marry in mortality. But all of God’s blessings will ultimately come to those who are righteous and true to the gospel. (M. Russell Ballard, Ensign, Jul. 2004, 13-14)


Returning to my Friday night, with ostensibly “nothing to do.” I was having another headache—also my excuse for any grumpiness that may have emerged last entry—so that I didn’t want to do anything requiring concentration. But I didn’t want to go to bed early after I’d finally achieved free time from work. My thoughts turned to one nearly mindless activity in which I once engaged freely: computer gaming. I can recognize my natural weaknesses when I see them; people may be assured of that, whether or not I may happen to share those weaknesses with them. Computer games—those that I enjoyed—are not something I can easily pick up and drop at the mere drop of a hat. This is one thing whereby I could easily lose several hours, only to start over again, and begin to find it intruding into my thoughts during particularly long and tedious tasks. That was my reasoning behind the journal entry, and subsequent actualization of resolve, for April 2, 2006: “I must stop wasting portions of my life. To that end, I give up my favorite computer game, Civilization III. I seek for higher and more lasting things; I make this decision on my own, and it would be unfair to impose it on my own child. . . . At any rate, I will fill the longings with a more productive use of time and energy. Even if I don’t cease wanting to play in this life, it should join my desire for food products with gluten: I may never have it again, but the day will assuredly come when I no longer need it at all. I will live just fine without it, and probably better.” [NOTE: The gluten decision was made as a result of a medical condition (indeed, the decision was sort of made for me), and is in no way a faddist dietary decision.]

I have this system for checking some of my pursuits in life. It involves adding up the total hours spent versus the benefits obtained, and then considering what else could have been more profitably accomplished. I’m not altogether a stuffed shirt. As indicated previously, I know the value of recreation and relaxation in its place. Anyway, I agonized over a returned desire to play the old computer game. I thought of how I could submerge myself into it for many hours before bedtime and arise in the morning with absolutely nothing to show for it. Then it also occurred to me that I need more social hobbies—the last thing I need is one more activity to indulge in solitarily. The essential part of letting go of my time to properly relax around others wreaks enough havoc on my time tables.

Lastly, I actually found myself praying for relief from the embattled condition. In pondering whether to get rid of the impulse once and for all, the response seemed to be, “What do YOU want to do?” (Much like D&C 58:27.) What I really want, when I can override my own frailties, is to give as much as possible to the kingdom of God without in the process of stretching sending my mind over the brink, or in any way inventing commandments that don’t exist. I find a scriptural combination that expresses what nearly an entire blog entry of mine failed to adequately convey: “I would that ye would be diligent and temperate in all things” (Alma 38:10). That is, be neither slack nor unbalanced. (It’s interesting to see what scriptures appear for “in all things.” It’s also interesting to actually apply the second sentence of Mosiah 4:27, offsetting some erroneous derivations from the first sentence: to say nothing of reading the preceding verse from which it resulted.) Again, the conclusion I was able to draw was that if it seemed that I could stand it, that would be an acceptable offering. The CD went in the dumpster, so I can’t be tempted any more on that score. Another principle was at play: “I cannot possibly impress this lesson too strongly upon the minds of my readers. If we fall into the habit of making resolves in relation to ourselves, and of constantly breaking them, such a course will tend to make us careless in the fulfillment of promises to others” (Heber J. Grant, IE, Dec. 1899, 84). “You cannot be honest with others unless you are honest with yourself” (James E. Faust, Ensign, May 2003, 109). I’m only describing the battle of one day. Whether I won or lost the following day’s battle, or the preceding, is not the point here. However, I did see to it that I would never retread this particular battleground.

I always did largely confine myself to more constructive, less violent computer games, particularly as their graphic quality—and graphic nature—has increased so dramatically in my lifetime. That’s not to say I never played them. One BYU roommate chuckled when he came home to find me playing Dynasty Warriors on the PlayStation, with a religious music CD cranked up in the background. (I beat that game multiple times.) At least it depicted death by choosing not to depict much at all. Old-fashioned “cowboys and Indians” boy play has been replaced by something more like what happened when the Indians caught up with the cowboys.

I recall playing Wolfenstein 3D back in the day and being slightly shocked at the blood, however poorly people may have felt the pixels portrayed it. One time my grandfather walked up and remarked disapprovingly of having witnessed me shooting a man in the back. It felt inadequate to tell him that the man was a Nazi. We must ever remain more honorable than our enemies, so as not to join the Nephites: “thou knowest the wickedness of this people; thou knowest that they are without principle, and past feeling; and their wickedness doth exceed that of the Lamanites” (Moroni 9:20). My conscience thoroughly pricked, I then played—and won—a far more challenging game in which I always fired a warning shot first.

I do have a natural aptitude for such games that I intend to never develop. Back in 1994 I accompanied my sister and her friends to the old Carousel ice cream parlour in Provo, where I found a game involving a mounted machine gun and some sort of CIA operative work. (I just learned that it’s speculated TWO family members served in the CIA.) I climbed upon a chair, fed it a quarter, and shot my way straight through for a considerable time. Someone walked up in astonishment and asked where I learned how to do that. It was my first time ever, and I had the top score. Another time my friend challenged me to the Street Fighter arcade game at Trafalga in Orem. He was most stunned when, after he’d chopped off both my character’s arms, I proceeded to kick his to death and obtain an “armless victory.” It might have been funny if not so grotesque. This lesson is constant, though: never give up. I have often wondered what a different game they would be if treated like reality, where one wound could seriously impair or halt a character, and there’s no “healing” along the way. That’s another lesson: life is not a game.

Perhaps, with my sensitivities and sensibilities, you see why I’ve steadfastly avoided the violent aspects to the next generation of video gaming. A dream from my childhood, long before the described times, may have been a terrifying glimpse into the devil’s schemes. I woke up shuddering at images I had never planted in my own mind: a demon moving through a field of carnage. “When a man of God passes through a place where much blood has been shed he will feel depressed in spirits and feel lonesome and uncomfortable” (Joseph Smith, in George A. Smith diary, May 16, 1834, cited in Jeffrey S. O'Driscoll, Hyrum Smith: A Life of Integrity [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2003], 114). I do NOT wish for a continuation of such affairs; it is a sad way to greet the Savior. And yet, without resistance, there may be more killing fields like Pol Pot’s. My views on warfare have nothing whatsoever to do with a natural preference for violence or tendency to push “dirty work” off on others.

But now to cite some positive media influences.... I’ve recently viewed two wonderful movies. Last Monday I did whatever was necessary to accompany a group up to the Joseph Smith Memorial Building in Salt Lake City and see Joseph Smith: The Prophet of the Restoration (for the second time). I’m a huge fan! I also dearly want the soundtrack.

Speaking of victims of atrocities, my 1996 visit to Carthage Jail is among the more sacred experiences of my life. If a friend of another faith should chance upon this—and I’m sure this blog seems plenty strange anyway—this is roughly equivalent to knowing where Peter was crucified or Paul beheaded. We honor the prophets of the Lord Jesus Christ for their respective accomplishments, nothing comparing to His atoning sacrifice. Especially coming from the ancestry that I do, I appreciate the Latter-day Saint view that might well agree with Erasmus in parting from past misconceptions:

You worship the saints, you like to touch their relics; do you want to earn Peter and Paul? Then copy the faith of the one and the charity of the other and you will have done more than if you had walked to Rome ten times. . . . We kiss the shoes of the saints and their dirty handkerchiefs and we leave their books, their most holy and efficacious relics, neglected. (quoted in Johan Huizinga, Erasmus and the Age of Reformation [Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984], 52, 101)

I have always felt an affinity for Joseph and particularly Hyrum, as well as Hyrum’s faithful progeny.

No mortal man who ever lived in this Church desired more to do good than did Hyrum Smith, the patriarch. I have it from the lips of my own sainted mother, that of all the men she was acquainted with in her girlhood days in Nauvoo, she admired Hyrum Smith most for his absolute integrity and devotion to God, and his loyalty to the prophet of God. And God honored that man by allowing to come from his loins the late beloved President Joseph F. Smith. (Heber J. Grant, CR, Oct. 1920, 84)

I stand before you at this time, my brethren and sisters, with Joseph Fielding Smith and Hyrum G. Smith, a living testimony to the fulfillment of the promise of God to his servant, Hyrum Smith. (David A. Smith, CR, Apr. 1921, 177)


The entire movie is moving for me, but there are two scenes where I can scarcely repress my emotions. One is that moment where Hyrum is struck in the face by a gun blast, evoking Joseph’s reaction, “Oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum!” (The Martyrdom of Joseph Smith by John Taylor [rep. Grantsville, Utah: Archive Publishers, 1999], 49). More images also come crashing back, including those I was privileged to handle on December 7, 1992. The time I freed up on Friday night, in bypassing time-consuming waste, enabled me to find these pictures.

Hyrum’s clothing at time of death:


As well as Hyrum’s hunting rifle (which he obviously did not have in Carthage):


And the stool upon which Joseph sat as a little boy. Just how little, I wonder? This serves as a reminder that prophets were children once. Even the Savior was a child once. (Hold that thought for my still forthcoming “children discourse,” in which I’m sure to emphasize the error in always picturing prophets as decrepit fellows with white beards instead of imagining their progress through the vigor of youth.)


The other movie scene that touches me to the core is where Joseph is courting Emma. She has been considering the things he told her. Now HE must have had an unusual time with women. After a pause, she then says, “I believe you.” Ah! Supporters in righteous causes are so very hard to come by, especially of the matrimonial brand.

That leads me to my other strong movie recommendation: Amazing Grace.

There’s a classic moment of choice dialog as Wilberforce walks into the garden with the lady he will marry. But I wouldn’t go alone into a garden with such an immodestly dressed woman. :-)

More of an uplifting nature to come soon, discovered among my things on Friday night. There’s no telling what I could find—I have more than one filled box of genealogical papers, too, stretching back easily a decade. It recently occurred to me that if I were to die, some things would be lost that no one else on earth could put together. Far from making me feel indispensable, this ought to make me feel lazy and like it’s high time I put everything in clearly labeled order. I never have done those research logs that are so crucial to family history research; I know better than to repeat my own steps, but I suppose I ought to have laid it out for those after me.

But the brief write-up I have in mind is not genealogical in nature. Good night! Thanks for putting up with me.