I’m a sucker for pure testimony. I can’t get enough of it and I can’t say enough about it. What this world needs is more unalloyed truth. (“Love, sweet love” also seeks after truth.) I don’t refer to strictly harsh, expose-style speech, but simply that to which the Spirit can bear witness.
The other Saturday I went to a social in my home stake. A guest speaker/singer bore some very uplifting testimony through words and music. Elder Maxwell often paraphrased Anne Morrow Lindbergh that a lot of people choose not to obtain wisdom from their suffering, for learning is not guaranteed—with her, the spiritual growth is undeniable.
I gladly purchased her CD from http://www.candicecrockett.blogspot.com/, since on my way out I heard someone who’d asked her for more information. Even the descriptive passages in the CD case don’t begin to tell the story. As a side note, I have this funny feeling that her father-in-law might be a former seminary teacher of mine to whom I was undoubtedly a bit of a nuisance. My journal entry for August 27, 1994 mentioned that “he has a granddaughter who is having problems due to being born prematurely.”
Why was I a nuisance? Uh, I was kind of hyper in junior high and much of high school. I was also very impatient—I actually started taking institute courses around 1992 because I wasn’t yet in the grades that would permit me to take seminary. Anyway, my first day of seminary ever I started to learn an important life lesson: the right answer can be the “wrong” answer. The teacher posed a question and was about to answer it himself, when I did so. He tilted his head and said, “I’ve never had anyone answer that before.” He wasn’t displeased, per se, but I would hardly characterize his later attitude as delighted. Sometimes it’s best to remain silent. Lord Chesterfield said, “Wear your learning, like your watch, in a private pocket; and do not pull it out and strike it, merely to show that you have one.” There’s the ever-present need for humility, as well as Paul’s reminder: “If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God” (1 Corinthians 3:18-19).
Sorry if that bit about the CD seemed like a sales pitch, but I wish you could feel the strength of her testimony the way I did that day. This reminds me of a time in one of my BYU wards when we had a box where people dropped anonymous compliments. One Sunday evening I was startled to receive one: “I enjoyed your testimoney.” What with the spelling, I wondered whether I’d just gone televangelist!
A minister who conducts a gospel program on a Detroit TV station read excerpts from viewers’ letters, taking care to display the donations clipped to each one. Then he looked straight into the camera and said earnestly, “And now, my dear funds . . .” (Doris A. Paul, in Reader’s Digest Treasury of Wit & Humor [Pleasantville, NY: The Reader's Digest Association, Inc., 1958], 65)
I took the compliment as it was probably intended, but in the short run it was nowhere near as rewarding as my roommate’s: “I like your muskels.”
B. In the ward, but not of the ward: heartfelt confessions of a social misfit
During that recent function in my home stake, I chuckled inwardly at two comments people made to me. “Where have you been? I used to see you everywhere.” And the clincher, about my being in a singles ward: “We won’t get to see you for two and a half years.” I replied that I usually feel the same way about it.
The other week someone forcibly visited that theme with me—in the hopes of getting me back in the home ward—wrenching a defense out of me: it’s a matter of optimal agency. The end result may be the same, but my duties lie in an obvious direction. When I’m 31, I can wonder whether there was something I could have done differently, or I can know that I put myself in the path for maximum possibilities, just realizing that A right person never came along.
An activity Monday night drove something home for me. One girl’s disapproval of my mode of expression failed to take into account that I wasn’t playing into social conventions so much as entirely disregarding them. Then there’s Milton’s comeback: “And what delight to be by such extoll’d,/To live upon thir tongues and be thir talk,/Of whom to be disprais’d were no small praise?” (Paradise Regained, 3.54-56). Furthermore, what she misinterpreted from me...well, let’s just say that a tall, strapping lad could say all manner of inane things and they’d seem attractive to her. But what I meant to drive at is the unfortunate circumstance that my mind naturally proceeds from that which is of greatest worth down to the details, which stands modern dating on its head. All I ever wanted to do at activities was get someone off to the side for meaningful conversation.
In this instance I’d consider it a fatal flaw of mine, that I can’t well pull off Paul’s “To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22). That last clause is particularly convicting to me, for I’m fully aware he’s not talking about ethical compromise. On April 13, 2002 I lamented, “Small talk doesn’t just escape me; it frustrates me. I sit in stony silence! What can I say? Shall I just point out that I read Conference Reports all the time, and no exaggeration to it?” I’m not actually alleging that my peers only think in trivial terms, but I do suggest that they’ve come to expect it in most social settings. My system rejects that diet. I’ve sometimes tried to console myself that what’s so “boring” or “odd” about me now would be in demand twenty years or so from now [referring to the stability, and not the individual...as also the tendency with aging to turn from the transitory things]. Sigh—too late? Incredibly, I resort to John Bytheway for additional consolation:
With all this talk of honesty and “do unto others,” some of the guys out there may respond, “Girls are turned off by a guy who is too nice.” You’re right, some are. But that’s okay. The memory of you will haunt them when their husband nightly parks his body in front of ESPN and demands his dinner. Besides, being nice doesn’t mean being a doormat, or being insecure. It just means that you govern yourself by true principles. . . . The girls you date might not appreciate it, but believe me, the woman you marry will love it. (What I Wish I'd Known When I Was Single [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1999], 48)
An insightful excerpt from another LDS author:
Hey! Who’s that banging down the door? It’s Reality, and he wants to have a talk with you. You’d better let him in because you don’t want to wait until you’re married to listen to him. Reality is your friend, and his point of view should be considered in all the major decisions of your life.
You don’t actually have to invite him along on activities with your new relationship buddy. He’ll be there whether you recognize him or not. He’ll be there when you meet your boyfriend’s hippie parents. He’ll be there when you realize your girlfriend just lost her grocery money by betting on the Super Bowl. And he’ll definitely be there when your significant other tells you he’s not allowed into Idaho, but doesn’t want to discuss the details.
Reality will be there for you. You just have to listen. His is not a still, small voice. He will scream in your face, “Are you crazy? This guy’s been on unemployment for five years! He’s addicted to the Home Shopping Network! He does that annoying thing with his toes!” If you don’t pay attention to Reality, his screams will haunt your every waking hour for years to come. (David F. Clark, Mormon and Single...Again [Las Vegas, Nevada: DCFive Publishing, 2005], 89-90)
This is also not designed to project myself as some sort of ideal. I suppose I’m just confused that my best efforts don’t seem more ideal to a certain segment of the population. However, I am secure enough that my days are done of trying to change on any basis other than a more heavenly curriculum. It has always seemed to me that if young single adults are going to profess to be of a marriageable age, it’s a good time for them to ensure they’re of a marriageable testimony.
Not long ago I had the opportunity to join my father on a trip to Park City. When I posed the (oft-unspoken) question of why I can’t fit in, he immediately set me to reflection. In my childhood years I fluctuated between sober and jovial—never fear, there’s no hint of bipolarism. I remember walking on crutches beside a friend, who’d been baptized hours earlier, wondering why he was goofing off so much. I also recall more than one lecture where someone told me I needed to contain my excitement. (One of them even asked me where my sugar supply was.) I’d like to think that with age I’ve learned plenty about the time and place for expressions.
What my father reminded me of is the sad fact that I never fit into Primary...not even when I first started going after my family joined the Church, when I was about five. It’d be nice to know if there was anyone else who thought to themselves, “Why are they talking to me like I’m a baby?”, or wondered what “Popcorn popping” had to do with Jesus. I never had any trouble with possessing a testimony of the Church, and probably not with caring for the people. It’s just various social manifestations that plague me at times, such that I never have trouble understanding one of President Hinckley’s statements:
This Church, I submit, is far more than a social organization where we gather together to enjoy one another’s company. It is more than Sunday School and Relief Society and priesthood meeting. It is more than sacrament meeting, more even than temple service. It is the kingdom of God in the earth. It behooves us to act in a manner befitting membership in that kingdom. (Ensign, Nov. 2003, 84)
One fellow in my ward whom I love dearly teased me that I’d still never come to their game night. All I could do was sadly reply that they’d never held it on a night other than Sunday.
Recently, during a lesson, when we were expected to introduce ourselves and remark upon why we were there, I no doubt caused some furrowed brows with, “For the present, it’s acceptable for me to worship here and seek a wife.” I hadn’t bothered clarifying with such thoughts as my November 25, 2007 musing: “As I have concluded, worship is always first and foremost. Seeking a spouse is a strong second. My first goal has proven offensive, so who knows about being vocal on the second? But the second will never overrule the first, which is largely why I have no place . . .”
C. Honesty in seeking the honest-to-goodness best goals
I’ve sometimes quoted President Kimball to great effect:
We do not apologize for the importance of students’ searching for eternal companions at the same time that they search the scriptures and search the shelves of libraries for knowledge. (Speeches of the Year: BYU Centennial Devotional and Fireside Addresses, 1975, 250)
Believe me, I’ve heard plenty of apologies on that one. In one BYU ward in that stake with appalling statistics on dating, there was an almost animated discussion about why that was. One of the bishop’s counselors defended the view that students had no choice but to sacrifice nearly all social life in order to maintain increasingly competitive scholarship offers. I was grateful for the bishop’s warmth when I cited several prophets and said that perhaps such students needed to relearn the doctrine on marriage. I’ve even gone so far as to quote President Joseph F. Smith (next block quote, below) and contend that, while higher education may be all the more essential to survival in today’s world, the spiritual aspect of his statement is no less crucial than it ever was. I’m sorry—well, actually, I’m not sorry—but the “spiritual” trumps the “physical” when push comes to shove. (They don’t always do violence to one another.) There’s a mortal tendency to downplay the spiritual by default as we construct and then systematically destroy a false context:
Our young people will be tempted to follow the example of the world about them. There is already a strong tendency to make sport of the obligations to marry. Pretexts of ambition are set up as an excuse to postpone marriage till some special object is attained. Some of our leading young men desire to complete first a course of study at home or abroad. Being natural leaders in society their example is dangerous and the excuse is one of questionable propriety. It were better far that many such young men never went to college than that the excuse of college life be made the reason for postponing marriage beyond the proper age. (Gospel Doctrine, 281)
Of course I never thought it wise to fabricate a companion out of insufficient material, in order to fulfill the injunction. Yet I do recall how emphatically and constantly President Kimball taught that the challenges of life are best faced as a traditional family unit (such as in TSWK, 328-329).
Another instructive exercise is looking up prophetic commentary on what knowledge the Prophet Joseph Smith referred to as bringing salvation to mankind. Even other sources can detect this, for Calvin Coolidge said, “The whole foundation of enlightened civilization, in government, in society and in business, rests on religion. Unless our people are thoroughly instructed in its great truths they are not fitted either to understand our institutions or to provide them with adequate support. For independent colleges and secondary schools to be neglectful of their responsibilities in this direction is to turn their graduates loose with simply an increased capacity to prey upon each other. Such a dereliction of duty would put in jeopardy the whole fabric of society.” I think often of J. Reuben Clark’s explanation, under which it is clearly the faithful who are most capable of pulling off everything.
Learning is beyond price if it be accompanied by the spirit which should follow it. But if the Gospel is only for the learned, how few there are of us who could have any use for it.
Now, I am not arguing against learning, I am only asking that the youth of Zion be relieved from the thought which is growing in their minds that a partial mastering of one curriculum is the full truth. There is spiritual learning just as there is material learning, and the one without the other is not complete; yet, speaking for myself, if I could have only one sort of learning, that which I would take would be the learning of the spirit, because in the hereafter I shall have opportunity in the eternities which are to come to get the other, and without spiritual learning here my handicaps in the hereafter would be all but overwhelming.
But the Lord has so made it today that we and our children may have both, and that is one of the great glories and blessing which we have today, that we may be learned in the sciences and the arts, and we may also be learned in the spirit. In other words, we may have true knowledge. (CR, Apr. 1934, 93-94)
D. Hey! Everybody look at the elephant in the room! I’m sitting on top of it!!
My line of thinking here compels me to answer, in part, two of my questions from a previous post.
What are your thoughts on the saying attributed to Brigham Young that any unmarried man over 25 is a menace to society?
I consider it a strained or false attribution, but a not-altogether inadequate summation. http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/qa/30.htm
touches on this, and other commentaries floating out there, from what I can see, finally hint at George Q. Cannon’s usage. Several years ago I e-mailed the author of a newspaper article, under the mistaken impression that they’d appreciate getting to the bottom of what had been such a humorous pursuit. “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 3:7)?
Their languid reaction verified one of President Heber J. Grant’s sayings to the effect that falsehood travels around the world while truth is still putting on its boots. I’m guessing that putting a face to this would deprive many of their laughs and speculation? There’s ample room for smiling at the truth!
Suffice to say that I have no reason to believe President Young ever actually said it, certainly not in its encapsulated form. I can, however, point to a rather clear, definitive, fully contextual quotation from Pres. George Q. Cannon:
Our boys, when they arrive at years of maturity and can take care of a wife, should get married, and there should not be a lot of young men growing up in our midst who ought to be, but are not married. While I do not make the remark to apply to individual cases, I am firmly of the opinion that a large number of unmarried men, over the age of twenty-four years, is a dangerous element in any community, and an element upon which society should look with a jealous eye. (JD, 20:7, which was in the April 1878 General Conference)
Having confirmed the basis for the rumors, it only makes sense to permit the originator to offer his own clarification. He as much as claimed all the credit with a later statement, this one printed in the Juvenile Instructor in 1898:
Frequently a remark which I once publicly made concerning marriage is quoted to me. I said that any large element of unmarried young men in a community after they are twenty-four years of age is a dangerous element. Some, in speaking of it, have supposed that I referred to individual young men. Of course, this was not so. I did not refer to individuals; for there are many young men of twenty-four who, through being on missions or for other causes, are not married; but I referred to the danger to society of any considerable element of unmarried men over that age in a community. Does not the experience of mankind prove that this is correct? I certainly think so. I should deplore the increase of unmarried young men beyond twenty-three or twenty-four years of age in any of our communities, as I am satisfied that the effect on society would not be good. (Jerreld L. Newquist, Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of George Q. Cannon [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1987], 371-372)
None could put it better than God. In the creation, God saw that all things were good until man was on the scene, and then He made this pronouncement: “It is not good that the man should be alone” (my emphasis, Genesis 2:18). That prophets’ prophet, Isaiah, issued a profound wo: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20). Far be it from me to wittingly fall into any modern trap seeking such a reversal, when I know full well that “marriage is ordained of God unto man” (D&C 49:15). The Family: A Proclamation to the World immortalizes this concept yet again (and mark all these words), in “solemnly proclaim[ing] that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” This testimony which is sealed up is also bound with the law in its associated WARNING of accountability and calamities for those who ignore these truths, including those “who fail to fulfill family responsibilities.”
I proceed to the second question. How do you feel about this statement? “No man who is marriageable is fully living his religion who remains unmarried.” Considering that this is almost drawn verbatim [change “marriageable” to “of marriageable age,” and drop “fully”] from President Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 272, I’m in no hurry to criticize it. Barring sensitive allowances for some individual circumstances, it is in harmony with the whole. I step aside for some in-the-know testimony from Elder Earl C. Tingey:
Develop a pattern that will lead you to accept the responsibilities of celestial marriage. . . .
There is some concern among the Brethren that some of you who are still single may not be moving in the direction of preparing yourselves to seek out and commit to an eternal companion. This applies both to young men and to young women. The greater burden, however, rests upon the young men because in our society it is a responsibility of young men to initiate activities that lead to courtship and to marriage.
The doctrine of the Church is very clear and it anticipates that individuals will be married in the temple and rear a righteous family as guided by the inspired document we call “The Proclamation on the Family.”
He goes on to quote President Joseph Fielding Smith, who can seldom be misunderstood on anything.
It wouldn’t be right to browbeat the already-battered youth with this doctrine. Nor do I think it’s a service to allow some convenient forgetfulness on it. I’ve probably only discussed this topic three times in the last year. My ward’s unuttered stance on it has been that if they bolster testimonies of the Atonement, everything else—dating included—will take care of itself. It sounds true enough until you ponder why the Brethren haven’t thought of leaving dating and marriage alone that way. Every true doctrine ties back into the Atonement, this one included. Enough is taught combatting the correct doctrine that it would seem we need it repeated now more than ever. Beliefs expressed by many peers verify this.
Our Area Authority Seventy brought this up recently in a meeting. He reiterated points made on a jam-packed suggestion sheet for our area: “Many young single adults fear dating and marriage or have adopted worldly attitudes toward them. Teach doctrine that will help them develop faith to overcome fears and false teachings.” Any vehemence I may have is due either to that born of confidence in true doctrine, or to my emergence from a poor relationship that I would’ve given a limb to have avoided in the first place.
I’m not entitled to a Lone Ranger crusade by any means, but there are indicators that I’m not crazy as a loon.
E. The relevance of reverence
So when I was bold enough to state why I was present in a singles ward (i.e., for the opportunity of worship and potential dating), several others in the quorum quickly thought of wishful-thinking answers (like “I’m here to learn”), belied by their insufferably rude rowdiness when trying to call the meeting to order, and during the lesson. The climate would hardly be conducive to Joseph Smith’s thoughts:
But to return to the subject of order; in ancient days councils were conducted with such strict propriety, that no one was allowed to whisper, be weary, leave the room, or get uneasy in the least, until the voice of the Lord, by revelation, or the voice of the council by the Spirit, was obtained, which has not been observed in this Church to the present time. It was understood in ancient days, that if one man could stay in council, another could; and if the president could spend his time, the members could also; but in our councils, generally, one will be uneasy, another asleep; one praying, another not; one’s mind on the business of the council, and another thinking on something else. (TPJS, 69)
You can imagine how I often seem to others like I’m coming out of left field in echoing such a sentiment. Just like my astonishment at seeing a rather large number of inattentive young single adults in sacrament meeting, many of whom were laughing with each other (there was nothing coming from the pulpit to evoke such a response at the time). Within days of staving off minor perturbation over that, I reviewed a complete sermon where President Joseph Fielding Smith had already commented on it many years ago (as if other prophets haven’t):
Of all the people on the face of the earth, the Latter-day Saints ought to be the most reverent. We know more; we have far better understanding of salvation and of the mission of Jesus Christ. Yet we are not reverent the way we ought to be. I think that we have faith; we believe the gospel of Jesus Christ; we are convinced of the great mission which he performed. But we certainly have fallen down when it comes to being reverent. . . .
If we refrained from shouting, greeted our friends—kindly of course, and respectfully—and quietly took our seats, do you not think the Lord himself would be more pleased if we would do it that way, rather than doing it the way we do it nearly everywhere throughout the Church? . . .
Reverence is a sacred principle. It is a principle of the gospel. We show reverence to our Father in Heaven, to the Lord Jesus Christ. We would not be boisterous in his presence. If he happened to be in this meeting, I am sure we would all go quietly and take our places. Why cannot we think, when we enter the places of worship, that he is there? . . .
How grateful we ought to be for the mission of Jesus Christ! How we ought to love him above everything in the world, because he came and died, voluntarily, the most excruciating, the most terrible of deaths because he loved us, and because he wanted to save us from that awful condition of eternal death and bring us back into the presence of God our Father to receive the blessings of his kingdom. All that, he volunteered to do. If we could impress these things upon the minds of both young and old and teach them that it is their duty to have gratitude in their hearts for Jesus Christ, for our Father in Heaven, perhaps we could teach them that we should be extremely humble in our hearts which should be filled with everlasting love for him; and reverence would result. . . .
Think of the burden of all that was forced on the Savior Jesus Christ. These are the things that we overlook. If we could keep such things in our minds all the time, I think we would be more reverent. . . .
I would not like to see our people come into a meetinghouse as if they were going to a funeral. I want them to come into the house smiling, happy. I want them to be able to greet their neighbors, but to do it quietly, in a proper spirit, not by shouting across a number of rows of seats or something of that kind. I want them to come in quietly. . . .
Of all places and times in the world when we ought to be reverent, it is when we partake of the sacrament. I have been on the stand looking down over a congregation when members were partaking of the sacrament and have seen people take gum out of their mouths, while they took the piece of bread, and then put the gum back into their mouths. And when the water comes they never stop to take the gum out at all. Do you think that shows a reverent spirit? I do not think it shows a reverent spirit to bring gum and chew it in a sacrament meeting at anytime, or in any other meeting. But I have seen it done.
I have seen two members of the Church sitting together, enter into a conversation, stop long enough for the blessing to be asked on the water or on the bread, then start again on their conversation. Sometimes they even enter into conversation, laughing and talking to each other, while somebody is speaking from the stand. That is shocking to me, and I am sure it is to the Lord. These are the things we have to overcome, and you teachers can do a wonderful work in this regard. (Seek Ye Earnestly, 115-117, 119, 121-122)
Elder Ballard has said a lot in recent years about the need for reverence and peaceful contemplation, along with early arrival, in the chapel. Some recent satire is all the funnier for its truth. I felt like standing up and shouting, “I attend a ‘texting ward!’”
F. Of films and forebears
One movie that I saw this past month has some difficult scenes, not for children. Nevertheless, Luther is good so far as a dramatic character sketch is concerned. I found two scenes of pent-up success particularly moving. Only I didn’t appreciate how it represented his struggles with the devil as some kind of insanity. When Elder Hugh B. Brown shared a similar experience, President McKay told him, “As far as I know, every man that is called into the General Authorities has to wrestle with the devil” (in “Father, Are You There?,” BYU Fireside, 8 Oct 1967, 8). One of the great heresies of our day is to deny some of the realities of his opposition (see 2 Nephi 28:22 with Joseph Smith–History 1:16), but those who know better acknowledge that the devil doesn’t take kindly to “disturber[s] and . . . annoyer[s] of his kingdom” (JS–H 1:20), not that this knowledge in any way alters the necessary course.
I can see why Luther, the man of steel, Mr. “Hier stehe ich,” invigorated my own ancestors. “To read Luther on Galatians or the liberty of a Christian man, after sleeping through the platitudes of Erasmus’ Manual, is to gain understanding why the former raised men above their circumstances while the latter amused their leisure hours; nor does one have to be a Christian to see this” (G. R. Elton, Reformation Europe 1517-1559 [New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1963], 282).
It’s nothing new to my family to be rejected by their own neighborhood. These same Lutheran ancestors of my mother’s, the Salzburgers, were eventually driven to other countries because of their peculiarities. (I’ve said enough here about the Huguenot aspect on my father’s side.) Among such striking differences were refusing to sing “O Tannenbaum” because they felt it was “a heathenish, tree-worshiping song of seasons,” and not using a common salutation of the region, which took the Lord’s name in vain. (That is yet another of the rudimentary commandments that means a great deal to me; disobedience implies a total lack of relationship with Deity.) I’ve written about this curious lack of genuine tolerance, as I see it being replayed in modern times: “The people turned briefly from their mockery of each other (largely conducted when the others’ backs were to them), and directed all their scorn at us. For some reason they could not bear our traveling away from them along the King’s highway. We were required to accompany them in their misery.”
President Harold B. Lee cautioned:
Our failure to be a “peculiar” people in maintaining our standards, despite the jeers and the criticisms of the crowd, will be our failure to be chosen for that calling to which we are called. . . .
So then as Church members let us beware lest we set our hearts upon the things of this world and lest we aspire so much to the honors of men that we compromise our standards. If we do so, we will be cut off in the Day of Judgment and will lose our blessings. Our reward for daring to live the gospel despite the oppositions from the outside world will be to have blessings added upon our heads forever and forever. (THBL, 166-167)
To end on an upbeat note about “forebears,” and the need for individual courage, one of these Friday nights this past month was spent at the Salt Lake Family History Library. It thrilled me to no end to learn that one of the foremost researchers this decade on a family line has also postulated a connection I didn’t dare let myself consider—yet unproven, I fear—to William Jasper. His story certainly puts me in the proper frame of mind for the 4th of July. I went on to locate data on an entirely different line in the Georgian county named for him. :-)
