Measuring priorities

Tonight my mind burns with this thought, from President Uchtdorf:

Are we diligent in living the commandments of God, without running beyond our strength? Or are we just leisurely strolling along? Are we using our time, talents, and means wisely? Are we focused on the things which matter most? Are we following the inspired counsel of the prophets? . . .

In 1999 the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles lovingly stated: “We counsel parents and children to give highest priority to family prayer, family home evening, gospel study and instruction, and wholesome family activities. However worthy and appropriate other demands or activities may be, they must not be permitted to displace the divinely appointed duties that only parents and families can adequately perform.” (Ensign, July 2008, 7)

And with that I’ve already departed from my original goal when sitting down, which was to gather a few scattered thoughts and convey them with a down-home frankness. I’d thought to borrow a page from Elder McConkie’s book, as related by his wife:

“Well, we had fun,” she continued. “Everything that he had to say to me wasn’t prefaced by something from one of the standard works or anything like that. Some people seem to think that’s what my life must have been, just a constant diet [of scripture]. He was perfectly normal. It was fun—there was never a dull moment really, because...this ready wit of his was always there.” “He was a real character with those he knew well. With others he was very proper.” (Dennis B. Horne, Bruce R. McConkie: Highlights from his Life and Teachings [Roy, UT: Eborn Books, 2000], 44)

There’s just one of many differences between us: he was normal. ;-) Speaking of differences, I hesitate to share one thing, but so as not to disrupt my eccentric thought processes, and intending an entirely tangential connection, I forge ahead. In the spirit of desiring humility and giving genuine credit to God, I take the counsel of various prophets ever since Joseph Smith: if I utter anything worthwhile to mankind, it was God’s good pleasure and mercy to me. On October 22, 2002, in my journal, I cited part of what I considered a “disturbing e-mail” to my ward regarding a recent address of mine (for no sacrament meeting was ever convened to even so much as partially celebrate a mere mortal): "A member of the Stake R.S. presidency said, 'If you closed your eyes and listened, that could have been any one of the prophets!'"

It must have been an adequate usage of source/Source material shining through and not myself. After absorbing the initial shock of all this, I pondered, “Wait a minute! Why do you have to close your eyes?” Then I immediately thought, “Well, if we’re going to have a compare and contrast session involving me and the prophets, I ought to be grateful they kept the observation superficial, even—perhaps especially—if it is about that same old thing over which I have no control: my outward appearance.”

Gregory is supposed to have been a very small man. There is an apocryphal story that he once visited Gregory the Great in Rome, knelt in obeisance before him and, as he rose, saw the Pope eyeing him quizzically, whereupon he is supposed to have said: ‘It is God that hath made us, and not we ourselves.’ [Psalm 100, 3, the Jubilate Deo. This story was first put about by Odo de Cluny, in his tenth-century Vita Sancti Gregorii, 24.] (Lewis Thorpe, trans., Gregory of Tours, The History of the Franks [New York: Penguin Books, 1974], 13)

I’m now compelled to turn aside and comment that other things commonly accepted in today’s world as equally bestowed by God simply are not, such as homosexuality or any pathological tendency to crime and sin. I leave it to Church literature to discuss that better than I can at the moment. Elder Talmage had good thoughts on the matter, and I will only quote one: “Far above the natural operation of heredity, which at most is tendency not compulsion, stands eternal and unchanging justice, which assures to every soul his deserts” (LEJ, 20:441).

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. (James 1:13-14; this is particularly meaningful with 1 Corinthians 10:13, when we understand Who is “the way”; still other scriptures aptly describe participation in this process of choosing the good part)

“Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?” (Matthew 6:27). It’s about as unlikely by means of prayer, also! But God doesn’t ask us to change our stature or race; it is our hearts that must change, and can through desire, effort, and abundant heavenly grace. Perhaps my father thought me more insecure than I was (about height rather than heart) when in my youth he gave me a framed page from the 1611 King James Bible, which contained 1 Samuel 16:7. God gave me a perfect contentment with His designs for my life at about age four or five, though I won’t lie to you: there have been times when other people’s insecurities about my “situation” have started to make me uncomfortable. I was admittedly too snippy when I responded to some pressures about locating similarly short people to date: “I’m short. I got over it. So should you.” Might I not be even more after someone’s mind than most people? (Sadly, I have in the past also resented any implication that my unique approach to life is solely a product of heredity—in this case, a spontaneous mutation—or environment.) And that’s just a problem I’ll have to work on! I have to say, though, the chip on my shoulder is not what people would expect. ;-)

At any rate, in this respect I sort of play into being one of those “comfortable in their own skin, . . . an attribute Warren Buffett [said] was greatly undervalued in human beings” (Fortune, July 7, 2008, 8). Buffett may be smart and successful, but he’s still no prophet (plenty o' profit)! I might also conjecture that any significant exposure to market forces, especially right now, could easily lead to the outcry that “the devil is in it!”

I also wanted to make a minor defense of Elder Bruce R. McConkie. In encountering, throughout the Church, individuals who totally reject him, I’ve noticed a few patterns. The foremost is that such rejection is usually a “smokescreen”—a common description in Christian apologetics—whereby they harp on the small percentage of things he was mistaken on in order to evade the 98+% that he was completely correct about. He was among the first to admit when he was wrong, too. His aspirations to be “right” weren’t so much self-promoting as a fundamental quest for ultimate truth. His detractors are also so angry about something...again, something they accuse him of. The vultures go at it all the more vigorously for the fact that he’s not here to defend himself.

You will seldom, if ever, hear me quote from or so much as consult his Mormon Doctrine—sadly, because that rapidly undercuts one’s credibility with many audiences (just as curriculum is forced for a number of reasons to quote from early editions of the Deseret News, which is merely a circuitous way of quoting the source text constituting the Journal of Discourses, yet in all of this I perceive the important message for members to study and understand first things first). I think of William James’ statement, “There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it.”

A major question to raise when considering doctrine is how it fits into the whole. Surprisingly, on that path liberals are more “narrow-minded” than conservatives. The latter are much more rarely surprised by a Conference address than the former, and certainly less prone to the urge to run home and post reasons on their blog why they are the exception to counsel or, worse still, in sweeping terms why counsel shouldn’t be measured against doctrine if it’s uncomfortable (see Henry B. Eyring, Ensign, June 2008, 6). On a lesser note than “Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11:29), I sometimes think, “Would God that we had a more discerning people!” One prominent liberal trend is nailed by this characterization:

In the teaching of Christ, however, love, supreme though it is, is not something that resists being shaped by law. “Abide in my love,” He exhorts His followers, but immediately adds, “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love” (John 15:9-10); this corresponds with the admonition, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). It is plain that to say this is not the same thing as saying, “If you keep my commandments to love, you will love” (which would be an otiose tautology), for Christ speaks of the keeping of His commandments (plural), and there are many precise ethical commandments of His recorded in the Gospels, a number of which we have already noticed. Nor is the statement “God is love” a reversible statement. Herbert Waddams has rightly reproached those who wish “to change the phrase ‘God is love’ into ‘love is God’ and to twist its meaning into a statement that human love, whatever form it may take, is as good as God, and that is all we need to consider.” Waddams deplores this as “another of the many forms of idolatry which sets up in the place which God alone ought to occupy some human standard or image to replace him.” (Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Christian Ethics in Secular Society [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1983], 50-51)

As for the issues currently raging regarding homosexuality, I have even seen members taken in by such deception, arguing for what only seems most important from a warped vantage point. Burning, misguided lust is not an expression of love in a homosexual union or in a heterosexual one night stand. Furthermore, in the catalog of sins, there’s the hope that no one will “be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils” (D&C 46:7; see 1 Timothy 4:1). The Church enters the political arena over this hotly contested affair precisely because it is all the more dangerous, belonging not to mortal confusion but demonic inspiration. Nor could we very accurately say we love our brothers and sisters if we do nothing to halt their headlong course to destruction.

I have the most supreme and absolute contempt for men who are guilty of proclaiming that virtue should not be maintained; that there is no sin in sexual intercourse [the remainder of doctrine showing in what sense]. It is the doctrine of devils. It is an inspiration from the devil himself, and the men who defend things of this kind are instruments in his hands to try to destroy virtue and to wipe from the earth liberty and right, and all that is of real genuine worth to humanity. (Heber J. Grant, CR, Apr. 1927, 175)

On the matter of measuring doctrine by its compatibility with other revealed points, I wish to emphatically declare that, from my perspective, Mormon Doctrine passes multiple tests. The average member has absolutely no conception how corroborated Elder McConkie’s points are elsewhere. Therefore, I utilize all those other sources, mourning the reaction to the direct approach of his apostolic ministry. Once, while I was speaking on God’s omniscience, a rather “intellectual” quorum member asked—fingers making quotation mark gestures—what made Elder McConkie an “authority.” Instead of speaking my full mind, “Perhaps that would have been the Lord’s anointing when he became a special witness?”, I fell back on the principle of answering the questions that should have been asked. It was just such a time when I simply quoted from many others, leaving him to see that Elder McConkie was not a lone witness after all. One of my childhood friends was fortuitously present and bore testimony toward the end.

I suppose I was supposed to talk about “measuring priorities.” This entire departure is out of sync with my ambitions along those lines. As I have a lesson to prepare, my usual rule should apply—and always does, for talks—of displacing virtually all extracurricular activities with the most studious and prayerful preparations. But if I were free to pursue leisure activities this week, there’s a pile of books I’d like to read: as usual, those checked out from the library take precedence over those I could always take from my own shelves. Particularly in light of my oddities and unfortunate predispositions, were I free of that special Sunday stewardship, I’d feel obligated to prioritize some sort of socializing above these minor personal improvement tasks.

This topic was first spawned by my encountering an Elder Ballard quote: “Our people have lost far too much money by trusting their assets to others. In my judgment, we will never have balance in our lives unless our finances are securely under control” (utilized in Ensign, July 2008, 76). That reminded me of the term “opportunity cost.” That led, only too naturally, to thoughts about weightier matters of the law and all that. (Life itself, though costly, is a meager opportunity cost in comparison to what we are told scripturally to give it up for.) Earlier today I had to weigh circumstances when stomach troubles struck at work. Determining that they were on the wrong side for appendicitis, I decided it would be best—like usual—to disregard the pains and remain at my post. Then, when I got home, I had to decide that in view of extreme fatigue all day, it would be better to attempt a nap than distracted temple attendance. Failing utterly to fall asleep, I decided I’d better do something worthwhile.

Suddenly that seems largely irrelevant in the midst of all the serious musings.... Let us speak of a precious snap judgment calmly made under fire....

“Oh, beautiful for heroes proved In liberating strife, Who more than self their country loved, And mercy more than life!” (Hymns, 338)

Now they never had fought, yet they did not fear death; and they did think more upon the liberty of their fathers than they did upon their lives . . . (Alma 56:47)

Turning to the weeklong preparation as well for July 4th, here is a sobering passage about a recipient of the Medal of Honor. Considering that there’s no discernible publisher to contact for permission, that this was for the most part drawn directly from another source, and that this officially constitutes my encouragement to read the original, I trust this won’t be a copyright violation. From Paul H. Kelly and Lin H. Johnson, Courage in a Season of War: Latter-day Saints Experience World War II [U.S.A., 2002], 469-472:

Nathan Van Noy Jr., was born at Grace, Idaho, and raised in nearby Preston.

The following account of his heroism was published in YANK Magazine: The Army Weekly, dated 31 December 1943, written by Pvt. John McLeod, YANK staff correspondent:

NEW GUINEA–The kid was tow-headed, red-cheeked and 19 years old. He joined his outfit as a replacement before it went into its first action.

The fellows in his outfit didn’t pay much attention to him. They hardly knew his name, called him Whitey or Junior. They called him Junior because he looked even younger than he was, because he didn’t have much to say. When he did say something he did so without using the Army’s stock phrases of profanity.

“We kind of figured him as a mama’s boy,” a sergeant in his outfit recalled. “Just goes to show you how wrong you can be.”

Junior soon showed that whatever else he was, he was a good soldier.

During his first action he shot down a low-level enemy bomber, which came over Red Beach, near Lae, trying to strafe the beach and barges.

At Scarlet Beach, beyond Finschafen, he didn’t have too much luck in his shooting, and he received five shrapnel wounds in his wrist, side and back.

The medics tried to evacuate Junior to a base hospital, but Junior said no. He could get along all right and his outfit was short of good .50-caliber men. It needed him. Again, the medics tried to ship Junior off when he came to them with ulcers in both ears. Junior said no. He went to the aid station for treatment three times a day, but he stayed on his job, digging defense positions, taking his turn by the big Browning machine gun.

The Scarlet Beach defenses needed men.

On the night the Japanese counterattack came, Junior was sound asleep in his hammock, perhaps dreaming that he was no longer a private in the Army, but just plain Nathan Van Noy Jr., playing football with his high school team back at Preston, Idaho, or working in a tow garage after school hours.

Junior was so tired that he slept through all the rain that poured down on his hammock top that night. After the rain stopped shortly before dawn, however, Junior was awakened by whispers in the bush near him.

Sgt. John Fuina of Brooklyn, in charge of the American beach detachment, was restless, and so was T-5 Raymond J. Koch of Wabasha, Minnesota. They got up together to take a stretch. It was an hour and a half before dawn and still black as midnight.

Gazing out to sea, the two saw three smudges on the skyline. Holding their breaths and clutching each other’s arms, they waited. The smudges gradually took more distinct shape as they moved slowly and noiselessly toward shore. They had the decidedly peaked prows of Japanese landing barges.

They were only 300 to 400 hundred yards away.

Sgt. Fuina yelled an alarm and ran toward his .37mm antitank gun to fire an alert. Cpl. Koch ran from hammock to hammock and tent to tent waking the American and Australian gun crews.

Pvt. Van Noy didn’t need any waking. At Sgt. Fuina’s first yell, he tumbled out of his hammock and dived into his machine-gun pit. His loader, Cpl. Stephen Popa of Detroit, was right after him.

Sgt. Fuina didn’t waste any time. He fired one armor-piercing and two HE shells at the nearest barge. An Aussie two-pounder gun joined him. Together they sank the barge, and they could see soldiers clambering out of it, first trying to reach the other barges and then swimming toward the far bank of the Song River.

The other two barges landed right in front of Pvt. Van Noy’s .50-caliber position. They beached just fifteen yards away. The barge ramps slowly began to fall. Troops started throwing out grenades by the handful. Pvt. Van Noy held his fire.

When the ramps were all the way down, when the Japanese blew their bugles and began to charge, Pvt. Van Noy pressed his finger on the trigger and cut loose. The first to fall were two Japanese officers trying to scorch Van Noy out of his position with flame throwers.

The remaining troops fell on their faces and continued throwing grenades and firing.

Aussie Bren gunners some yards behind Van Noy’s pit began shouting to him to “Get . . . out of there, you . . . fool.” Seeing the grenades burst all about the pit, Sgt. Fuina yelled, too, ordering him to get out of his exposed position.

Pvt. Van Noy’s loader, Cpl. Popa, crawled from the pit with a shattered leg trailing behind him. He thought Van Noy would follow.

But Pvt. Van Noy changed ammunition belts and kept on firing.

Sgt. Fuina saw a grenade land squarely in the pit. Van Noy’s stream of tracers continued to rake up and down the water’s edge, where by this time the Japanese were frantically trying to dig into the sand.

Then there were other flashes, and Van Noy’s gun ceased firing.

Until dawn the firing crackled around the beached barges. Aussie gunners fired clip after clip from their Bren and Owen guns. Sgt. Fuina loaded his .37 and raked over every square foot of the beach and barges. Pfc. Philip Edwards of Mokane, Missouri, helped out from a far flank with his .50 and knocked out a Japanese .50, which had been firing spasmodically from one of the barges.

When the sun rose out of the Bismark Sea, a skirmish line of infantrymen moved down to the beach to mop up the remnants. There weren’t any remnants to mop. Junior’s Browning had accounted for at least half of the forty who landed. Aussie gunners and Sgt. Fuina’s .37 did the rest. The twenty who swam from the first barge had been disposed of in short order by Australian Owen gunners and a Papuan infantry patrol.

It was a sad lot of victorious soldiers who finally went over to Pvt. Van Noy’s weapon pit. Pvt. Van Noy was the only Allied soldier killed in the action. The first grenade in the pit had torn off his left leg. It took a rifle bullet between his eyes to stop him. Even then, the men wondered if he hadn’t continued to fire after death. Every bullet in his gun had been fired.

All of his American buddies and the twenty Australians who fought with Junior Van Noy agreed with Sgt. Fuina, when he looked down at the dead soldier’s body and said:

“That kid had more guts than all the rest of the Army put together.”

That seems to about size it up.


Nathan Van Noy Jr. is buried in the Grace Cemetery, Grace, Idaho. Later the United States rechristened a ship after Nathan.

Now, I’d actually appreciate considerate and thoughtful comments as to whether, from this portrayal, it’s possible that the assault could have been repulsed almost as handily had Van Noy pulled back when ordered to do so, or whether his “defiance” of the concerned order actually saved the day. There is something strategically to be said—even in cost-effective terms, to sound callous and calculating—for maintaining heavy fire longer than anticipated during a direct onslaught. According to an alternate version, differing in some details, his finger was still on the trigger. So, what might have been his motives and his options? What say you?

To enlarge it—I wouldn’t say reduce—to spiritual terms, how can this be applied in terms of doctrinal defense? If there is no middle ground with the gospel, doesn’t any form of relaxation or surrender mean being driven from the high ground to a lesser position?

At times, when I envision the spiritual conflict over this world in the end times, and as discussion turns into intense debate, I can’t help but see it in a similar light to this account. It’s more a feature of thoroughness and firmness in belief that prompts this quirk of mine, but I try not to waste my time with a negligible fusillade. I’d like to succeed at laying down an immediate heavy artillery defense, hoping to blow the attackers out of the water. :-) The crackle of small arms fire should be the last thing anyone would hear, as I was unfortunately overcome. (Yes, I’m peculiar in my choice of heroes and heroics.) May we all hold the Lord’s line against every incursion. Curiously, this theme haunts my thoughts and dreams.

I am grateful to be an American and a Latter-day Saint. What a fortunate blessing! I hope never to forget the price paid for both privileges, and what may be required to maintain them against all future opposition.