Praises to President Obama for asking Congress to approve an American intervention in the Syria Civil War. We need a national debate about this. I hope we ask the right questions.
How many Syrians died in the alleged chemical attack?
Who did the chemical attack?
Should Congress believe American intelligence on chemical warfare given its track records in Iraq and Afghanistan?
If the USA Military does intervene in Syria, what does it attack? We should not kill innocent civilians. We must punish those who ordered the chemical attack – if indeed that happened.
European, Russian and Middle East militaries could do this job. Where are they?
How do we keep a Syrian intervention evolving into the 2013 revival of Sarajevo 1914? How do we keep the intervention from escalating into a war with Russia and Iran?
Why can Israel have illegal atomic weapons but Iran cannot have atomic weapons and Syria cannot have chemical warfare? It would nice to have a national discussion about the Middle East above its basic hypocrisies of politics.
IN SUMMARY
Missile attacks on Syria run the risk of hurting a bunch of people who did not launch chemical attacks on Syrians. Obviously the Syrian government should not gas its own citizens. However, governments should not do a lot of things -- like not keep track of everyone's emails and phone calls. This is a job for the Hague Court.
THE CALL TO ACTION
Obviously the Syrian government should not be gassing its citizens, Obviously our missile strikes run the risk of doing more harm all the way around than good. Give to the Hague Court
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
MARRIAGE AS IT IS IN THE WORLD: THE PLACE OF HUMAN VALIDATION IN MARRIAGE COVENANTS
Commentators on The Diane Rehm Show (National Public Radio WAMU) discussed on 11 July the subject of same-gender marriage and the states. During the course of it, a caller asked a question that sounded rather like a set up, but it received the sort of response the proponents of same gender marriage might have wanted. The question was what danger does same gender marriage pose to one-man/one-woman marriage vs the risks of childless marriages on traditional marriage. Thomas Peters, opponent of same gender marriage, replied this way –
“Not every couple will choose or can have a child. Every child, however, has a biological mother and a father What same sex marriage does is tell the culture that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and disposable. Every child comes from a mother and a father. The reason why governments care about marriage in the first place is that it is the only institution that gives children a chance at a sustained relationship with their biological origins. If you change the laws for any one, you change the laws for everyone. This debate is about re-definitions. If we say that marriage is no longer about what is in the best interests of children, no longer primarily about their needs and how they do best, and is primarily about the desires of adults to be validated, we change the public purpose of marriage. This is why cultures need marriage, for tying mothers and fathers to their children as we know all too well is a difficult task. It’s amazing to me that President Obama, in his good advocacy for more good fathers can endorse redefining marriage and say that two mothers are just as good as one father. Gay people can be great mothers and fathers . . . Independently. However, a man cannot be a good mother or a female cannot be a good father. It’s a definition worth fighting for.”
THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION
To start with, let me restate a couple of points that I have written before on the official record.
Marriage is a four way covenant between
1the man
2 the woman
3 God and or the culture in which they live
4 children, who have a right to both a male and female parent.
The family can best be defined as a legal covenant between
1 the woman
2 the man
3 God and or the culture in which they live
and their children who have a right to both a male and female parent.
In other words definitions of both family and marriage basically are the same. However, over the centuries people have written laws and definitions to carefully keep the two concepts in separate columns.
That stipulated, this essay will discuss the disingenuousness of opponents of same sex marriage when they accuse those who practice and advocate same sex marriage of damaging the institution of marriage. The damage is done.
Heterosexuals seriously and irrevocably damaged marriage as an institution a long time ago, Peter’s observations illustrate some of the damage.
Peter’s observation: “Not every couple will choose or can have a child.”
My observation. The couples who cannot conceive and use adoption as a method of creating a family have for ages illustrated that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. Furthermore, for years courts have declared it is better for a child to have two male parents or two female parents instead of no parents. In 1965, as an aside – the sitcom My Three Sons created an adoption for a new boy character in which the widower father figure (portrayed by Fred MacMurray) got listed as the new legal father and the brother of his late wife’s father (portrayed by William Demerest) got listed as the new legal mother figure. The judge called this a “legal fiction.” In practice there was nothing fictitious about this.
Peter’s observation: “What same sex marriage does is tell the culture that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and disposable.”
My observation: The traditions of heterosexual divorce and remarriage only emphasize that parents and their partners are interchangeable and disposable in heterosexual marriage.
Furthermore, when a spouse dies and the other spouse remarries, it tends to emphasize the interchangeable nature of parent parts.
Peter’s accusation: “If we say that marriage is no longer about what is in the best interests of children [and is] primarily about the desires of adults to be validated, we change the public purpose of marriage.”
My observation: this point is so ludicrous that it is hard to even write about it with a straight face. As far back as we can go into history, marriage has been and is about adult validation, particularly rich and or powerful men / king figures / ruler figures acquiring the prettiest or the smartest or the wealthiest women to marry them or live with them to prove everybody’s worth as humans. For far too long, people used culture to deliberately separate the aspect of children and child raising from the aspects of power / validation / sexual fulfillment in the traditions of marriage. It is way too late in human cultural devolution for the opponents of same sex marriage to use this point as a reason not to allow same gender marriage.
THE CALL FOR ACTION
I make my call for action realizing well enough that we will have to overcome some cultural taboos biases and hypocrisies in American culture. As an example of all three, look at the introduction to Official Declaration 1 in the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which says “The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see 2 Samuel 12:7–8 and Jacob 2:27, 30).” The question implied in this statement are
how often did God really and truly declare otherwise?
and why is it that so many cultures deliberately do otherwise?
Wikipedia’s summary article on polygamy, preserved on 20 August 2013, states the facts this way:
“Polygamy exists in three specific forms:
polygyny -- wherein a man has multiple simultaneous wives;[Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, s.v. 'polygyny']
polyandry -- wherein a woman has multiple simultaneous husbands;
or group marriage - wherein the family unit consists of multiple husbands and multiple wives.
“Ambiguity arises when the broad term "polygamy" is used when a specific form of polygamy is being referred to. Additionally, different countries may or may not include all forms in their laws on polygamy.
“In the global context, polygamy is by far the dominant form of marriage. According to the Ethnographic Atlas, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had polyandry.[Ethnographic Atlas Codebook derived from George P. Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas recording the marital composition of 1231 societies from 1960 to 1980]”
Of those 186 monogamous cultures, many of them accept if not encourage powerful men to have both a wife, and male friendship and mistresses. In other words, the cultures encourage the multiple loyalties, without the legal frameworks.
THEREFORE
If we want children to have the benefits of both male and female parents, and if we want adults to have the right of validation to marry a person or persons that they want from a power and sexual desire point of view, then it is time for us to accept the concept of group marriage, particularly among those with same gender sexual attraction or bisexual gender attraction. Cultures do not want to encourage the collecting of multiple trophies spouses, which is what has given polygamy a bad reputation from the beginning. However, if we allow two same gender couples to marry each other,, then we should be willing to allow two couples to marry each other for the sake of their children for the sake of children having both male and female parent role models. It would require tolerance of double couples, of course, and that is easier written about than done. It would also require the willingness of those couples not to allow jealousy to overcome the fact that both men and women have important things to contribute in the teaching and rearing of children.
The controversy over same-gender marriage demonstrates a collision of two good things -- advanced human rights and advanced children's rights. The law will have to be creative to accommodate both
Saturday, June 29, 2013
I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU DUDE AND DUDE: six question ands answer about the implications of Same Sex Marriage for the future of marriage
Over the years, members of the heterosexual community worked at the forefront of so-called “marriage reforms.” Women treated as property with no inheritance or property rights. No fault divorce. Quick divorce. Polygamy. La Casa Grande. La Casa Bonita. Man – wife – mistress. Open marriage. Marriage as companionship first, with reproduction and the needs of children put in a position of lesser importance.
My view -- for the record -- is that many of these reforms really were corruptions.
As one state and then another legalized same gender marriage, as the Supreme Court declared the central assumptions of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, as the critics wrung their hands and bemoaned the whole state of American culture, I myself wondered what these critics thought of the “earlier” reforms and if they thought they were good or bad. After no fault divorce, the gender arrangement of marriage is not such a big step forward or backward.
In the wake of the Supreme Court rulings favoring same gender marriage, in the climate of reassessing and retrenchment, NewRightAscension presents in this Frank Adult Essay, 6 questions and answers about Same Gender Marriage and What it Will Do in the Long View of 21st and 22nd Centuries Relationships, legal or otherwise, moral or otherwise.
1 HOW MANY SAME GENDER MARRIAGES ARE POSSIBLE IN AMERICA?
This is a country based on the free market. It will do as many as the market will bear.
However, we should keep in mind the statistic / census facts of gender-preference.
Determining the population of gay Americans proves hard from both a political and census viewpoint. Anti gay activists want to assume that 5 percent or less of the population prefers sex “that way.” Gay activists want to assume that 10 percent or more of the population prefers sex “our way.” Politics again gets in the way of accuracy.
If America has 320 million people, this translates to 16 -32 million people whose. This minority is about double the size of active Mormons in America.
For a start, some of these people will not want to get married or to produce children at all. Homosexuality is not heterosexuality done by men-men or women-women.
Next, some will prefer to have relationships in a collection, not in a pair.
Next, in the heterosexual community, many people have wanted to get married but never quite found the right person to marry and thus remained single. The homosexual community has even less choices available and less options: forced singleness will happen in it as well.
In summary, the actual numbers and percentages of gay marriages will always be low compared to the overall totals of traditional man-woman marriage. 5 - 10 percent at best on any given year.
2 WHAT CAN THE HISTORY OF THE LDS INDIAN PLACEMENT PROGRAM TEACH US ABOUT SAME GENDER MARRIAGE?
From the 1947 to 1990, an Indian Placement program in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints moved native American children off reservations and into foster homes – typical Utah - Idaho - Arizona white Mormons – for public education. Some children in the program thrived and benefited from the experience; however, but many of these children found themselves in a gray existence, not exactly white and not exactly Indian. The program scarred them spiritually and emotionally.
Homosexuality is not heterosexuality done by guys. Or women, for that matter. Gay persons who find themselves unhappily married and with children could find themselves in a social box they do not fit.
3 WILL LARGE NUMBERS OF HETEROSEXUAL MEN PREFER TO MARRY A MAN – WHETHER HE IS STRAIGHT OR GAY?
Depends on the definition of “large.” This unusual question deserves an answer, given widespread practice in the last fifteen years of bromance [ brother romance / boy romance / bros ] among heterosexual and bisexual men. People in general get married at older ages. College education can take upwards of 4-7 years. This mean among young guys, living with other men or another man for several years happens more and more often for longer periods of time.
Many regular guys spend much time with their bromantic guy friends in close proximity. Could be some of them wake up in the same bed with him after an intense guys night’s activity, and looking up close at his friend asleep wishes this could last forever. Anything is possible in the twenty-first century, given the affinity many have with open relationships and disposable marriages.
Given the intense nature of heterosexual desire, and given the wide availability of willing available women – this scenario probably will not likely happen on a wide scale. Still, who knows? It used to be that two guys who loved each other might consummate their relationship in a business partnership. Nowadays, it could be consummated in a closed or open marriage, especially if neither man has much interest in fathering or raising children.
4 WILL SAME GENDER MARRIAGE PRODUCE MORE PEOPLE WHO PREFER SAME GENDER INTIMACY?
Among couples who will adopt -- no.
Among the male couples who use their own sperm for artificial insemination in a surrogate biologic mother arrangement, the answer might be maybe – providing genetics in fact do carry same-gender preferences.
The whole business of gender preference gets unfortunately complicated if we look into it too deeply. Homosexual men have reproduced for time immemorial – and have produce heterosexual and homosexual children. Heterosexual a couple produce homosexual and heterosexual children. Homosexual couples have produced heterosexual children. At this point, the answer to this question requires further study.
5 WHAT DOES SAME GENDER MARRIAGE MEAN FOR BISEXUAL PEOPLE?
Now that the Supreme Court has broken the gender taboo in marriage, the numbers taboo in marriage will become the next taboo for social inspection. I suspect some men will lobby to have legal marriages with both a man and a woman simultaneously.
6 WHAT DOES LEGAL SAME-GENDER MARRIAGE MEAN FOR POLYGAMISTS?
The next marriage battleground will be legal numbers in marriage. To those who talk about the Bible defining traditional marriage as a man and a woman, remember this — a number of the Book’s most important figures had several wives. So traditional Biblical marriage is also a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a . . .
My view -- for the record -- is that many of these reforms really were corruptions.
As one state and then another legalized same gender marriage, as the Supreme Court declared the central assumptions of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, as the critics wrung their hands and bemoaned the whole state of American culture, I myself wondered what these critics thought of the “earlier” reforms and if they thought they were good or bad. After no fault divorce, the gender arrangement of marriage is not such a big step forward or backward.
In the wake of the Supreme Court rulings favoring same gender marriage, in the climate of reassessing and retrenchment, NewRightAscension presents in this Frank Adult Essay, 6 questions and answers about Same Gender Marriage and What it Will Do in the Long View of 21st and 22nd Centuries Relationships, legal or otherwise, moral or otherwise.
1 HOW MANY SAME GENDER MARRIAGES ARE POSSIBLE IN AMERICA?
This is a country based on the free market. It will do as many as the market will bear.
However, we should keep in mind the statistic / census facts of gender-preference.
Determining the population of gay Americans proves hard from both a political and census viewpoint. Anti gay activists want to assume that 5 percent or less of the population prefers sex “that way.” Gay activists want to assume that 10 percent or more of the population prefers sex “our way.” Politics again gets in the way of accuracy.
If America has 320 million people, this translates to 16 -32 million people whose. This minority is about double the size of active Mormons in America.
For a start, some of these people will not want to get married or to produce children at all. Homosexuality is not heterosexuality done by men-men or women-women.
Next, some will prefer to have relationships in a collection, not in a pair.
Next, in the heterosexual community, many people have wanted to get married but never quite found the right person to marry and thus remained single. The homosexual community has even less choices available and less options: forced singleness will happen in it as well.
In summary, the actual numbers and percentages of gay marriages will always be low compared to the overall totals of traditional man-woman marriage. 5 - 10 percent at best on any given year.
2 WHAT CAN THE HISTORY OF THE LDS INDIAN PLACEMENT PROGRAM TEACH US ABOUT SAME GENDER MARRIAGE?
From the 1947 to 1990, an Indian Placement program in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints moved native American children off reservations and into foster homes – typical Utah - Idaho - Arizona white Mormons – for public education. Some children in the program thrived and benefited from the experience; however, but many of these children found themselves in a gray existence, not exactly white and not exactly Indian. The program scarred them spiritually and emotionally.
Homosexuality is not heterosexuality done by guys. Or women, for that matter. Gay persons who find themselves unhappily married and with children could find themselves in a social box they do not fit.
3 WILL LARGE NUMBERS OF HETEROSEXUAL MEN PREFER TO MARRY A MAN – WHETHER HE IS STRAIGHT OR GAY?
Depends on the definition of “large.” This unusual question deserves an answer, given widespread practice in the last fifteen years of bromance [ brother romance / boy romance / bros ] among heterosexual and bisexual men. People in general get married at older ages. College education can take upwards of 4-7 years. This mean among young guys, living with other men or another man for several years happens more and more often for longer periods of time.
Many regular guys spend much time with their bromantic guy friends in close proximity. Could be some of them wake up in the same bed with him after an intense guys night’s activity, and looking up close at his friend asleep wishes this could last forever. Anything is possible in the twenty-first century, given the affinity many have with open relationships and disposable marriages.
Given the intense nature of heterosexual desire, and given the wide availability of willing available women – this scenario probably will not likely happen on a wide scale. Still, who knows? It used to be that two guys who loved each other might consummate their relationship in a business partnership. Nowadays, it could be consummated in a closed or open marriage, especially if neither man has much interest in fathering or raising children.
4 WILL SAME GENDER MARRIAGE PRODUCE MORE PEOPLE WHO PREFER SAME GENDER INTIMACY?
Among couples who will adopt -- no.
Among the male couples who use their own sperm for artificial insemination in a surrogate biologic mother arrangement, the answer might be maybe – providing genetics in fact do carry same-gender preferences.
The whole business of gender preference gets unfortunately complicated if we look into it too deeply. Homosexual men have reproduced for time immemorial – and have produce heterosexual and homosexual children. Heterosexual a couple produce homosexual and heterosexual children. Homosexual couples have produced heterosexual children. At this point, the answer to this question requires further study.
5 WHAT DOES SAME GENDER MARRIAGE MEAN FOR BISEXUAL PEOPLE?
Now that the Supreme Court has broken the gender taboo in marriage, the numbers taboo in marriage will become the next taboo for social inspection. I suspect some men will lobby to have legal marriages with both a man and a woman simultaneously.
6 WHAT DOES LEGAL SAME-GENDER MARRIAGE MEAN FOR POLYGAMISTS?
The next marriage battleground will be legal numbers in marriage. To those who talk about the Bible defining traditional marriage as a man and a woman, remember this — a number of the Book’s most important figures had several wives. So traditional Biblical marriage is also a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a . . .
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
I Hoped They Didn't Call Me on a Mission
The Austrian historian Robert Musil had a theory that the most important events of history are ones that might have happened but never quite did. The central event of my life was I hoped they did not call me on a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On this the 35th anniversary of my not coming home from my mission, I finally record why I did not serve the Lord for two years.
RECENT EVENTS THAT BRING MY PAST TO MIND
My neighbors will return in about a month from their three year mission leading a mission headquartered in a major city in the southeast United States. Meanwhile,, the first under -21 years of age female missionary from my local Ward has been called to serve in one of the English-speaking missions in Virginia USA
Rumors abound that half if not most of the missionaries in the Missionary Training Center this year will be sisters – and this brings up all sorts of leadership fairness issues. I am on the record that missions will have to call both male and female district and zone leaders.
I saw a couple of missionary elders working the crowd at Orem Summerfest on Friday, and one appeared all of 17. Ironic to call him an elder when he seems so kid-like. I bet he shaves with a washcloth.
Youth has its appeal and its problems. I am not yet entirely won over to the idea of 18-year-old-guy-missionaries. I understand the practical necessities of it: our culture makes 18 the transition age, American and European Kulchural realities, organizations recruit our guys without shame. I will state for the record that we should not allow militaries to conscript youngsters or enroll teenagers, either. 20 should be the minimum age all around.
TRUE CONFESSIONS
I admire my neighbors’s willingness to serve in this tough sort of assignment. If the Church had to depend on me for its missionary work, it would be in the proverbial World of Hurt.
When I was 19, anxiety and situational depression issues would have made my mission a terrible mistake. The1970s Missionary Department dealt indecisively with mental health issues. [Some stake members had memorable disasters in the 1970s, including a mysterious death by drowning. But that is another story. ] I had asthma and allergies as well, but so far as I remember, no one in authority told me the department would assign me somewhere with advanced medical resources. Maybe it did not at that time – I cannot recall.
I was not really sold on Mormon Kulchur in the early 1970s, either. I would not defend the Priesthood Racial Policy. I did not know any black people then and did not know if I liked them, but even I could see the ban posed problems from the view of fairness and from missionary public relations angle.
Furthermore, I was the star of the family and did not relish the prospect of serving two years as another cog in a mission’s elder inventory. As an only child, as a guy uninterested in sport, as a kid bullied in school, I disliked typical guys and did not intend to live with any of them if I could help it. I could.
Mine was a family of underpaid working stiffs. A 1970s mission was either expensive or really expensive. We had to keep cost-benefit-ratio analysis in mind. Despite the two year investment of time and the expense, a mission has/had no guarantees of success. I view missionary work the way my mother viewed fishing. She wanted something on the hook every 5 minutes to keep her attention. So, she gave up on fishing. If I were a missionary, I would want to baptize every two weeks, for baptizing is the point of a mission and measures “success.” I did not want long hard work with lengthy dry spells and the possibility of rejection on a regular basis.
I should have been more openly honest about my reasons. On the other hand, the truth is never applauded for its own sake. [I stole that from Oscar Wilde. Don’t tell anyone.] So, I threw the sand of worthiness issues into the eyes of my bishop and state president. Worthiness issues in the LDS Church sometimes mean something else.
SPECULATING ON THE PAST THAT LEAD TO THE FUTURE
I often wonder what the 21st century LDS Church would have looked like if –
1 it had not spent so much time and energy promoting and then rationalizing, denying, rejecting, and suppressing polygamy
2 most of the people baptized in the 19th and 20th Centuries had remained active members
3 most of them had paid at least 5 percent tithing if not ten.
4 it had not followed a deliberate course it make itself unattractive to potential converts and user unfriendly.
It would certainly be different.
AN ASIDE
I have a theory – and like most of my theories, it comes at you in spades. Because The Church requires a lot of unpaid service, and because it does not pay its professional staff at competitive rates, I suspect some 19th and 20th Century church members resented it subconsciously and undercut it with cultural traditions and attitudes and with administrative edicts. The mission system reflects, I suspect, some of that. For one thing, it would be better if people who turned the mission into a rite of passage had not hijacked it. I simply refused to be a part of a rite of passage since I believed then I did not have to prove anything to anybody.
The two-year mission made sense in the days when the Church had few missionaries and a very large world to cover. Nowadays, more people doing more work for a year would do more than a few people working for two.
Today, I cannot imagine why any young man would join this Church. It is expensive; it is time consuming in its volunteer laity leadership demands; it provides for his daughter no possibilities at all for leadership or professional advancement on a ward-wide, stake-wide or church-wide basis.
IN CONCLUSION
In the early 1990s the Church developed the concept of the Service Mission. I have done some service missions already in my lifetime and hope to do some more in the future. Because I am single, I won’t get called to a long term full time missionary arrangement, and that is OK because I still don’t entirely buy into all of Mormon Kulchur in the 21st Century.
THE CALL TO ACTION
I hope the 21st Century LDS Church proclaims the gospel by local members on their ward, stake and district levels.
RECENT EVENTS THAT BRING MY PAST TO MIND
My neighbors will return in about a month from their three year mission leading a mission headquartered in a major city in the southeast United States. Meanwhile,, the first under -21 years of age female missionary from my local Ward has been called to serve in one of the English-speaking missions in Virginia USA
Rumors abound that half if not most of the missionaries in the Missionary Training Center this year will be sisters – and this brings up all sorts of leadership fairness issues. I am on the record that missions will have to call both male and female district and zone leaders.
I saw a couple of missionary elders working the crowd at Orem Summerfest on Friday, and one appeared all of 17. Ironic to call him an elder when he seems so kid-like. I bet he shaves with a washcloth.
Youth has its appeal and its problems. I am not yet entirely won over to the idea of 18-year-old-guy-missionaries. I understand the practical necessities of it: our culture makes 18 the transition age, American and European Kulchural realities, organizations recruit our guys without shame. I will state for the record that we should not allow militaries to conscript youngsters or enroll teenagers, either. 20 should be the minimum age all around.
TRUE CONFESSIONS
I admire my neighbors’s willingness to serve in this tough sort of assignment. If the Church had to depend on me for its missionary work, it would be in the proverbial World of Hurt.
When I was 19, anxiety and situational depression issues would have made my mission a terrible mistake. The1970s Missionary Department dealt indecisively with mental health issues. [Some stake members had memorable disasters in the 1970s, including a mysterious death by drowning. But that is another story. ] I had asthma and allergies as well, but so far as I remember, no one in authority told me the department would assign me somewhere with advanced medical resources. Maybe it did not at that time – I cannot recall.
I was not really sold on Mormon Kulchur in the early 1970s, either. I would not defend the Priesthood Racial Policy. I did not know any black people then and did not know if I liked them, but even I could see the ban posed problems from the view of fairness and from missionary public relations angle.
Furthermore, I was the star of the family and did not relish the prospect of serving two years as another cog in a mission’s elder inventory. As an only child, as a guy uninterested in sport, as a kid bullied in school, I disliked typical guys and did not intend to live with any of them if I could help it. I could.
Mine was a family of underpaid working stiffs. A 1970s mission was either expensive or really expensive. We had to keep cost-benefit-ratio analysis in mind. Despite the two year investment of time and the expense, a mission has/had no guarantees of success. I view missionary work the way my mother viewed fishing. She wanted something on the hook every 5 minutes to keep her attention. So, she gave up on fishing. If I were a missionary, I would want to baptize every two weeks, for baptizing is the point of a mission and measures “success.” I did not want long hard work with lengthy dry spells and the possibility of rejection on a regular basis.
I should have been more openly honest about my reasons. On the other hand, the truth is never applauded for its own sake. [I stole that from Oscar Wilde. Don’t tell anyone.] So, I threw the sand of worthiness issues into the eyes of my bishop and state president. Worthiness issues in the LDS Church sometimes mean something else.
SPECULATING ON THE PAST THAT LEAD TO THE FUTURE
I often wonder what the 21st century LDS Church would have looked like if –
1 it had not spent so much time and energy promoting and then rationalizing, denying, rejecting, and suppressing polygamy
2 most of the people baptized in the 19th and 20th Centuries had remained active members
3 most of them had paid at least 5 percent tithing if not ten.
4 it had not followed a deliberate course it make itself unattractive to potential converts and user unfriendly.
It would certainly be different.
AN ASIDE
I have a theory – and like most of my theories, it comes at you in spades. Because The Church requires a lot of unpaid service, and because it does not pay its professional staff at competitive rates, I suspect some 19th and 20th Century church members resented it subconsciously and undercut it with cultural traditions and attitudes and with administrative edicts. The mission system reflects, I suspect, some of that. For one thing, it would be better if people who turned the mission into a rite of passage had not hijacked it. I simply refused to be a part of a rite of passage since I believed then I did not have to prove anything to anybody.
The two-year mission made sense in the days when the Church had few missionaries and a very large world to cover. Nowadays, more people doing more work for a year would do more than a few people working for two.
Today, I cannot imagine why any young man would join this Church. It is expensive; it is time consuming in its volunteer laity leadership demands; it provides for his daughter no possibilities at all for leadership or professional advancement on a ward-wide, stake-wide or church-wide basis.
IN CONCLUSION
In the early 1990s the Church developed the concept of the Service Mission. I have done some service missions already in my lifetime and hope to do some more in the future. Because I am single, I won’t get called to a long term full time missionary arrangement, and that is OK because I still don’t entirely buy into all of Mormon Kulchur in the 21st Century.
THE CALL TO ACTION
I hope the 21st Century LDS Church proclaims the gospel by local members on their ward, stake and district levels.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
THE PRIESTHOOD REVELATION: 35th anniversary commentary
For people of my generation, the announcement made on live TV and radio by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints public communications department spokesman on 9 June 1978 is called simply The Revelation. The Church’s ban on ordaining men of black African racial genetic heritage started becoming a public image problem of the first magnitude with the rise of racial desegregation and the American Civil Rights Movement. The end of it came like the proverbial bolt out of the blue and was a welcome bolt at that.
The spokesman made the announcement at 11:00 a.m. On that Friday afternoon, which was my birthday, I was on the Brigham Young University Campus for work at the BYU Writing Lab, then located on the main floor of the library. It was the only time I ever saw a news story traveling through crowds of people. Those who had not heard the report could tell at a glance that something big had happened just watching the ripple effect through the crowd of college students. When someone told me in the writing lab about the announcement, I frankly wanted to believe it, but I would not let myself believe it without a second confirmation. I got that from my father over the phone a few minutes later.
In the 2013 LDS Scripture edition, The Revelation is prefaced in this way. I add my commentary.
The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few [2?] [free black members] black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. [Comment: history seems clear enough. In 1852, President Brigham Young stopped conferring priesthood on any and all black males of African descent.] [the next line is a bombshell in the history of LDS Church scripture honesty --] Church leaders believed [my emphasis] that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. [making the verbs compound tends to suggest that the leaders were interested and prayed for a long time, when that was not necessarily the timing case.] [this is not the same thing as saying that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice.] The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.
This rewrite makes the situation more clear. I admit it also has a selective sense of history, what with its being short.
The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33).
The Old Testament has slave imagery and references throughout.
Throughout Church history, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church.
During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, 2 free black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. In 1852, President Brigham Young stopped conferring priesthood on any and all black males of African descent, regardless of legal status.
Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice. They prayerfully sought guidance, particularly in the mid -twentieth century. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood. A general conference sustained it in September 1978.
COMMENTARY
Bible translations show how word choice, grammar and sentence structure can make meanings ambiguously unclear.
Translators of the Old Testament used euphemisms like "The Groves" and "the Poles" to mask from readers references to alters of a female heathen deity that certain modern Biblical scholars now suspect scriptures once presented as God's wife.
The King James Bible translators used the word "murmur" when the ancient word used really was closer to the modern Yiddish "Kevetch" which implies loud complaining. Griping.
Thus, in the 2013 scripture edition, God yet again get the blame for the black priesthood ban. However, the implications of the wording “Church leaders believed” remains very interesting to contemplate. . . .
One of the lesser known facts surrounding the priesthood ban situation is this: the ban never actually worked. Leaders, going way back in church history, ordained men of mixed black genetics without knowing it. Had Brigham Young worded the ban along the lines of “no man with a black parent or grandparent back 4 generations can be ordained to the priesthood,” the ban would have worked better. It would have also been more clear than the prohibition worded “one drop of Negro blood.” That definition turned out to be "not measurable" and eventually bogged the ban down under its own ambiguity.
Research done for Michael Quinn’s Elder Statesman: the expanded biography of J Rueben Clark seems to suggest that the church leadership reviewed the ban in 1939, 1947, and 1955 with an eye to abandoning it – but the Church leadership never quite did. Its research also found the First Presidency made some informed exceptions in temple and priesthood regulations for people with a black ancestor way back amid a family history of whites.
Had the church lifted the ban in 1939, by the time the Civil Rights Movement got its first starts in 1948 the LDS Church could have helped lead the movement with the Southern Baptist Leadership Conference. History, though, is always a mess despite the best intents of humans to stage manage it. On this 35th anniversary of opening the LDS priesthood to all worthy males, the Church still has some public relations mopping up still to do.
The spokesman made the announcement at 11:00 a.m. On that Friday afternoon, which was my birthday, I was on the Brigham Young University Campus for work at the BYU Writing Lab, then located on the main floor of the library. It was the only time I ever saw a news story traveling through crowds of people. Those who had not heard the report could tell at a glance that something big had happened just watching the ripple effect through the crowd of college students. When someone told me in the writing lab about the announcement, I frankly wanted to believe it, but I would not let myself believe it without a second confirmation. I got that from my father over the phone a few minutes later.
In the 2013 LDS Scripture edition, The Revelation is prefaced in this way. I add my commentary.
The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few [2?] [free black members] black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. [Comment: history seems clear enough. In 1852, President Brigham Young stopped conferring priesthood on any and all black males of African descent.] [the next line is a bombshell in the history of LDS Church scripture honesty --] Church leaders believed [my emphasis] that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. [making the verbs compound tends to suggest that the leaders were interested and prayed for a long time, when that was not necessarily the timing case.] [this is not the same thing as saying that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice.] The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.
This rewrite makes the situation more clear. I admit it also has a selective sense of history, what with its being short.
The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33).
The Old Testament has slave imagery and references throughout.
Throughout Church history, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church.
During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, 2 free black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. In 1852, President Brigham Young stopped conferring priesthood on any and all black males of African descent, regardless of legal status.
Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice. They prayerfully sought guidance, particularly in the mid -twentieth century. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood. A general conference sustained it in September 1978.
COMMENTARY
Bible translations show how word choice, grammar and sentence structure can make meanings ambiguously unclear.
Translators of the Old Testament used euphemisms like "The Groves" and "the Poles" to mask from readers references to alters of a female heathen deity that certain modern Biblical scholars now suspect scriptures once presented as God's wife.
The King James Bible translators used the word "murmur" when the ancient word used really was closer to the modern Yiddish "Kevetch" which implies loud complaining. Griping.
Thus, in the 2013 scripture edition, God yet again get the blame for the black priesthood ban. However, the implications of the wording “Church leaders believed” remains very interesting to contemplate. . . .
One of the lesser known facts surrounding the priesthood ban situation is this: the ban never actually worked. Leaders, going way back in church history, ordained men of mixed black genetics without knowing it. Had Brigham Young worded the ban along the lines of “no man with a black parent or grandparent back 4 generations can be ordained to the priesthood,” the ban would have worked better. It would have also been more clear than the prohibition worded “one drop of Negro blood.” That definition turned out to be "not measurable" and eventually bogged the ban down under its own ambiguity.
Research done for Michael Quinn’s Elder Statesman: the expanded biography of J Rueben Clark seems to suggest that the church leadership reviewed the ban in 1939, 1947, and 1955 with an eye to abandoning it – but the Church leadership never quite did. Its research also found the First Presidency made some informed exceptions in temple and priesthood regulations for people with a black ancestor way back amid a family history of whites.
Had the church lifted the ban in 1939, by the time the Civil Rights Movement got its first starts in 1948 the LDS Church could have helped lead the movement with the Southern Baptist Leadership Conference. History, though, is always a mess despite the best intents of humans to stage manage it. On this 35th anniversary of opening the LDS priesthood to all worthy males, the Church still has some public relations mopping up still to do.
THE PRIESTHOOD REVELATION: 35th anniversary commentary
For people of my generation, the announcement made on live TV and radio by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints public communications department spokesman on 9 June 1978 is called simply The Revelation. The Church’s ban on ordaining men of black African racial genetic heritage started becoming a public image problem of the first magnitude with the rise of racial desegregation and the American Civil Rights Movement. The end of it came like the proverbial bolt out of the blue and was a welcome bolt at that.
The spokesman made the announcement at 11:00 a.m. On that Friday afternoon, which was my birthday, I was on the Brigham Young University Campus for work at the BYU Writing Lab, then located on the main floor of the library. It was the only time I ever saw a news story traveling through crowds of people. Those who had not heard the report could tell at a glance that something big had happened just watching the ripple effect through the crowd of college students. When someone told me in the writing lab about the announcement, I frankly wanted to believe it, but I would not let myself believe it without a second confirmation. I got that from my father over the phone a few minutes later.
In the 2013 LDS Scripture edition, The Revelation is prefaced in this way. I add my commentary.
The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few [2?] [free black members] black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. [Comment: history seems clear enough. In 1852, President Brigham Young stopped conferring priesthood on any and all black males of African descent.] [the next line is a bombshell in the history of LDS Church scripture honesty --] Church leaders believed [my emphasis] that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. [making the verbs compound tends to suggest that the leaders were interested and prayed for a long time, when that was not necessarily the timing case.] [this is not the same thing as saying that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice.] The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.
This rewrite makes the situation more clear. I admit it also has a selective sense of history, what with its being short.
The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33).
The Old Testament has slave imagery and references throughout.
Throughout Church history, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church.
During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, 2 free black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. In 1852, President Brigham Young stopped conferring priesthood on any and all black males of African descent, regardless of legal status.
Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice. They prayerfully sought guidance, particularly in the mid -twentieth century. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood. A general conference sustained it in September 1978.
COMMENTARY
Bible translations show how word choice, grammar and sentence structure can make meanings ambiguously unclear.
Translators of the Old Testament used euphemisms like "The Groves" and "the Poles" to mask from readers references to alters of a female heathen deity that certain modern Biblical scholars now suspect scriptures once presented as God's wife.
The King James Bible translators used the word "murmur" when the ancient word used really was closer to the modern Yiddish "Kevetch" which implies loud complaining. Griping.
Thus, in the 2013 scripture edition, God yet again get the blame for the black priesthood ban. However, the implications of the wording “Church leaders believed” remains very interesting to contemplate. . . .
One of the lesser known facts surrounding the priesthood ban situation is this: the ban never actually worked. Leaders, going way back in church history, ordained men of mixed black genetics without knowing it. Had Brigham Young worded the ban along the lines of “no man with a black parent or grandparent back 4 generations can be ordained to the priesthood,” the ban would have worked better. It would have also been more clear than the prohibition worded “one drop of Negro blood.” That definition turned out to be "not measurable" and eventually bogged the ban down under its own ambiguity.
Research done for Michael Quinn’s Elder Statesman: the expanded biography of J Rueben Clark seems to suggest that the church leadership reviewed the ban in 1939, 1947, and 1955 with an eye to abandoning it – but the Church leadership never quite did. Its research also found the First Presidency made some informed exceptions in temple and priesthood regulations for people with a black ancestor way back amid a family history of whites.
Had the church lifted the ban in 1939, by the time the Civil Rights Movement got its first starts in 1948 the LDS Church could have helped lead the movement with the Southern Baptist Leadership Conference. History, though, is always a mess despite the best intents of humans to stage manage it. On this 35th anniversary of opening the LDS priesthood to all worthy males, the Church still has some public relations mopping up still to do.
The spokesman made the announcement at 11:00 a.m. On that Friday afternoon, which was my birthday, I was on the Brigham Young University Campus for work at the BYU Writing Lab, then located on the main floor of the library. It was the only time I ever saw a news story traveling through crowds of people. Those who had not heard the report could tell at a glance that something big had happened just watching the ripple effect through the crowd of college students. When someone told me in the writing lab about the announcement, I frankly wanted to believe it, but I would not let myself believe it without a second confirmation. I got that from my father over the phone a few minutes later.
In the 2013 LDS Scripture edition, The Revelation is prefaced in this way. I add my commentary.
The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few [2?] [free black members] black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. [Comment: history seems clear enough. In 1852, President Brigham Young stopped conferring priesthood on any and all black males of African descent.] [the next line is a bombshell in the history of LDS Church scripture honesty --] Church leaders believed [my emphasis] that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. [making the verbs compound tends to suggest that the leaders were interested and prayed for a long time, when that was not necessarily the timing case.] [this is not the same thing as saying that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice.] The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.
This rewrite makes the situation more clear. I admit it also has a selective sense of history, what with its being short.
The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33).
The Old Testament has slave imagery and references throughout.
Throughout Church history, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church.
During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, 2 free black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. In 1852, President Brigham Young stopped conferring priesthood on any and all black males of African descent, regardless of legal status.
Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice. They prayerfully sought guidance, particularly in the mid -twentieth century. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood. A general conference sustained it in September 1978.
COMMENTARY
Bible translations show how word choice, grammar and sentence structure can make meanings ambiguously unclear.
Translators of the Old Testament used euphemisms like "The Groves" and "the Poles" to mask from readers references to alters of a female heathen deity that certain modern Biblical scholars now suspect scriptures once presented as God's wife.
The King James Bible translators used the word "murmur" when the ancient word used really was closer to the modern Yiddish "Kevetch" which implies loud complaining. Griping.
Thus, in the 2013 scripture edition, God yet again get the blame for the black priesthood ban. However, the implications of the wording “Church leaders believed” remains very interesting to contemplate. . . .
One of the lesser known facts surrounding the priesthood ban situation is this: the ban never actually worked. Leaders, going way back in church history, ordained men of mixed black genetics without knowing it. Had Brigham Young worded the ban along the lines of “no man with a black parent or grandparent back 4 generations can be ordained to the priesthood,” the ban would have worked better. It would have also been more clear than the prohibition worded “one drop of Negro blood.” That definition turned out to be "not measurable" and eventually bogged the ban down under its own ambiguity.
Research done for Michael Quinn’s Elder Statesman: the expanded biography of J Rueben Clark seems to suggest that the church leadership reviewed the ban in 1939, 1947, and 1955 with an eye to abandoning it – but the Church leadership never quite did. Its research also found the First Presidency made some informed exceptions in temple and priesthood regulations for people with a black ancestor way back amid a family history of whites.
Had the church lifted the ban in 1939, by the time the Civil Rights Movement got its first starts in 1948 the LDS Church could have helped lead the movement with the Southern Baptist Leadership Conference. History, though, is always a mess despite the best intents of humans to stage manage it. On this 35th anniversary of opening the LDS priesthood to all worthy males, the Church still has some public relations mopping up still to do.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
REMEMBERING FRANCES MONSON and contemplating the lives of prophets's wives
Frances Monson died this week.
She was for 65 years the wife of Thomas Monson, who has served as an apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since 1963, a member of The First Presidency since 1985 and President of the Church since 2008.
She married Tom back in 1948. She married him when they were both quite young, and I suspect that she expected he would probably have a long editing and publishing career at Deseret Book and serve in some church leadership callings. Instead, he rose high quickly. Tom served as a bishop to a large ward full of old people when he was in his mid 20s. At the age of 32, he served as a Canadian mission president during a period of time when the First Presidency, influenced by President Henry D Moyle, like to call young, $ucce$$ful men to lead missionaries. When Tom was 36, President McKay ordained him the youngest apostle of that generation.
The practical result of this was – He traveled away from home for weeks at a time. She got to raise her three children as a solo act for long stretches of time. She got to attend all sorts of meetings and talk at them whether she really wanted to or not.
I heard Camilla Kimball speak at BYU in 1982. I heard Frances Monson speak at a regional conference in the early 2000s — I think it was her. I remember elements of Camilla’s talk very clearly. I do not remember the other talk at all.
When Mrs. J Reuben Clark was asked once about her life as J Reuben’s wife, she reply simply and with a certain resignation, “Fate decreed otherwise.” A Mormon girl simply cannot specifically plan or prepare for the sort of existence that engulfs the wife of an apostle or church president. It’s not a tough life in the sense of repairing desert railroads or working in a coal mine or hunting in the Arctic. It is a tough life, though; it takes its toll on health and energy.
The press releases would not say what Frances died of except the euphemistic “causes incident related to age.” I know I would die from exhausted by that sort of siege mentality lifestyle, especially when one cannot really retire from it.
Frances Monson is only the latest church president’s wife who died before her husband. Since 1945 most church president’s wives have died before their husbands. The mortality-timing issue in regards to the Church President’s wife features is startlingly noticeable — even before some presidents’s ordinations.
Frances Monson 2013
President Monson outlived her
Marjorie Hinckley 2004
President Hinckley outlived her
Clara Hunter 1983
President Hunter outlived her. Second wife Enis Egan outlived him by 12 years
Flora Benson 1992
President Benson outlived her
Camilla Kimball
Outlived President Kimball by 2 years
Fern Lee 1962
President Lee outlived her. Second wife Joan outlived him by 11 years
Jessie Evans Smith 1971
President Smith outlived her and she was years younger than he. He outlived all three of his wives
Emma Ray McKay 1970
Outlived President McKay, though she also died in 1970
Lucy Smith 1937
President Smith outlived her and served as president as a widower
In my lifetime
Members of the First Presidency J Reuben Clark, Hugh B Brown, and Marion G Romney all outlived their wives.
Apostles L Tom Perry, Russell M Nelson, Dallin Oaks, and Richard G Scott all outlived their first wives.
As for the LDS Church Presidents who practiced plural marriage:
Two of President Grant’s three plural wives died before him. His third wife Augusta outlived him by 6 years.
Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F Smith all experienced divorce and or death of plural spouses. This tends to illustrate the fact that polygamy as an institution increases a man’s measure of grief.
Considering President Monson
Frances’s death raises the issue as to whether President Monson will now occupy the penthouse reserved for the President of the Church – a penthouse where Presidents Benson (1994), Hunter (1995), and Hinckley (2008) all died. No president of the LDS Church has remarried while in office. One president served his entire administration as a widower with a widower counselor.
He and Frances were married for 65 years and they knew each other longer than that. This is no passing fancy or minor loss. Not many relationships of that vintage are still around in Ameica's throw away / burn-out young culture. The president’s bereavement and grief will be a leadership issue that the institutional church must endure.
She was for 65 years the wife of Thomas Monson, who has served as an apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since 1963, a member of The First Presidency since 1985 and President of the Church since 2008.
She married Tom back in 1948. She married him when they were both quite young, and I suspect that she expected he would probably have a long editing and publishing career at Deseret Book and serve in some church leadership callings. Instead, he rose high quickly. Tom served as a bishop to a large ward full of old people when he was in his mid 20s. At the age of 32, he served as a Canadian mission president during a period of time when the First Presidency, influenced by President Henry D Moyle, like to call young, $ucce$$ful men to lead missionaries. When Tom was 36, President McKay ordained him the youngest apostle of that generation.
The practical result of this was – He traveled away from home for weeks at a time. She got to raise her three children as a solo act for long stretches of time. She got to attend all sorts of meetings and talk at them whether she really wanted to or not.
I heard Camilla Kimball speak at BYU in 1982. I heard Frances Monson speak at a regional conference in the early 2000s — I think it was her. I remember elements of Camilla’s talk very clearly. I do not remember the other talk at all.
When Mrs. J Reuben Clark was asked once about her life as J Reuben’s wife, she reply simply and with a certain resignation, “Fate decreed otherwise.” A Mormon girl simply cannot specifically plan or prepare for the sort of existence that engulfs the wife of an apostle or church president. It’s not a tough life in the sense of repairing desert railroads or working in a coal mine or hunting in the Arctic. It is a tough life, though; it takes its toll on health and energy.
The press releases would not say what Frances died of except the euphemistic “causes incident related to age.” I know I would die from exhausted by that sort of siege mentality lifestyle, especially when one cannot really retire from it.
Frances Monson is only the latest church president’s wife who died before her husband. Since 1945 most church president’s wives have died before their husbands. The mortality-timing issue in regards to the Church President’s wife features is startlingly noticeable — even before some presidents’s ordinations.
Frances Monson 2013
President Monson outlived her
Marjorie Hinckley 2004
President Hinckley outlived her
Clara Hunter 1983
President Hunter outlived her. Second wife Enis Egan outlived him by 12 years
Flora Benson 1992
President Benson outlived her
Camilla Kimball
Outlived President Kimball by 2 years
Fern Lee 1962
President Lee outlived her. Second wife Joan outlived him by 11 years
Jessie Evans Smith 1971
President Smith outlived her and she was years younger than he. He outlived all three of his wives
Emma Ray McKay 1970
Outlived President McKay, though she also died in 1970
Lucy Smith 1937
President Smith outlived her and served as president as a widower
In my lifetime
Members of the First Presidency J Reuben Clark, Hugh B Brown, and Marion G Romney all outlived their wives.
Apostles L Tom Perry, Russell M Nelson, Dallin Oaks, and Richard G Scott all outlived their first wives.
As for the LDS Church Presidents who practiced plural marriage:
Two of President Grant’s three plural wives died before him. His third wife Augusta outlived him by 6 years.
Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F Smith all experienced divorce and or death of plural spouses. This tends to illustrate the fact that polygamy as an institution increases a man’s measure of grief.
Considering President Monson
Frances’s death raises the issue as to whether President Monson will now occupy the penthouse reserved for the President of the Church – a penthouse where Presidents Benson (1994), Hunter (1995), and Hinckley (2008) all died. No president of the LDS Church has remarried while in office. One president served his entire administration as a widower with a widower counselor.
He and Frances were married for 65 years and they knew each other longer than that. This is no passing fancy or minor loss. Not many relationships of that vintage are still around in Ameica's throw away / burn-out young culture. The president’s bereavement and grief will be a leadership issue that the institutional church must endure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
