Marital Fidelity in Politicians

Do our political leaders need to me honorable men who avoid sinful behavior? My heart tells me they do. I want to have people in office who can hear the whisperings of the Spirit and can lead the people to do right. Book of Mormon talks about how quickly people fail when their leaders fail.

On the other hand, we have stories of evil kings being used for God's purposes in the Bible. 

Victor Davis Hanson wrote the following which was a useful encapsulation of the problem for me. 

I wish I could believe (because I want to believe) that fidelity is essential in a leader, but unfortunately history tells me that Charles Lindbergh was a better pilot and inspiration than his more moral rivals, that the wayward George S. Patton saved thousands of lives by his brilliance in a way the more admirable but limited Omar Bradley did not, that the randy Bill Clinton was a better president than the devout Jimmy Carter, and that recklessly promiscuous JFK was no worse and probably more effective than loyal Richard Nixon. But marriage has so many variables (the devout husband can be mentally cruel and indifferent, the noble wife can be a shrew, the publicly supportive spouse can privately forgo sex, the faithful husband can be lazy and a leach), and leadership so many contours (natural brilliance, rhetorical flair, stamina, courage), that fidelity in marriage simply cannot quite trump them all. Was the wonderfully devoted Harry Truman a better president than Dwight D. Eisenhower (who once or twice probably strayed with his chaufferess), and if so, was it because he never looked at other women other than Bess?

Finding politicians

Keryn and I have been talking recently about finding politicians to run for office.  There is a joke that you probably don't want anybody to serve in office who would be interested in running.

I know that there are lots of cabinet secretaries and other high ranking government officials who serve out of a sense of civic duty when they are asked.  But that's different than someone running for office.  Who asks them?  Should we find good people and beg them to run?

I was reading in the Book of Mormon today and noticed this interesting verse about a father who refused to compel his son to serve as king.

Now I say unto you let us be wise and consider these things, for we have no right to destroy my son, neither should we have any right to destroy another if he should be appointed in his stead. (Mosiah 29:8)

This father offered his sons the opportunity to be king.  When none of them wanted the job, he changed the entire system of governments to avoid the risk of future war.

I'm not sure exactly what this verse teaches me about my original question, but it is certainly food for thought.

Wilberforce, Newton, and Amazing Grace

After walking out of the BYU Forum address by Michael Flaherty, the president of Walden Media, I phoned Keryn and had her immediately add the movie Amazing Grace to the top of our Netflix queue. I wanted to see the movie that had come from the great story he told.

It turns out the movie focuses on the story of William Wilberforce. The early movie shows his internal conflict about whether he should pursue a life in politics where he showed great promise, or whether he should pursue a life of Christian reflection and ministry. His friends persuaded him that a life in politics could be the sort of ministry that would change the world.

They were right. Wilberforce was a pivotal figure in the abolition of slavery in the British Empire. You really should see the movie. It was a moving experience. I'm sure we'll purchase the film.

More lightly touched in the movie is the story of John Newton, the man who penned the lyrics to the famous hymn, Amazing Grace, from which the movie draws its name. Here is the story of Newton as Flaherty related it in the forum address. (This story is in the last few minutes of the talk.)

The film was called Amazing Grace after the famous piece by John Newton. After hearing the song, I always assumed that Newton had experienced a complete and instant conversion to Christianity. But it turns out the story was a little more complicated and his conversion was a little more drawn out.

Newton is best described in his own words, “an infidel, a libertine, and a slave trader.” One night as he was sailing back to England, his ship started to fill with water and was about to capsize. Newton prayed to God for help and the ship was miraculously saved. By the time he got back to England, Newton was reading his Bible daily. He went to church on Sundays. He stopped gambling. He stopped smoking. He stopped swearing. I bet he even stopped dancing. [laughter]

But for more than three more decades, he continued in the slave trade. For all of his new found insight and proper behavior, he didn’t at first see any reason for a career change, but instead resolved to be the most moral slave trader in all of England.

For his time and place, this didn’t seem like an outrageous contradiction. How could it be, when neither the law, nor the crown, nor even parts of the church would condemn slavery as evil. By all outward appearances, Newton could be considered an upstanding Christian in mid-eighteenth century England.

It was in prayer, however, that the truth broke through. Not in a flash, but over time. Like the prophet Samuel before him, Newton learned that the Lord doesn’t look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.

Finally, after many years, the things that broke God’s heart began to break John Newton’s heart. He became a dedicated abolitionist, a trusted friend to William Wilberforce, and of course, the author of Amazing Grace. With that first prayer from a stricken ship a whole new story was set in motion. The slave trade lost its most upright merchant and the world gained its most beautiful hymn. That’s the power of prayer. And saving a ship was the least of the miracle.

Prayer can be subversive in that way. It doesn’t always advance our ambitions, but sometimes can even undermine them and set us in an entirely new direction.

How Comes the Millennium?

I have been wondering what it will be like to live during the Millennium, that period of 1000 years when the earth will be free of death and pain and war. When the earth will be renewed and the Savior will reign as king.

Perhaps that world will become that way in a flash of fire at the Lord's Second Coming. Perhaps.

But I wonder if the change might be more gradual. We know that Satan will be bound. Will he be bound because Jesus will restrain him, or will he be bound because there are none left who will hearken to him?

Will death be conquered because our bodies will be different, or will it be chased away because any who are sick will ask for a blessing and will be immediately healed of any pain and affliction?

I wonder if we must do more to ring in the millennial day. Do we do ourselves a disservice by patiently waiting for someone else to usher it in?

Paul Thomas Smith Surprises

Paul Thomas Smith made some claims in a podcast that I don't remember hearing before. I think these all come from his new book This is the Christ. I'm usually skeptical of new information like this. I'm recording these surprises here so that I can refer back to them. If you have any information to verify or refute these claims, I'd be interested. I'll number them for ease of reference. All are from this episode of The Cricket and Seagull. These are my paraphrase of the points Smith made, rather than my own conclusions or assertions.

1. The census referred to in Luke 2 ("a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed") didn't really happen. There is no scholarly evidence to support the census, so we must look for other explanations for why Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem. They went to fulfill prophecy and the raise the messiah in the shadow of the temple.
2. There were no roosters allowed in Jerusalem in the 2nd temple period. The "cock" that crowed when Peter denied the Savior was really a man crying three statement from the temple mount as he opened the gates. "All the priests prepare to sacrifice. All the Levites to your stations. All the Israelites come to worship." This was repeated three times. 
3. Shepherds were thought of as robbers, thieves, and liars by the Pharisees. Their testimony was not admissible in court.
4. Christ would never have worn a Roman-style toga like we see in the famous Christus statue on Temple Square. Also, we never see the traditional Jewish fringes poking out of his clothes in any of the popular depictions of him, though he certainly would have worn them. 
5. "When Herod died in about 4 B.C., Jesus would have been about 6 years of age. They were planning to come back [from Egypt] and live in Bethlehem."

 Have you heard any of these?

Mormon Myths and Testimony

I get so angry when I get a "faith-promoting" email that is clearly a fabrication. What kind of person lies about events to build faith in the truth? Doesn't that cause their head to explode? Apparently not, since it happens all the time.

The folks over at Legacy, a show on the Mormon Channel, had a great time talking about some of the popular tales that go around the church. They are passed off as true, but they either are clearly false or they can't be verified. You can listen to it here.

They include information about the spire on the St. George temple. (Brigham didn't insist that they rebuild it; the people didn't refuse his direct order.) They talk about the John Taylor's watch. (He thought it was hit by a bullet and it saved his life. Turns out to be very unlikely. It was broken as he fell.) There are at least four meeting houses where the story is told that the people didn't know how to build a roof, but they did know how to build a ship. So they just built the ship and used that as the roof. (We even got a version of that in general conference recently. I wonder if they are disputing the accuracy of that story, too. In any event, it is easier to build a roof than a ship.)

Was the Mormon Battalion the longest infantry march in history? No. Did all the persecutors of Joseph Smith die horrible deaths? (There was even a book about it!) No. Did Brigham Young receive inspiration for the Salt Lake temple to include unexplained shafts that were eventually turned into elevators? No, the temple was originally built with elevators from the Otis company.

Who started the Gold Rush of '49? Listen to the podcast to learn more.

There was one statement at the very end of the podcast that I disagreed with. One of the speakers was irritated by the common misconception that "almost all the pioneers came across in handcarts." Furthermore, when youth do handcart reenactments, sometimes they will have a time when recruiters come to take away men from the company for the Mormon Battalion. The boys leave the reenactment and must watch the girls push the carts alone, frequently on one of the most difficult stretches of the journey.

This is a very emotional part of the experience for the youth. The commentator in the podcast then stated emphatically that the Spirit won't testify to a lie and that even though this may be emotionally powerful, we shouldn't leave the youth with the mistaken impression that the Mormon Battalion happened at the same time as the handcarts. (They were actually separated by about 10 years.)

I just can't get behind this objection. I think true principles can be taught in parables. I suspect that some of the stories in the scriptures didn't happen exactly the way they've been passed down. And yet they can still teach us true principles and the Spirit can still testify to us. I don't think I'm contradicting my sentiment in the first paragraph of the post, but perhaps there is a bit of wiggle room there.

All in all, it was a great podcast. I enjoy many of the podcasts at http://radio.lds.org and I'd recommend them if you're looking for something great for your iPod on a Sunday afternoon.

The Religious Blossoming of China

NPR has a story up today about the mounting religiosity of the Chinese people that is following in the wake of the free market reforms that have transformed the nation in recent years.

Across China, religious belief has blossomed and flourished — far outpacing the government's framework to control it — with a profusion of charismatic movements and a revival in traditional Chinese religions. Two-thirds of those who described themselves as religious in the 2006 survey said they were Buddhists, Taoists or worshippers of folk gods such as the Dragon King or the God of Fortune.
Another popular goddess is Mazu, who is believed to protect sailors. Although she is included in the Daoist and Buddhist pantheons, she — and many other indigenous popular gods — falls outside China's five official religions. However, the worship of Mazu recently has been reclassified as "cultural heritage" rather than religious practice, making it acceptable even for Communist Party members.

Perhaps it won't be too long before Mormon missionaries will be able to bring the fullness of the gospel to the hungry people of China. In the meantime, we are grateful for those inspired souls who are preparing the ground for the harvest.

Blessed by Adversity

My heart is so full after having listened to an interview with Gary Ceran on the Mormon Channel. If your life has been touched by the pain of loss, or divorce, or other earthly sorrow, Brother Ceran shares a message and a faith that will uplift and encourage you.

I remember hearing about his public loss in the news a few years ago. A drunk driver, and illegal alien, broadsided his family as they drove through a green light. It was Christmas Eve. Gary's wife and two children were killed in the accident.

I remember the anger I felt in my heart towards that man when I read the news. I remember the angry comments left online below the newspaper story.

Now I know that Gary Ceran was not angry and he was not bitter. In fact, he offered a plea in behalf of the driver at his sentencing that the judge would lighten his sentence. Gary said that he had been carried by the thousands of people praying for him and his family, but no one was praying for Carlos. He, too, had a great loss that night, and would have to live with the horror of it for the rest of his life, which should be punishment enough.

Gary's perspective on death had been shaped over the course of a lifetime. Before the car accident that took his wife and 14 year old son and 7 year old daughter, Ceran had lost 5 other children. 3 were born with a brain tumor that doctors said would never hit the same family twice. Twins died in premature birth.

He learned that God shapes us to be like him when he allows these trials to come upon us. As one of his children was struggling for life years before, the people in his community rallied around him and his family. They prayed and fasted. People came up to Gary and told him that because of his infant daughter's condition, they were coming back to church. Gary pondered all the good that had been done in people hearts as they labored in prayer and supplication for his girl. In her less than two years of life, she changed more hearts than many people will change in a full lifetime.

Gary learned not to hold a grudge against God. And he taught us all how to forgive in challenging times. It is a lesson I want to remember.

Clark's Voice From the Past Still Relevant

J. Reuben Clark spoke in 1938 about debt. It is the talk with the famous quote that "interest never sleeps" that you've probably heard. There is a lot of really good and thought provoking stuff in there.

Speaking about retirement in old age:

"But it is a far cry from this wise principle to saying that every person reaching a fixed age shall thereafter be kept by the state in idleness. Society owes to no man a life of idleness, no matter what his age. I have never seen one line in Holy Writ that calls for, or even sanctions this. In the past no free society has been able to support great groups in idleness and live free."

About public expenditures and debt:

"I refer to the enormous expenditures of the people's money and to the ever-growing feeling and belief that a great group of the people can live off the public without working.
I should like to say again that neither the State nor the Federal Government has any funds except only such funds as it obtains from the people. Neither of them has anywhere a great pile of gold to which it can go for its money. You taxpayers must furnish it all; and every citizen is a taxpayer, either by direct or indirect taxation. Whenever governments borrow, they borrow from the taxpayers who must pay back or repudiate. To pay back large borrowings causes great hardship and burdening sacrifices; to repudiate brings economic and sometimes political chaos."

And finally this provocative thought about slavery:

"Now, as to the other point, the living of one large group without work on the industry, thrift, and sacrifice of the rest of the people. I say again this is virtual slavery for those who furnish the livelihood for the idlers. I know very well I shall be accused of being harsh, cruel, unsympathetic. I am not. But I consider the welfare of the whole people as superior to the comfortable or luxurious idleness of the part."

Merciful Blindness

What torture it would be to live in a world where we could remember our premortality! We would stand all the time condemned by our shortcomings. How much more merciful to have a still small voice that whispers only those things we are prepared to receive.

Were we to have any measure of foreknowledge of our mortal lives, we would spend all our time dancing away from the trials that would ultimately help us grow the most.

Where There Is No Vision

"Where there is no vision, the people perish." (Prov. 29:18)

This has laways been framed in my Mormon upbringing as a longing for a prophet in the midst of the people. As President Monson spoke of the "mark of vision" during a 2007 General Conference address, he gave me a different view of the matter.

If we don't have an eye forward to what we can become, we will not be able to rise to our potential. If a bishop fails to see what his congregation may become, he won't labor to transform them. Without vision, the people would perish. Here is the what President Monson said.

May I suggest that first of all every one of us develop the mark of vision. One writer said that the door of history turns on small hinges, and so do people’s lives. If we were to apply that maxim to our lives, we could say that we are the result of many small decisions. In effect, we are the product of our choices. We must develop the capacity to recall the past, to evaluate the present, and to look into the future in order to accomplish in our lives what the Lord would have us do.

You young men holding the Aaronic Priesthood should have the ability to envision the day when you will hold the Melchizedek Priesthood and then prepare yourselves as deacons, as teachers, as priests to receive the holy Melchizedek Priesthood of God. You have the responsibility to be ready, when you receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, to respond to a call to serve as a missionary by accepting it and then fulfilling it. How I pray that every boy and every man will have the mark of vision.

I looked up the verse at Bible.org to compare different translations. I was surprised that nearly all the translations agreed that the "perish" part of the KJV translation was wrong. They have it as "are unrestrained". This actually helps the latter part of the verse connect better to the beginning. "When there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint, but the one who keeps the law, blessed is he!"

Does this translation note make a difference in my earlier observation?

Ah-men Rebellion

A few months ago, my kids decided that they didn't want to say "ay-men" like their parents. They wanted to say "ah-men" at the end of their prayers.

The rebellion started with the 6 year old and spread downward to the 5 and 3 year old. It wasn't an over campaign for the most part. He started really emphasizing the word at the end of his prayers. It didn't take long for the other kids to catch on to this cool innovation in prayer.

They get to feel like they are "doing their own thing" in a way that is not only acceptable to their parents, but downright cute.

After the success of the ah-men rebellion, they've started singing their personal prayers at night. The 6 year old prefers more of a beat box thing while my 5 year old girl chooses a more sing-song method. The 3 year old is a bit more monotone, but he's quickly increasing in his expressiveness. The only time these song-prayers annoy me is when I'm very tired and I just wish the prayers would be finished more quickly.

But hey, the song of the righteous is a prayer unto the Lord. I hope he likes beat box. Ah-men.

The Prodigal Father

A catholic scholar, Kevin Hart, taught me about the Parable of the Prodigal Son via this Mormon Times article.

Hart argues that the main character in the parable, the one we are called to identify with, is the father rather than either son. The father, against all reason and custom, pours out love on his children.

"The younger son had seen his father first as dead, then as a master, and then as a true father," Hart said. "The elder son had seen him as a master, but not yet as a true father."

The elder son had not yet seen as his father had seen, that life is embedded in relationships of love.

Hart said the parable is not a parable about choice -- about which son we should be more like. Both sons had refused the love of the father. One was fixated on freedom, the other fairness. The story of both sons is unfinished. Did the younger son truly repent? Would the older son accept the younger?

The center of identity, the person we need to be more like is not either son, said Hunt.

"We should decide to be more like the father than like either son," Hunt said.

The parable calls to us to be excessively wasteful, to be prodigal: prodigal with love.

'God of Nature' or 'God in Nature'?

The Old Testament has some remarkably relevant lessons for our day, my wife and I discovered in conversation this week.

Is God the creator and provider of "nature" or is he somehow embodied in nature? Many people, including me, feel so close to God when we are in the quiet of a beautiful natural scene. I believe there are good reasons that prophets have communed with God on the isolated mountaintops.

Nevertheless, there is confusion for some about whether they feel close to God in nature because he IS nature, or because it is merely an atmosphere conducive to communion with the Divine.

Ask yourself this question. (alt) Do you receive any moral instruction--any guidance on how to be--from the trees? Did a tree ever give a commandment or promise redemption? Did a tree build a hospital?

Really, the question isn't about where you feel God. The question of location has been a diversion for many people who decide they don't need a church. They can just spend their time in nature, they say. But God isn't interested--ultimately--in how we feel. He is interested in what we do. And the doing is to be done with our fellow men, not on a lake in the mountains.

Think of how many times a prophet in the Old Testament tried to get his people to stop worshiping nature. All the people surrounding the Israelites drifted from allegiance to one nature god after another. They were willing to honor whatever nature god might bring them relief in the moment. Elijah's competition with the priests of Baal is one such memorable story.

Nature worship is quite common today. Perhaps we could be reminded of the people of the Old Testament who had to struggle so hard against that tendency.

My wife noted that there are other forms of idol worship today that closely parallel the abominations of old. What were the parents thinking when they sacrificed their children to Molloch in the flames? What did they hope to achieve? What greater good did they think would come upon them, their children, and their community for this abhorrent act? Are there women today who sacrifice their children, born and unborn, to the gods of "freedom" and "convenience" and "timing" and "career"?

Bad to be True to Yourself?

I'm sure many good people have used the phrase, "be true to yourself." Reading a talk by Terry Warner put the phrase in a different light for me. He said he'd twisted the goal of being "true" into the goal of being "true to me." The gospel invites us to look beyond ourselves as the only way to become like our Father. Anytime we focus on ourselves, we risk goofing up our priorities in the ultimate sense. Thought provoking. Here is the quote in context. You can read the whole talk here.

The problem did not lie in my objectives. My objectives were lofty--never stooping to dishonesty, not compromising my principles, standing forward to defend the right and make corrections when things didn't go as they should. The problem was that pursuing these objectives was a project too much in behalf of myself. I could not see it then, but in a very subtle way my quest continued the very preoccupation with myself I was trying to overcome. And it twisted my goal of being true into the goal of being true to me, and being true to me, for my sake, often came before the interests and needs of others. Perhaps my way of pursuing my quest was like that of the prodigal son's elder brother, outwardly ever faithful in his duty but inwardly resentful when his brother received the public honor he thought should be his. My way showed itself as I responded in a hurried manner to a student's question in the hall--because, after all, I had important things to do; and in a conversation with a colleague, thinking of what I would say next instead of listening appreciatively; and in becoming inwardly indignant about a brother's false doctrine in priesthood meeting. No matter how rigorous, a quest to be true when undertaken on one's own behalf can never put to silence the disquieting voice that says, "You're not honest, simple, solid, and true. You're still in it for yourself. It's your own agenda that you care most about." Stubbornly setting out to be true cannot be glorious if I do not lift my focus higher than myself.

Elder Oaks on speaking privately versus speaking to the world

Sheri Dew asked Elder Dallin H. Oaks what it was like talking publicly in a world where you can finish a talk and in moments your words can be spread around the globe. The question is at 47 minutes into this broadcast interview. His words made me think differently about the appropriateness of reporting the words that you hear someone speak in a smaller setting.

Oaks: In the last 12 months, I never stand before an audience at a stake conference--these are in small audiences where you don't anticipate that it will be broadcast--without confronting the possibility that someone there is putting it on some electronic transmission, or would make notes and then go send an email to family members...

Dew: Or a blog.

Oaks: Or a blog... which they would press a key and send that to 150 people and so on. So when I want to speak very candidly to a particular audience, I have begun saying before I begin to speak to this audience of a 100 priesthood or auxiliary leaders, "I would like to know whether I am speaking to 100 people or whether I'm potentially speaking to the world. Because it is going to affect the talk that I will give. Now if I can understand that I'm just speaking to you and that you won't appoint yourself as an agent to transmit my words to the world, I'll speak one way. But if I can't have that commitment from all of you,  I'll speak differently. Because I simply have to speak differently if I'm speaking to people unseen. And generally they get the message and I've not been disappointed by the outcome.

Two Conversations on the Bus

Sitting on the bus today, I heard two women sitting very close to me. I didn't mean to eavesdrop, but there was no avoiding it. They were strangers to each other, but both started speaking candidly about their lives. About the men who had mistreated them. About the ache of being alone and missing someone to share life with.

Both women spoke fervently about the role that alcohol and, to some extent drugs, had played in the destruction of their happiness. The men didn't know when to, or couldn't, stop drinking. Yelling led to hitting and verbal and emotional abuse. The women, too, were in the vice grip of the drink. One of them joked that she wished she could want exercise as much as she wanted to drink.

They were near tears by the time one of them had to get off the bus. Clearly, they had lived through a lot and were in a rebuilding phase of life. Trying to put back together the pieces of their shattered dreams.

Now it was quieter on the bus, and I was only a few stops from home. Without the two women talking next to me, I could hear some young people, probably high school aged, talking in the back of the bus. They, too, sounded like strangers just getting to know each other. Their conversation was different.

Mostly, I could hear one fresh sounding voice above the rest. You know what I mean when I say "fresh"? I can't think of a better adjective. He sounded young, and naive. He sounded full of optimism. There wasn't a lot of braggadocio in his voice, nor any of the world-weariness that creeps into the voices of people who've seen really hard times.

I didn't catch a lot of what he was saying. But the snatches that I heard were things like, "Yeah, they try to scare you so much about alcohol." "Have you tried vodka?" Laughter.

I wished I could yank the pull-cord and stop the bus and run back to the woman who had just disembarked and bring her back to talk to these kids.

I suppose there is no teacher like experience. I wish it didn't have to be that way.

New Christ-centered Documentary

I'm giddy with anticipation. The first episode will air this Sunday. I'm wondering if any of our fingerprints will still be legible on a project touched by so many able hands.

I'm talking about the new BYU documentary, "Messiah: Behold the Lamb of God." There was an excellent write-up about the birth of the documentary at the Mormon Times. My favorite paragraphs were these two.

Not long after this decision, [BYU Professor S. Kent] Brown is introduced to Matt Whitaker, who wrote the screenplays for the second and third "Work and the Glory" feature films. Brown, Whitaker and Thomas Lefler, the associate chair of BYU's department of theater and media arts, hatch an idea to create a class at BYU called "Jesus Christ in Media." The class begins October 2001 with a dozen students. The next semester, winter 2002, the students develop scripts. The documentary is beginning to take shape.

For the next three years the project goes through several scripts -- each refining and building upon the last. But no matter how good the scripts, it will never be made without approval and funding.

I was a student in that first class and my wife joined me in the class the second semester. I hardly expect anything of those early scripts to have survived. When Brother Brown nixed my inclusion of material about the sacrifice of the red heifer, it become a running joke with Brother Whitaker that we could use a red heifer for the icon in the bottom right corner of the screen that directs people to the companion website.

Whatever comes out on Sunday, I'm sure it will be fact-filled and testimony enriching. The books that these scholars have been producing leave me with no doubt about their grasp of the issues. I can tell you, based on my personal interactions with a few of them, that they are fully aware of the complexity of issues that surround the scriptural history.

Someone once observed to me that we didn't need to know all the things a famous scholar knows about the gospel and about the history that has transferred the gospel down to the present day. We only need to know that they know it. Just knowing that answers to tough questions exist, even if we don't yet know them personally, is reassuring. With this documentary, we will be able to see that they do indeed "know it." And perhaps we'll also come to know a bit more and strengthen the buttresses of our own testimonies all the more by watching. While you watch, keep an eye out for that heifer.

The Second Selection

Elder Richard G. Scott lost his wife to cancer in 1995. In the ensuing years, he has chosen not to remarry. I was surprised to learn (about 21 minutes into the interview) that this was not merely the result of not "finding the right one" but rather, was a conscious decision. He noted that some men might have that need, and he respects that decision, but that he does not. He and his wife did everything they could to be prepared for the time that one or the other of them would pass through the veil.

Elder Scott's daughter commented that her father, since the passing of her mother, now spends even more time ministering to people individually. Where he was once drawn home at the end of the day, now he will drop by the hospital or see to other affairs of the personal ministry.

When asked to reflect on his wife's effect on his life (around 1 hour 10 minutes into the interview), he noted that she'd touched every element of his life. He then said (emphasis added to try to capture the effect of his speaking), "I don't believe that the temple ordinance guarantees that we'll be together forever. There will be a time, before that sealing of the Holy Spirit of Promise makes it eternal, where we'll be in the presence of the Savior as individuals. And there will be a choice whether we continue with the sealing or not. And I want to do everything in my power to qualify, so that she'll choose for the sealing to be eternal."

Mary to Hyrum in Liberty

Hyrum Smith, confined to Liberty jail, began to wonder whether his wife has abandoned him. Apparently, he hadn't heard from her in quite some time. Melanie Hinton recounts the episode and Mary's response in a church podcast. (Around 31 minutes in.)

The letter that Mary wrote on April 11, 1839, didn't reach him while in the jail. She addressed his concern head on. Don't you wish people still wrote so beautifully today?

"I cannot bear the thought of you having any such suspicion. Surely you had not. If so, you are yet unacquainted with the principles of my heart. What? Should I forsake a friend and a bosom friend in the time of adversity and affliction? When all the sympathy and affection I am capable of feeling is called for to soothe and comfort as far as possible under such circumstances as you are placed in? No. Reason, religion, and honor and every feeling of my heart forbid such a thought to enter there."