Blogging My Life

Every once in a while, I include personal items on this blog. At some point, those items will land on another blog with my wife. Speaking of my wife, I'm getting married. Here are some of her blog entries about me:

• EFY 2009 Nauvoo
• Tony
• Ever After

I thought I would give a little of my side of the story. There are all kinds of miracles that led to us meeting at EFY this year. I was recruited by a friend to be an EFY counselor in San Antonio in 2008. He met his wife that year at EFY and moved away from College Station. Had I started my degree at Texas A&M a year earlier or a year later, I would not have known about EFY at the right time.

Friends from San Antonio EFY last year went to Nauvoo at the end of that summer. Once I decided to do EFY again, I knew that I wanted to spend two weeks in Nauvoo this summer. But doing EFY meant that I would have to be away from my regular job. So the slow economy made EFY easier to do.

Once at Nauvoo, I needed to have the right group in order to meet Jeri Lin. The coordinators described struggling more than normal when choosing which counselors would work together. After re-shuffling the deck, they grouped counselors together and the last three to be assigned were me and my two female co-counselors. That put me and Jeri Lin in the same group.

I had made decisions over my years home from my mission that I thought would help me find my wife. Long distance relationships were outlawed. And lately, I had only asked out returned sister missionaries. This did several things for me. One was it gave me a hint about her dedication to the Church. The other was that returned sister missionaries are closer to my age. With personal rules like that, it seems unlikely that I would have a young fiancee in Mesa, Arizona.

But after spending a week with Jeri Lin in my group at EFY, I couldn't help being impressed with her. As we toured Old Nauvoo, I was teaching and telling stories. But she also taught our little group of 6 and was telling Church history stories. So I knew she was smart and well read. But what really started impressing me about Jeri Lin as the week went on was her testimony. She had several opportunities to testify during the week. I'm not sure I know anyone for whom the veil is so thin.

At the end of EFY she wrote me a letter thanking me for the week and encouraging me in some of the struggles I shared with her. After reading that letter, I had this thought of "What if?" in my head. But I figured there was no way anything could happen just because of the 1000 miles that would separate us and the 10 years that do separate us.

We started chatting online after getting home and the rest is history. We were both interested, even if we were both surprised the other was. I met her family in September. She meets mine in October. And we will get married in the Mesa Temple in January. Who says miracles don't happen?

Encouraging News From Across the Pond

I found this interesting:

The Tories understand that the only way of reducing the size of the state is to cut the demand for government services by strengthening civil society. They understand, finally, that the Left has lost the war on poverty. And they are rediscovering that conservatism is at its best when politicians support and never supplant the Burkean little platoons of family, voluntary organization, and local school.

Society is only stable when citizens obey the unenforceable. This article seems to indicate that some in Britain are starting to recognize that that can only be cultivated by families.

Book of Mormon Burning Fascists

I just ran across this editorial at NationalReview.com. I hadn't heard about the Book of Mormon being burned and left at the Denver Temple. The money quotes:

a Georgetown University law professor and gay activist who helps draft federal legislation related to sexual orientation, says that, when religious liberty conflicts with gay rights, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

and

They’ve already burned the Book of Mormon. The First Amendment is next.

Parts of the gay rights movement is quickly approaching modern fascism.

What If Prop 8 Lost?

I was reading this from Orson Scott Card tonight and it prompted the question: What if Prop 8 lost? Citing Helaman 16:20-21, Card had this insight about the "No on 8" crowd:

Their story is that we Mormons somehow oppress them and force them; they claim to be our victims. And yet they are the ones who tried to force us to accept their radical change through judicial edict, rejecting a clear majority vote only a few years before.

How would things look different if Prop 8 were defeated? The first thing would be that the gay movement would be hailing this a huge victory and a repudiation of each member of the coalition for Prop 8. This would be the first electoral victory for the gay movement; all they have now are some court decisions decided by one justice.

With the Prop 8 victory, states are 30/30 in passing marriage amendments for state constitutions. Had this been defeated in California, it would have spread to other states. California has long been a bellwether for laws and regulations soon to be passed in other states.

Another major difference is that the "Yes on 8" crowd would not be illegally protesting in the streets. (Protesting is fine, but most of the early protests were without permits.) There would be no meaningful call to boycott Google and Apple, who both opposed Prop 8. There would be no vandalism against churches who opposed Prop 8. There would not likely be any lawsuits to overturn the democratic process.

Basically, the "No on 8" crowd is doing exactly what they are accusing us of doing. At the same time, they are proving correct the fears of the "Yes on 8" campaign: there have been lots of calls to remove the tax exempt status of churches involved.

Is the Church Being Unfairly Singled Out?

I would have to say probably so. I immediately follow that by asking, "So what?" As I read Church history, every time there has been massive persecution, great blessings have followed. There may be some members of the Church who struggle with the Church choosing to be involved in Prop 8.

My hope is that far more will be strengthened by the opposition they face right now. To see the temple protested against may well help us realize the blessing the temple really is. There will be people attracted to the Church by its unwavering adherence to standards.

Defending Our Constitutional Rights

I have been amazed to see the protests against the Church. As a religious body, we have a right and responsibility to speak out on moral issues. Additionally, we need to prevent future erosion of our constitutional rights. If same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, there will be discrimination suits and some will try to take away to Church's right to solemnize marriages.

Bishops could lose that authority from the state because they will never perform gay marriages and the Temples would no longer hold the legal authority to perform marriages. Luckily, the sealing power is beyond the reach of man. But Mormon couples could be forced to visit the justice of the peace to be legally married before the (eternally more important) sealing took place inside.

The anger of the pro-gay-marriage lobby after passing Prop 8 proves that they would not hesitate to take away our Constitutional rights if the electoral winds had been at their back.

I think it may be a good time for President Monson to have asked the Church to pray that new nations may be opened to the preaching of the Gospel. It kinda feels like the effectiveness of American missionary work is going to sharply decline.

On Prop 8

I know Prop 8 just passed in California, but I just found this webpage supporting the traditional definition of marriage: http://www.preservingmarriage.org/index.html. This is an official webpage of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

They had this video which has several important arguments in favor of the constitutional definition of marriage:
The most important reasons in my view are that religious charities might be forced to stop adoption services like the Catholic Charities in Massachusetts. Also, public schools would be forced to teach same-sex marriage. To redefine marriage would be a frontal assault on the First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion. Without the First Amendment, the whole founding founding of this nation is made meaningless.

I have also heard how some of the fringes who opposed Prop 8 are threatening Mormon Temples and other Christian and Jewish meetinghouses for groups in the coalition that was in favor of Prop 8. That is just sad.

Update: I like this video as well:There are some who claim that opposing same-sex marriage means you are homophobic.

While I am unloading links on the importance of preserving marriage, this is a Forum given October 28, 2008 at BYU by Professor Robert P. George, professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. There is a free MP3 on the linked page.

An Important Document on the Family

I haven't posted much in a while, but this article from the Church is important. The conclusion states:

Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.

There are so many things in the world undermining morality. Protecting the sanctity of the family will insulate children from those degrading influences.

More On Gay Marriage

This is a pretty level headed critique of the problems with the gay marriage movement. The money paragraph:

[Gay marriage] is about inserting into the law the principle that “gay is the new black” — that sexual orientation should be treated exactly the same way we treat race in law and culture.

Gay-marriage advocates say it all the time: People who think marriage is the union of husband and wife are like bigots who opposed interracial marriage. Believe them. They say it because they mean it.

The architects of this strategy have targeted marriage because it stands in the way of the America they want to create: They hope to use the law to reshape the culture in exactly the same way that the law was used to reshape the culture of the old racist south.

On Marriage And Divorce

I think people intuitively realize that divorce is bad, certainly for the pain it brings into children's lives. It is not always easy to find things quantified. Here is a great interview that does just that. Being interviewed is Michael McManus, coauthor of Living Together: Myths, Risks & Answers.

Some of the key points are that cohabitation and premarital sex greatly increase the likelihood of divorce and abuse. A key quote

:...even though most people see nothing wrong with premarital sex, research shows they are wrong. Those couples who married in the 1960s who were virgins were much less likely to divorce than the sexually active — only 30 percent of virgins divorced, while 50 percent of the sexually active divorced. The same pattern can be seen of those who married in the early 1980s. By 1988, 14 percent of virgins had divorced, but 24 percent of the sexually active. That’s 71 percent higher. St. Paul wrote, “Flee fornication.”

I have been taught this all my life, but is is nice to see others who teach and believe the same things. I especially appreciate the empirical evidence. Of course, empirical evidence should not be why someone lives a chaste life. We should just live our lives with real love, because real love never uses another person for physical enjoyment without genuine lifelong commitment.

Marriage Is Becoming Unfashionable

This is what has me worried. Marriage is on the decline in England, and the US can't be far behind. Financial stability, the quality of children's eduacation, and so many other things are on the line. The artile points out:

There are the obvious, proven, statistical advantages of marriage - you live longer, you're healthier, your children are better educated and happier - but the real benefit runs deeper. It demonstrates we can make binding commitments.

The ability to make and keep promises is the core of the Gospel, and if these promises are not made, the self destruction of society is sure to follow. My favorite quote applies:

...we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

(h/t NRO)

A Clarification In Defense of Marriage

I had a thoughtful response to some previous posts. I was going to answer in the comments section, but it ended up too long. I am glad I was asked to elaborate. Sometimes when I write, I know what is in my head and don't realize that I am not being very clear. Dennis said:

For one, I wonder whether economic incentives should motivate people to marry? If people are not willing to marry without government incentives, then I think they shouldn't be marrying at all. Giving marriage incentives for people who otherwise wouldn't marry does little to defend what marriage ought to be.

One problem is that people let economic incentives prevent them from getting married. My thinking was influenced by an article in NRO from back in 2004 (see here). The fraud that is described in that article (a fake marriage) would place huge financial burdens on the military and other groups that provide benefits to couples. The end result would be that no one would get couples benefits. People should not get married just for the benefits, but if marriage doesn't mean anything, it will practically vanish.

Again, I should be more clear. It is not the government's job to promote marriage per se, but there are lots of things in public policy which disincentivize marriage. For example, welfare policy sought to help single mothers by providing benefits for each child they have. I laud the idea of helping single mothers, but then some women would have more kids just to increase their benefits.

Not all marriages result in children, but the main purpose of defending marriage is to protect the most formative years of children's lives. Many studies show that no matter the race, children in single parent homes have higer risk of crime, drugs, and prison. It would be good to ask: What role should government have in defending marriage? Job one would be to not cheapen the institution.

So, how does all this tie together? In my mind, the looser the definition of marriage, the less likely people are to actually get married. The potential for gay marriage is only part of the issue (and probably only a small part). No-fault divorce is arguably a much larger problem. Everyone throws around the statistic that half of marriages end in divorce. That harms far more children than would ever be directly affected by gay marriage.

Admittedly, Obama has said some good things about fathers in the home. That is one reason I was willing to give him a very long look. I will stand with anyone who will fight to put fathers back in America's homes. But, I believe Obama's stand on civil unions undermines the end result he claims to want.

Obama Just Lost My Vote

I have been concerned with several of Obama's statements over the last few weeks, but was willing to hear him out to judge the whole package. Obama is wrong on the one issue I am not willing to negotiate on:

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.

I am personally convinced that society has a vested interest in the health of marriage as an institution. So many of the problems I have seen, both in Philadelphia and from studies I have read, are traceable to a lack of fathers in the home. Gay marriage undermines all the incentives society can give to heterosexual couples. It opens the whole system to gaming: people will fake gay marriage just for the benefits, thereby eliminating all benefits to everyone.
(h/t EFM)

Business Strategy

I just got out of the most unique class of the MBA. It is a Business Strategy class and the first half of day one of the class was a discussion of the business genius of Madonna. She has been massively successful for longer than any other female act.

The professor said, "the first law of business is that sex sells."

That is the problem. Because people perceive that appealing to sexuality is the best way to sell anything, it adds to the coarsening of society. Sex may sell, but it is the cheap and easy way out of advertising. One of my classmates asked if there were any moral issues with selling with sex. The professor said it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is using whatever strategic advantages you can to maximize profits.

In the professor's defense, I think she was exaggerating to make a point, but I see more clearly how vital the role is of Latter-day Saints and like minded people. Business has every incentive to appeal to whatever will increase profits. If sex sells, then they will use it.

I think the Saints' role is to lead. We must stem the tide of filth that is washing over society. It may be that we are fighting a losing battle, but it is a battle we must fight with all we have. Society may continue on its course of self destruction, but individuals can still be saved from that destruction.

Business is all about quantifying the benefits of this or that decision. Sex may sell in the short term, but there are lasting costs that reach generations into the future. People worry about the national deficit, but what about the moral deficit?

The fall of the family has dire consequences. Divorce and illegitimate births harm the way children grow up. They have higher risk of poverty, dropping out of high school, using drugs, being arrested, and having children of their own out of wedlock. It becomes a vicious cycle.

Of course, I am speaking in generalities. I met people in Philadelphia who pulled themselves out of poverty despite the culture around them. I know single moms who are miracle workers, and raise great kids. People can be transformational figures in their families and communities. But all that aside, the costs of drug abuse, criminality, and under-achievement are real and expensive.

I think business leaders and religious leaders have a responsibility to actually lead. The Gadarene Swine Law says that just because everyone is in formation, it doesn't mean they are headed the right direction.

Church leaders were right to warn us "that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

I Thought This Was A Masterpiece

I know this is long, but it would be a shame to paraphrase.

You already know basic LDS doctrine—the idea of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. And that PBS special gave you glimpses into our homes and our peculiarities, and introduced you to some of the controversies and oxymorons we live with. But I still want to answer your question, What does it mean to be LDS.?

My instant answer is that the core of the LDS religion is an eternal view of everything—from before birth to long after death. It is a series of enlarging circles.

I write this from my woman’s perspective, and in 2007. Some things may change over the next fifty years, but this is what I have seen and been in my nearly 52 years of life as a Mormon.

As an infant, my parents’ firstborn, I was taken in my father’s arms and given a name and a blessing. There, I was at the center of a priesthood circle. Other men (probably my uncles, though of course I don’t remember), joined Dad as he blessed me. They each put one hand under my little body and one hand on the shoulder of the person standing next to them. They literally and symbolically supported me, and joined their faith with my dad’s. This circle—a prayer circle, if you will—is a common one in our community.

Though Dad was in his early twenties when he gave me that first blessing, he had already served a three-year mission for the Church in Finland, during which he anointed the sick and gave other blessings by the laying on of hands and by virtue of the priesthood (usually referred to as the Melchizedek Priesthood, but actually called the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God). Dad was never formally trained in this priesthood, but was ordained to various offices in it from the time he was twelve, learning “line upon line, precept upon precept.”

I suspect my father was tearful at the miracle of my tiny body, and at the responsibility I introduced. He was a student, pursuing an advanced degree, and Mom was a recent college graduate. Though poor and struggling under the rigors of academia, it was nothing new for Dad to claim priesthood authority as he blessed me, and, knowing Dad, he did this with great faith. I’m sure he blessed Mom before her hard labor began (I have watched him bless her several times before childbirth), and he would continue giving priesthood blessings to me and to my siblings throughout our lives—the most difficult one being at my brother’s hospital bedside after we were told he would not survive the injuries he had sustained in an accident. That brother, Dad’s namesake (Bobby), lifted his arms as high as he could when Dad walked into the ER room. Bobby was threaded and tubed to monitors and IVs, and being transfused. He said one word: “Hug.” And that’s it—that’s the picture. Dad is maneuvering around the ganglia of wires and tubes to embrace his son, and then to bless him. It’s a godly scene. It expresses the image I have of God—a corporeal being who can reach around our mortal mischief and earthbound wiring to embrace us in the fullness of His glory, no matter how damaged we are.

Later, when Dad’s pancreas failed, it was Bobby who blessed him. That’s the Mormon circle.

Often, at the beginning of a school year or at moments of crisis, a Mormon father will place his hands on the head of his child or of his wife and say the words, “In the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood, I bless you.” He will try to open his soul to whatever words God would have him say. His faith that God can reveal things to him magnifies his sense of a divine and loving Father in Heaven, and also magnifies his love for the one he is blessing. That principle—that everyone can receive revelation, and that everyone can be a priest (and yes, a priestess)—is core to Mormonism.

By the time I was five, I learned the words to the most frequently sung Primary song: “I am a Child of God/ And He has sent me here/ Has given me an earthly home/with parents kind and dear.” I grew up understanding before I understood anything else that God was the father of my spirit, and knew who I was, that he knew me by name.

At age eight, I was baptized, and again surrounded by a circle of men and blessed by my father. This time, I was confirmed a member of the Church and instructed to “receive the Holy Ghost.”

At age twelve, I began what we now call Young Women’s. It has changed somewhat since I entered the program, and I like the changes. Each YW class starts this way: One of the girls stands and asks, “Who will stand for truth and righteousness?” The others then rise and answer, “I will stand for truth and righteousness.” Together, they recite, “We are daughters of our Heavenly Father, who loves us, and we love Him. We will stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things and in all places…”

Again, that communal circle of commitment, and the individual reiteration of a real and loving God embrace a Mormon’s world.

I was still twelve when I got my Patriarchal Blessing, given (as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob blessed their sons) in the spirit of revelation. My grandfather was an ordained Patriarch, so my blessing begins, “Dear grand-daughter, Margaret Jean Blair.” Almost all Patriarchal blessings contain yet another message of God’s love. Among many other things, my blessing says that because I am the firstborn in my family, I am to “be a guide and to set an example for [my] younger brothers and sisters, even as a star sets the course for the mariner.” It also says something which became deeply important during my teenage years: “Know that your parents love you.”

When I went to the temple at age twenty-four, I was introduced to other circles and embraces. I began wearing “garments,”–underclothes which remind me daily of the promises I have made to God. I live in a world of symbols and metaphors. I wear them, and I love them. If I could, I would dance the temple rituals with uplifted arms and jubilant music. I would bless and receive blessings; I would praise and thank God with every part of my body.

I became a writer, a historian, a sometimes scholar, and a teacher. But I always understood that my most important roles would be as my husband’s wife and my children’s mother—just as Bruce’s most important roles would be as my husband and as their father.

One of the most beautiful days of my life was when Bruce and I went to the temple with our oldest daughter and watched her marry a good man. Mormon weddings don’t have long aisles and cathedral-filling organ chords. In fact, there’s no music at all, and we can’t see much of the bridal gown, because it is covered by temple robes. In a small room, furnished with a cloth-covered altar and fifty chairs or so, the temple sealer (in this case, my uncle—though it’s not usually a family member) gives counsel to the couple, and then instructs the groom to lead his bride to the altar. There, they kneel facing each other, and a sealer binds them together for “time and eternity.” It is a holy and quiet ceremony. The coordinated bridesmaid dresses and perfect cake wait until the reception.

After I die, I will be dressed in my temple robes for burial. My daughters will cover my face with my temple veil before the casket is closed. One of my sons will likely dedicate my grave—again in the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood. This time, my body will be supported by pall bearers, probably my sons and grandsons. I hope many of my posterity will have served missions by then, and that my sons will have blessed their own babies. I hope I will see it all. I hope I will enjoy one living circle before I am enclosed in the earth: the circle where my husband and I hold a great-grandbaby right before she is given a name and a blessing.

So the core of my Mormon life, Pastor, is Jesus Christ. My life began by being consecrated to Him in the center of that priesthood circle, and it will end with someone dedicating my grave in His name. I hope that His name will also be engraved in the marrow of my bones and in the eternal cells of my immortal soul. I fully believe that He knows me by name, and that my name—with yours and everyone else’s—is already engraved in his hands and in his heart.