Saturday, October 17, 2009

Chapter Three: The Equality of the Couple in Serving the Home

Chapter Three

The Equality of the Couple in Serving the Home



At the very heart of our society’s current dilemma regarding the true roles of men and women is the devastating devaluation of the home and the consequent destruction of the family. The home is the most important priority of the saints. There are no qualifiers, no strings, no equivocations. It is almost axiomatic in the Church today. No success, said President David O. McKay, will ever compensate for failure in the homes of the Latter-day Saints. The most important of the Lord’s work we will ever do, said President Harold B. Lee, will be the work we do within the four walls of our own homes. The prophets have repeatedly reaffirmed the pre-eminent importance of the home above all other concerns.

As long as the world incorrectly see the home and family as inferior values, lacking the importance of supposed greater things like business, politics, the arts, letters and sciences, they will also incorrectly perceive and devalue the unique power of womanhood. This power, as the restoration of eternal truth reveals, is centered in motherhood!

The world’s solution to advancing the cause of women today is to change their historical roles, duties and missions to simulate a man’s place in the world. The role of motherhood is being systematically devalued and discredited. From the beginning Satan’s objective has been to separate the man from the woman, knowing he could thus thwart God’s plan. His work of subtraction and division stands in stark contrast to God’s design to add and multiply.

And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever. (Abraham 3:26).

This is my work and my glory -- to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. (Moses 1:39).

And I, God, blessed them, and said unto them: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. . . (Moses 2:28; Genesis 1:28).

Satan’s plan for separation and destruction of the man and the woman has not changed. Today alternatives abound, sometimes in the name of economic survival dependent upon two incomes, sometimes in the guise of a preferable lifestyle contrasted against the drudgery of homemaking, and too often in varying forms to avoid undesirable emotional baggage. One famous movie starlet on today’s Hollywood scene recently said, “I’ll never have children. They’re needy and greedy. Who needs that?”

These alternative voices, erudite or appealing as they seem to some, are excising the very heart of womanhood, the unique and precious power to bear and effectually nurture children, to be fruitful in bringing about the work and glory of the Gods, the immortality and eternal life of man. They would devalue, even destroy, parenthood, the very essence of Godhood. They seek to change the divine order revealed from heaven since the beginning. Our marriages are in shambles, our families are in jeopardy, and as the home goes can society be far behind?


President Spencer Kimball said,

. . . when the home is destroyed, the nation goes to pieces. There can be no question about this, and all historians or those who have followed a historical line of thought have come to that same conclusion. (Ensign, May 1978, 5).

In 1981, his advancing age silenced his prophetic voice. Today we live in that time he foresaw. More marriages are failing, more families are collapsing, fewer are staying together. Because of this dreadful state of affairs our society is floundering socially, economically, politically and physically.

President Kimball offered this encouragement in the midst of the world’s confusion over the woman’s role:

There has never been a time in the world when the role of woman has been more confused. There has never been a time in the Church when women are able to do more to show what their true role in the world can and ought to be. The impact and influence of women and mothers on our world is most important. The thought that “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” is more viable today than ever before. (In Woman [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1979], 1).


Elder Jeffrey R. Holland offered the following observations about the role of women today, while quoting Elder James E. Talmage:

Some confusion, or at least much discussion, is ongoing about gender and rights and priesthood. In the Young Woman’s Journal of 1914, Elder James E. Talmage wrote a remarkable piece, with particular relevance to the 1990’s. Noting the sacred and eternal role of both women and men, Elder Talmage said eighty years ago, “The status of woman in the world is a subject of present-day discussion and an element of current social unrest; it is, however, by no means a new topic. . . [Woman] has suffered the greatest humiliation during periods of spiritual darkness, when the Gospel of Christ was forgotten. [But in the light of the gospel] woman occupies a position all her own in the eternal economy of the Creator; and in that position she is as truly superior to man as is he to her in his appointed place. Woman shall yet come to her own, exercising her rights and her privileges as a sanctified investiture which none shall dare profane.” (To Rejoice As Women, Talks from the 1994 Women’s Conference, ed. Susette Fletcher Green and Dawn Hill Anderson, “Concerning Covenants: Women, Men, Perspective, Promises,” [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1995], 107).


Today the trumpet of “women’s liberation” sounds louder than ever before, but it has never sounded a more confusing tune. Liberating women from oppression and victimization is both desirable and absolutely necessary. From the exploitation of Japanese sex slaves during World War II to women who are victims of domestic abuse at the hands of their husbands in their homes today, it seems there have always been severe examples of the mistreatment of women begging for correction. No one disagrees these egregious assaults against women must be eradicated.

However, when seemingly brilliant people seek to liberate the modern woman from marriage, the home and full-time motherhood in exchange for anything else resembling a more attractive lifestyle, they propose something entirely different, extremely evil and terribly destructive.

As we discussed in Chapter One, man is not complete in the single state. “It is not good for man [or woman] to be alone.” (Genesis 2:18). “Neither is man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11:11). Within the single state it is simply not possible for men or women to fill the measure of their creation and to find a fulness of joy therein. Except in those conditions where there is no other choice, the single state is not an option the Church can embrace or sanction, nor is the child-limiting married state. Individuals, as partners in unfruitful marriages who voluntarily limit themselves to little or no offspring after the manner of the today’s conventional wisdom, are virtually no different than those who remain voluntarily single. Their state is the same. It is not the “true state” -- the fruitful state in which mankind finds joy in their posterity. God had much more in mind than merely curing Adam’s loneliness by making certain he was not alone in the garden. He had in mind a procreative partnership whereby the man and the woman could productively multiply and fill the earth and have the joy and rejoicing therein that could not come in any other way!


President Spencer W. Kimball:

The prime purpose of marriage is to create the family and give unborn spirits earthly tabernacles and the privilege of building their own eternal lives. As we give way to the world’s notions, and ape their ways, we become enmeshed in their follies and we suffer accordingly. (In the World But Not of It, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year [Provo, Utah: 14 May 1968], 5).

There seems to be a growing feeling that marriage is for legal sex, for sex’s sake. Marriage is basically for the family; that is why we marry -- not for the satisfaction of the sex, as the world around us would have us believe. When people have found their companions, there should be no long delay. Young wives should be occupied in bearing and rearing their children. (“Marriage is Honorable,” in Speeches of the Year, 1973 [Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1974], 263).


President Joseph Fielding Smith:

The family is the most important organization in time or in eternity. Our purpose in life is to create for ourselves eternal family units. (Ensign, July 1972, 27).

When a man and a woman are married and they agree, or covenant, to limit their offspring to two or three, and practice devices to accomplish this purpose, they are guilty of iniquity. . . (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-56], 2:87).


The First Presidency, comprised of Presidents David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown and N. Eldon Tanner:

We seriously regret that there should exist a sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. We have been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth that we may have joy and rejoicing in our posterity. (Letter to bishops, stake presidents and mission presidents, 14 April 1969).


President Ezra Taft Benson:

The world teaches birth control. Tragically, many of our sisters subscribe to its pills and practices when they could easily provide earthly tabernacles for more of our Father’s children. We know that every spirit assigned to this earth will come, whether through us or someone else. There are couples in the Church who think they are getting along just fine with their limited families but who will someday suffer the pains of remorse when they meet the spirits that might have been part of their posterity. The first commandment given to man was to multiply and replenish the earth with children. That commandment has never been altered, modified, or canceled. The Lord did not say to multiply and replenish the earth if it is convenient, or if you are wealthy, or after you have gotten your schooling, or when there is peace on earth, or until you have four children. The Bible says, “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord. . . Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them. . .” (Ps. 127:3, 5). We believe God is glorified by having numerous children and a program of perfection for them. So also will God glorify that husband and wife who have a large posterity and who have tried to raise them up in righteousness. (CR, April 1969, 12; or Improvement Era, June 1969, 43-44).

The Church recognizes that not all women in the Church will have the opportunity for marriage and motherhood in mortality. Of necessity, some of our sisters have had to choose careers as a means of their own livelihood, and in some instances to provide for their families. But we do not encourage our young women to enter careers as lifelong objectives nor as alternatives to marriage and family. There is a godly and noble reason for this counsel. (Woman, 70-71).

Godhood is our goal, our high and singular aim. Godhood is the only complete state, the only state wherein man and woman can obtain a fulness of joy. As we have been taught, this happy state comprehends the power of the seeds through the effectual and eternal union of the male and female, then the subsequent effectual parenting necessary to successfully bring children up in light and truth to a glorious kingdom. Herein is the work and glory and joy of God and mankind!

In the accomplishment of this pre-eminent goal here or in eternity, the division of gifts (capacities) and duties (missions) between the male and female remains the same. The male, lovingly presiding in the family, is the partner mainly responsible for needs outside the home. These include the necessities to preserve the well-being of the family within the external context of the family’s socio-ecclesiastical, socio-economic, socio-political and socio-physical environments.

The Male Role

Since the early 70’s when the traditional roles of men and women came under acute attack, every President of the Church since then has given specific and consistent counsel:


President Spencer W. Kimball:

Men ought to be men indeed and earn the living under normal circumstances. (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward Kimball [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982], 318).


President Ezra Taft Benson:

What, then, is a father's specific responsibility within the sacred walls of his home? May I suggest two basic responsibilities of every father in Israel.
First, you have a sacred responsibility to provide for the material needs of your family.
The Lord clearly defined the roles of providing for and rearing a righteous posterity. In the beginning, Adam, not Eve, was instructed to earn the bread by the sweat of his brow. . . In a home where there is an able-bodied husband, he is expected to be the breadwinner. . . Brethren of the priesthood, I continue to emphasize the importance of mothers staying home to nurture, care for, and train their children in the principles of righteousness. . .
Second, you have a sacred responsibility to provide spiritual leadership in your family. . .
Mothers play an important role as the heart of the home, but this in no way lessens the equally important role fathers should play, as head of the home, in nurturing, training and loving their children. (See Ensign, November 1987, 48-51).


President Howard W. Hunter:

You who hold the priesthood have the responsibility, unless disabled, to provide temporal support for your wife and children. No man can shift the burden of responsibility to another, not even to his wife. The Lord has commanded that women and children have claim upon their husbands and fathers for their maintenance (see D&C 83; 1 Tim. 5:8). President Ezra Taft Benson has stated that when a husband encourages or insists that his wife work out of the home for their convenience, “not only will the family suffer in such instances... but [his] own spiritual growth and progression will be hampered” (Ensign, Nov. 1987, 49).
We urge you to do all in your power to allow your wife to remain in the home, caring for the children while you provide for the family the best you can. We further emphasize that men who abandon their family and fail to meet their responsibility to care for those they have fathered may find their eligibility for a temple recommend and their standing in the Church in jeopardy. (Ensign, November 1994, 51).


President Gordon B. Hinckley, the First Presidency and The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. (Proclamation To the Church and To the World, Sept. 23, 1995).

The Female Role


President Spencer W. Kimball:

Normally, the husband is the breadwinner. We believe that the place of the woman is in the home, as a general rule. We realize that some women may need to be employed when their children are grown, or when there have been problems in their home and the breadwinner has been taken from them. The most sacred privileges that a woman could have are in the home, to be a partner with God in the creation of Children. (See Ensign, February 1974, 2).


President Ezra Taft Benson:

You [sisters] were not created to be the same as men. Your natural attributes, affections, and personalities are entirely different from those of a man. They consist of faithfulness, benevolence, kindness, and charity. They give you the personality of a woman. They also balance the more aggressive and competitive nature of a man.
The business world is competitive and sometimes ruthless. We do not doubt that women have both the brainpower and the skills (and in some instances superior abilities) to compete with men. But by competing they must, of necessity, become aggressive and competitive. Thus their godly attributes are diminished and they acquire a quality of sameness with man. (Woman, 70-71).


President Howard W. Hunter:

The First Presidency has said: “Motherhood is near to divinity. It is the highest holiest service to be assumed by mankind” (in James R. Clarke, comp. Messages of the First Presidency, 6 Vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75, 6:178). The priesthood cannot work out its destiny, nor can God’s purposes be fulfilled, without our helpmeets. Mothers perform a labor the priesthood cannot do. For this gift of life, the priesthood should have love unbounded for the mothers of their children.
Honor your wife’s unique and divinely appointed role as a mother in Israel and her special capacity to bear and nurture children. We are under divine commandment to multiply and replenish the earth and to bring up our children and grandchildren in light and truth. (Ensign, November 1994, 50).


President Gordon B. Hinckley, the First Presidency and The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurturing of their children. (A Proclamation To the Church and To the World, Sept. 23, 1995).

These kindly and tender patriarch-prophets are not chauvinistically attempting to put women in their place, but are rather lovingly bearing witness and counseling the daughters of God as the Lord’s inspired servants. They point unerringly to that place where their sisters’ greatest privileges and joys can be found, both here and in eternity.

Secondly, they counsel that these principles, privileges and joys unique to womanhood do not concern merely some of God’s daughters.


President Spencer W. Kimball:

Every girl, and I say every girl, should prepare herself for marriage and for domestic responsibilities. You are not reading that in the magazines today, but it’s true nevertheless. She should be encouraged to be proud to prepare for true womanly service. She should become skilled in things that are useful and enriching to her family life. She should develop her talents, strengthen her knowledge and testimony of the gospel, and be eager to serve others. . . (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1982], 320).


President Ezra Taft Benson:

We hear much talk -- even among some of our own sisters -- about so-called “alternative life-styles” for women. It is maintained that some women are better suited for careers than for marriage and motherhood, or that a combination of both family and career is not inimical to either. Some have even been so bold as to suggest that the Church move away from the “Mormon woman stereotype” of homemaking and rearing children. God grant that that dangerous philosophy will never take root among our Latter-day women!
I repeat: You are elect because you were elected to a certain work. How glorious is the knowledge that you are dignified by the God heaven to be wives and mothers in Zion! (Woman, 70).

Partnering

Only a fool would attempt to competitively compare or erase these unique differences between the male and female roles. For 6,000 years ignorant and unwise men and women have fought the so-called “battle of the sexes.” The truth is we not only want the parts to retain their unique differences and missions, we need them to, or the whole will never be complete, and the missions never accomplished! We need to come to appreciate and value our differences instead of making light of them, disdaining them or seeking to eradicate them. We need to recognize how glorious our unique differences are, and how wonderfully they complement, temper and round out the whole to make our marital partnerships effective and marvelously complete.

As Latter-day Saints blessed with an eternal perspective of life the world does not generally enjoy, we need to stop allowing the world to set our priorities, shape our values and influence the course we each choose during our mortal probation. The highways and byways of the worldly-wise are not the strait and narrow path to Godhood.

It makes no sense for both the female and the male to leave children and home, seeking to serve and save their external environments while their family dies of neglect. The home is the fountain of life, the center of the universe! It cannot be ignored without reaping a sad harvest. Similarly, it makes no sense for both to stay home full-time, taking no thought for the provision of the family or the preservation of the environments in which the home exists. The home will not survive if the environments in which it exists socially, physically, politically, economically, ecclesiastically are destroyed. Similarly, the environments cannot survive if the home fails at the very headwaters of life.

When intelligences live destructively they destroy not only themselves but also the environments to which they are connected. The home is the only place where the inculcation of true principles has been consistently effective in producing righteous lives to preserve and bless life and the environment, rather than injuring and destroying them. These unique and equal dichotomous roles of faithful mothers and fathers cannot be overemphasized.


President Spencer W. Kimball offered this simple reminder to the believing saints:

Remember, in the world before we came here, faithful women were given certain assignments while faithful men were foreordained to certain priesthood tasks. While we do not now remember the particulars, this does not alter the glorious reality of what we once agreed to. (TSWK, 316).


President Ezra Taft Benson:

Fathers, you cannot delegate your duty as the head of the home. Mothers, train up your children in righteousness; do not attempt to save the world and let your own family fall apart. . .
The home is the rock foundation, the cornerstone of civilization. This nation and others will never rise above their homes. The church, the schools, and even the nations stand helpless before weakened and degraded homes. (In CR, Taiwan Area Conference, 1975, 3).

The gospel is about fostering faith in, and obedience to, the eternal principles of eternal lives. Individuals can obtain eternal life without the degrees of men and professional success, but we can never obtain eternal life without faithful, righteous, viable marriages and families in the gospel context. The stringent requirements of exaltation do not include professional careers or nice houses, but they most certainly require successful marriages and loving homes.

The Church is in the celestial home building business, and its blueprints are taken from the pages of the holy scriptures containing the fulness of the gospel and the inspired teachings and counsel of living prophets. To build on any other foundation will produce sand castles in futility.

Taking Counsel from the Lord

Some may contend the leaders of the Church offer general counsel for the general rule, and might seek to excuse themselves on the basis of specific perceived needs they do not think the prophets have seen or taken into consideration. We must be so careful. Refusing to follow the Lord’s prophets has always brought sorrow to the children of Israel. As God’s beloved sons and daughters we have been continually admonished to humble ourselves and to exercise great faith, not to seek to counsel, but rather to “take counsel from [the Lord’s] hand” (see Jacob 4:10-12).


President Marion G. Romney cautioned the saints:

In my view, seeking to counsel the Lord generally means disregarding the Lord’s counsel, either knowingly or unknowingly, and in place thereof substituting our own counsel or the persuasions of men. Doing this is a very common human weakness. But until we are able to conquer it, real closeness to the Spirit of the Lord eludes us regardless of our other gifts and attainments.
On the other hand, when a person learns what the Lord’s counsel is and follows it, he irresistibly draws close to the Spirit. From its very beginning, the history of God’s dealings with his children on the earth testifies to the fact that those who disregard his counsel fail and come to grief. . .
Now I do not think that many members of the Church consciously urge the persuasions of men or their own counsel instead of heeding the Lord’s. However, when we do not keep ourselves advised as to what the counsel of the Lord is, we are prone to substitute our own counsel for His. As a matter of fact, there is nothing else we can do but follow our own counsel when we do not know the Lord’s instructions. . . (Ensign, August 1985, 2-5).

We bear witness that following divine counsel will always bless our lives, both now and in the eternities to come. We are loved and cherished children of the Gods with divine potential to become like them, to find the same joys and obtain the same glories they possess, but only if we walk the same path they have walked then revealed to us for our benefit and blessing. We are little children with much to learn. Our eternal parents have walked this road before us. If we will have the humility and faith of little children to trust and follow them, while we may not understand all things now, the day will come when we will comprehend and rejoice in the great wisdom and power of these eternal principles our Heavenly Father has revealed through his anointed servants.

The eternal truths pertaining to the dichotomy and synergy of our sexual natures, gifts and roles as male and female offspring of Deity are both beautiful and powerful. In the end we will come to know the singular roles of men and women both now and in eternity have always been and always will be mutually dependent, perfectly equal, but effectually different to bring to pass the work and glory of God.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Chapter Two: Equality in Dichotomy

Chapter Two

Equality in Dichotomy

The Gods know males and females are innately equal. “The women’s issue” is not an issue because God and his anointed servants do not see and respect this obvious equality between men and women. Instead, the problem arises from a godless society lacking an eternal perspective, failing miserably to comprehend eternal truths.

Some who have adopted the world’s view contend equality for women means God’s sons and daughters must share the same roles and duties in order to be perfectly equal. The most obvious example we see today is men and women marching shoulder to shoulder into war. In a society where heterosexual marriage is no longer considered by many to be a desirable state, where children are often viewed as an economic burden because the family farm gave way to jobs in the big city, and where lifestyle options abound outside the home and hearth of yesteryear, it is little wonder such philosophies have gained popularity among us today.

However, while the restoration of eternal truth clearly confirms males and females have the same worth, it also reveals the innate power of the sexes lies in the wonderfully different characteristics the male and female join together. Each unique half complements the whole, and only in this God-given dichotomy properly joined together can mankind continue its progression. Man and woman are not only two equal parts of one whole, they are uniquely and necessarily different parts of one grand whole. We do not want them to be the same, we do not need them to be the same. To the contrary, they must be different. One must be male and one must be female. They cannot both be males or females.

The male part is necessary to manufacture the seed. If there is no seed there is no life. The power of the seeds is the fountain of life. However, the seed must be processed or it quickly dies. The male does not have the capacity to process the seed he manufactures. He is incomplete. By himself he is not whole. He must be connected, sealed together in partnership with his other half who has the unique capacity to manufacture an egg and then process the growth of the embryo to maturity.

By himself the male cannot process the seed to produce a living soul. No matter how many male parts we might add to the whole, the whole would forever remain incomplete and impotent to bring to pass the godly work of creating life. There is no place in eternal life, God’s life, for a single male or a single female who insists upon his or her right to act alone.

The male needs, absolutely requires, a partnership with someone different than him -- one who has unique capacity he does not have. He needs the other half, a female half, with her singular attributes. He will never be whole without her. She will never be whole without him.

Some among us who are challenged with homosexual tendencies may not fully understand the eternal implications of this fundamental precept. The Church has one singular mission -- to be an instrument in bringing to pass God’s stated work and glory, the immortality and eternal life of men and women. The Church is to assist men and women in reaching their full potential to become as God is. As we have seen, God is an exalted couple possessing the power of procreation, and the mission of the Church is to help God’s children become the same. The Church has no other legitimate mission even when it appears to be completely out of step with the exigencies of modern society’s agenda.

Homosexuality is simply not an option in the attainment of parenthood. It divides and subtracts from the achievement of the full divine potential of God’s sons and daughters. While adoptive homosexual parents may be caring and nurturing parents and are increasingly recognized as a legal definition of “family,” there is no power of the seeds in the homosexual relationship. It is a lethal perversion, a fatal distortion of those tender feelings and intimate acts calculated to bond the male and female parts together heterosexually in producing eternal lives.

To expect the Church to embrace, condone or even tolerate homosexuality amounts to requiring the Church to desert its divinely mandated mission and to deny the realities of revealed eternal truth. The Church cannot do so and remain the instrument of God it was prepared to be in administering the priesthood keys that unlock the gates of eternal lives.

Parley P. Pratt said:

All persons who attain to the resurrection, and to salvation, without these eternal ordinances, or sealing covenants, will remain in a single state, in their saved condition, without the joys of eternal union with the other sex, and consequently without a crown, without a kingdom, without the power to increase.

Hence, they are angels, and are not gods; and are ministering spirits, or servants, in the employ and under the direction of The Royal Family of heaven -- the princes, kings and priests of eternity. (Key To The Science of Theology, 9th ed. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1965], 169-70).

In the war of words over homosexuality, arguments abound whether homosexual tendencies are genetic, environmental or learned behavior. While it spices debate, the answer eternally is not really relevant. Homosexual partnerships are sexually impotent. The homosexual state is as incapable in the performance of the exalted work of God as the single state. Only an eternal heterosexual union with its two different parts has omnipotent potential.

There should be no debate in the Church about the need to value and cherish our homosexually challenged brothers and sisters as individual children of God, and to advance their happiness and well-being to the highest degree possible. But none of that changes the eternal implications of their fiercely held sexual preference. They are free to choose, free to act. Choosing an alternative lifestyle here and now is always an option under the principle of moral agency. But we must not fail to help them clearly see the eternally limiting ramifications of their short-sighted choice.

Recognizing the two parts must be different, males and females should cherish our different natures to perform our unique tasks for the benefit and blessing of the whole. While the powers resident in the different natures and capacities of the sexes are not the same, neither are they superior or inferior to each other. They are equally necessary and valuable.

Some fail to understand the term different does not imply the meaning unequal. Different does not mean unequal. Different capacities are not unequal capacities. Different roles and duties are not necessarily unequal roles and duties. Different missions and responsibilities are not necessarily unequal missions and responsibilities. Some do not comprehend this important principle with regard to the sexes.

Total and absolute equality can and does exist within the dichotomy of the marriage covenant.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Power and Covenants: Men, Women and Priesthood

Over the next several weeks I will be serializing a book written in 1996, dealing with the marriage covenant between men and women.  There has never been a time in our society when the defining of the true roles of men and women was more urgent.  A complete free pdf copy of the manuscript may be obtained by writing to me at dgoates@yahoo.com. 

Power and Covenants:  Men, Women and Priesthood
by R. Scott Strong and David B. Goates, 1996

Table of Contents:

Prologue

PART 1 -- THE EQUALITY QUESTION

Section 1 -- Sexual Equality

Chapter One:  Equality of the Sexes

Chapter Two:  Equality in Dichotomy

Chapter Three:  Serving the Home

Chapter Four:  Special Situations

Section 2 -- The “Presiding” Question

Chapter Five:  The Presiding Principle

Chapter Six:  The Principle of Order

Chapter Seven:  Righteous and Unrighteous Dominion

PART 2 -- THE PRIESTHOOD QUESTION

Section 3 -- The Priesthood

Chapter Eight:  What is the Priesthood?

Chapter Nine:  Power in the Priesthood

Chapter Ten:  No Power in the Law

Section 4 -- The Keys of the Priesthood

Chapter Eleven:  The Presiding Keys of Authority

Chapter Twelve:  The Spiritual Keys of Power

Chapter Thirteen:  How the Priesthood Administers the Keys

Chapter Fourteen:  Coming Into the Presence of God

Chapter Fifteen:  The Priesthood Keys and True Prayer

Section 5 -- The Patriarchal Order

Chapter Sixteen:  The Patriarchal Order of the Priesthood

Chapter Seventeen:  Temples and Temple Work

Chapter Eighteen:  The Creation of Man

Chapter Nineteen:  Creatorship

Chapter Twenty:  Women and the Priesthood

Conclusion

Epilogue

Appendix A


PROLOGUE

Before their outing to the park one day in early Spring, two children asked their father for some money to buy candy and soda.

Jill, the little girl, was crying as they left because her older brother, Joey, was given four quarters. She was given only one dollar bill. She left home feeling their father wasn’t very fair, because Joey got four and she only got one.

Joey felt he was really lucky getting four, when his sister only got one. He figured he was entitled to more because he was a boy.

In truth, their father had given them exactly equal amounts of money, but he had purposely given them their equal shares in different denominations that day for a reason known only to him. That early in the season the concession stand would be closed. Only the vending machines would be available. He knew the candy machine took only quarters, and the drink machine took only dollar bills. If he had given them each a dollar bill or if each had only four quarters, they would only be able to acquire either drinks or candy instead of both. He told them if they would share they could each obtain the desired treats. Now it was up to them.

Some brothers and sisters in similar circumstances might individually spend their share of the money, then proudly flaunt and consume what each had obtained while secretly envying what the other had. Worse, they might angrily argue over who had the best treat. Other brothers and sisters might do some wheeling and dealing, competitively bartering and manipulating to get more or less than the other based upon who was bigger or smarter.

Still others might lovingly combine their resources, join together, share equally, and gratefully enjoy what their father had generously provided as gifts for each of his children -- a love given freely and equally to a beautiful daughter and a handsome son.


PART ONE

THE EQUALITY QUESTION

Section One -- Sexual Equality

Chapter One

Equality of the Sexes

The Lord has revealed the truth about men and women from the beginning. Men and women are complete and equal partners. In General Conference, taking his text from the creation story in Genesis, President Howard W. Hunter taught:

The Lord intended that the wife be a helpmeet for man (meet means equal) -- that is, a companion equal and necessary in full partnership. (See Ensign, Nov. 1994, pp. 49-51).

The woman is the other half of man, just as man is the other half of woman, and nothing short of a complete man (an exalted couple) comprises the true and full definition of God. Godhood requires parenthood. Gods are parents. Their dominions, principalities and kingdoms comprise their families -- their offspring. Gods have the power of endless (eternal) lives. They possess the power of the seeds (procreation) forever, worlds without end. Other resurrected beings without posterity are not Gods. These beings are not Kings and Queens, for they have no kingdoms, or posterity, to lovingly preside over in the grand order of eternal kingdoms.

Brigham Young said:

The kingdoms [God] possesses and rules over are his own progeny. Every man who is faithful and gets a salvation and glory, and becomes a King of kings and Lord of lords, or a Father of fathers, it will be by the increase of his own progeny. Our Father and God rules over his own children. Where ever there is a God in all the eternities possessing a kingdom and glory and power it is by means of his own progeny. (JD, 11:262).

By definition, then, the Gods are exalted Fathers and Mothers. Wherever we find a father, there must also be a mother. Motherhood is essential to fatherhood, and both are essential to Godhood.

Erastus Snow, said it well:

. . . there can be no God except he is composed of the man and the woman united, and there is not in all the eternities that exist, nor ever will be, a God in any other way. I have another description: There never was a God, and there never will be in all eternities, except they are made of these two component parts; a man and a woman; the male and the female. (JD, 19:270).

The Lord’s chosen servants have always taught this important doctrine.

President Spencer W. Kimball said the term man in the story of creation refers to a complete man which is husband and wife. (Ensign, March 1976, 71). In 1979, he taught marriage is the only true state.  (Ensign, May 1979, 6).

Elder James E. Talmage:

Neither of the sexes is complete in itself as a counterpart of Deity. We are expressly told that God is the Father of spirits, and to apprehend the literalness of this solemn truth we must know that a mother of spirits is an existent personality. . . (The Articles of Faith, 12th ed., 442-43).

President Howard W. Hunter:

It is not good for man nor for woman to be alone. Man is not complete without woman. Neither can fill the measure of their creation without the other. (Ensign, November 1994, 49).

President Hugh B. Brown:

Without the sealing ordinances of temple marriage, man cannot achieve a godlike stature or receive a fulness of joy because the unmarried person is not a whole person, is not complete. (Improvement Era, August 1962, 572).

Only the full partnership of male and female can achieve eternal lives by the power of the seeds. Man or woman without the other is incapable of producing the offspring required to bring to pass the revealed work and glory of God -- the immortality and eternal life of man. (See Moses 1:39).

Absolute equality between two mutually and exclusively dependent halves of one whole is a self-evident truth. Man and woman are truly dependent upon each other to achieve their common goal of Godhood. The work and glory of God is impossible for either to achieve without the other. How can one say to the other, “I am superior to you,” and have it be true?

The other may say with complete integrity, “You will never have what you want without me. I am your only hope, your only option, your only chance at what you want. Everything you hope and desire is absolutely dependent upon your partnership with me. It’s me or nothing.”

Then the first could respond, “You are just as dependent upon me!” The second could rightfully say, “That is exactly my point. Each of us is no bigger, no higher, no more important, no better or more valuable in this common quest than the other. We either take each other, acknowledging each other as the equals we truly are, or we both have nothing.”

This stalemate, where neither has advantage over the other, neither has the requisite power nor capacities without the other, unequivocally confirms the equality of each half of the whole. Being mutually and exclusively dependent upon each other mandates respect and appreciation for the equal value of the other and willing submission and trust in a full partnership.

This is the true condition of males and females. If either the male or the female obtains a fullness of divine potential, it can only be realized in full partnership. There are no exceptions in the highest heavens.

In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase. (D&C 131:2-4).

“A man” in this context refers to “a person,” man or woman. The reference to “a man” here had to do with the fact the Prophet was speaking to William Clayton at the time. In this context whenever we refer to “man” in a generic way we are speaking about mankind -- men and women.

President Joseph Fielding Smith states the case clearly, so there can be no misunderstanding the necessity for two partners in attaining the fullness of the blessings of the kingdom of God:

In order to fulfill the purposes of our Eternal Father, there must be a union, husbands and wives receiving the blessings that are promised to those who are faithful and true that will exalt them to Godhood. A man cannot receive the fulness of the blessings of the kingdom of God alone, nor can the woman, but the two together can receive all the blessings and privileges that pertain to the fulness of the Father’s kingdom. (Take Heed to Yourselves, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1966], 258).

Throughout history the carnal societies of fallen men have often viewed women as second rate citizens, mere objects of pleasure, to be used and abused at the whim of their supposed male counterparts for sexual gratification and in subservient roles as servants and slaves in the kitchens and bedrooms of society. Even within the churches males have historically arrogated to themselves positions of superiority (as they suppose) by virtue of their gender and priesthood. In this great pluralistic democratic era in America, however, with constitutional support to bolster their cause, the “women’s movement” is successfully seeking greater freedom and equality for all. It is no wonder oppressed women everywhere have risen in rebellion, seeking their rightful equal status with men in society. This new “feminism” is long overdue and clearly warranted. However, Latter-day Saints would be well-advised to exercise caution regarding these sweeping political and social reforms. There are many diverse ideas about what “feminism” is. Most of these ideas do not conform with the revealed truths of the Restoration.

Based upon the flood of light we enjoy, the Latter-day Saints can better define “feminism” within the Church as “partnership.” Men and women with that shared vision would then accept one another as equal brothers and sisters, become true partners, a Zion people who are “of one heart and one mind, and [dwell] in righteousness.” (See Moses 7:18).

Most of the women we know in the Church simply want and deserve acceptance, recognition and participation on equal terms with men. Few women really advocate a need or feel a desire for a priesthood ordination. What seems most apparent, however, is a healthy willingness and assertiveness among women to speak up against intolerance, injustice and insensitivity. If men are listening carefully they will move closer to understanding their role in productive partnering with their wives, daughters and other women in their lives.

Pope John Paul II, an inspiring modern Catholic Church leader had an insightful perspective on feminism:

If our century has been characterized in liberal societies by a growing feminism, it might be said that this trend is a reaction to the lack of respect accorded each woman. Everything that I have written on this theme in Mulieris Dignitatem [the Apostolic letter entitled The Dignity of Woman] I have felt since I was very young, and, in a certain sense, from infancy. Perhaps I was also influenced by the climate of the time in which I was brought up -- it was a time of great respect and consideration for women, especially for women who were mothers.

I think that a certain contemporary feminism finds its roots in the absence of true respect for woman. Revealed truth teaches us something different. Respect for woman, amazement at the mystery of womanhood, and finally the nuptial love of God Himself and of Christ, as expressed in the Redemption, are all elements that have never been completely absent in the faith and life of the Church. This can be seen in a rich tradition of customs and practices that, regrettably, is nowadays being eroded. In our civilization woman has become, before all else, an object of pleasure.

It is very significant, on the other hand, that in the midst of this very situation the authentic theology of woman is being reborn. The spiritual beauty, the particular genius, of women is being rediscovered. The bases for the consolidation of the position of women in life, not only family life but also social and cultural life, are being redefined. (His Holiness Pope John Paul II in Crossing the Threshold of Hope, ed. Vittorio Messori [New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994], 216-7, italics in the original).

There is a hopeful tone in those words, as there is throughout the entire book. Perhaps we are at the apex of the change of direction in the swinging of the pendulum in women’s rights.

While we witness real and positive change in the fight to elevate women to their rightful equal status with men, there is alarming evidence we have overreacted in some very unwise and deleterious ways. There was a time in America during this century when political correctness regarding the domestic role of women was not an issue, because no one questioned the traditional family values of a father who worked outside the home and a mother who bore and nurtured the children within the home. Unfortunately, statistics and current social conditions document conclusively the shift from oppression of women to a position nearing selfish irresponsibility.

The data below illustrate dramatic changes in fifty years. The differences over time are startling. Male and female roles have been redefined with the following results. The graphs appeared in the Feb. 12, 1996 issue of USA Today, as compiled by Julie Stacey, from US Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Health and Human Services, and Census Bureau data, and are summarized briefly here:

Marriage rate per 1,000 unmarried women 15 and older: 1946 -- 118.1; 1994 -- 51.5

Percentage of women, age 16 and over, in the labor force: 1948 -- 32.7%; 1995 -- 59.1%

Percentage of “traditional” families (husband works, wife does not): 1940 -- 66.7%; 1994 -- 16.9%

Percentage of dual-income families (both husband and wife work): 1940 -- 9.2%; 1994 -- 42.4%

Single-parent families as a percentage of all families with children under 18: 1950 -- 7.4%; 1994 -- 26.3%

Estimated median age at first marriage: 1947 -- 23.7 (Men), 20.5 (Women); 1994 -- 26.7 (Men), 24.5 (Women)

Average number of children under 18 among married couples with children: 1955 -- 2.2; 1993 -- 1.88

Number of children born out of wedlock (as a percentage of all births): 1946 -- 125,200 (3.7%); 1993 -- 1.24 million (31%)

The Traditional Family

Remember, these are only data from the United States.  The data from other developed countries in Europe, for example, are even more sobering.  The obvious question is, “What happened to the traditional family?” There are multiple answers to that question, but all of them are compounded by the economic realities that have beset the whole world, not just the oft-maligned materialistic Western world. Writing in USA Today on January 27, 1997, Lester C. Thurow, a professor of economics and former dean of MIT’s Sloan School of Management, gives the following assessment in an article entitled Changes in Capitalism Render One-Earner Families Extinct:

The traditional family is disappearing almost everywhere.

Worldwide from 1960 to 1992, births among unmarried mothers doubled for those 20 to 24 years of age and quadrupled for those 15 to 19 years of age. The United States is far from being the world’s leader in this category, ranking sixth. Divorce rates are rising in the developed and underdeveloped world, doubling in Beijing in just four years. Female-headed households or households where females provide 50% or more of total income are becoming the norm.

The reasons are straight-forward. The current economic system is no longer congruent with traditional nuclear family values, just as the Industrial Revolution two centuries earlier was not congruent with the then-traditional extended family values.

In America, 32% of all men 25 years to 34 years of age earn less than the amount necessary to keep a family of four above the poverty line. While male wages are falling at the bottom, the costs of supporting a family are rising. Children need ever more expensive educations for ever longer periods of time if they are to make it in today’s global economy. Economically many men, perhaps a majority, are being told that they should not plan to have a family since there is no probability that they will be able to support a family.

Women are under enormous pressures because the economy gives them one message (go to work and make the money the family needs to survive) and old cultural mores give them another message (stay at home and take care of the children). They feel stressed because they are stressed.

Today, family members support the family less because it is now much less necessary to their own survival. Men end up having strong economic incentive to bail out of family relations and responsibilities because they raise their own standards of living when they do so. Whether it is by fathering a family without being willing to be a father, by divorcing and being unwilling to pay alimony or child support, or by being a guest worker from the Third World and after a short time failing to send payments to the family back home, men are opting out. Among families with dependent children, 25% don’t have a male present.

Women get welfare only if no man is present in the home. Children’s economic standards of living are often higher as wards of the state in foster care than they would be if they stayed in their disintegrating families.

Values follow economic realities. Individual fulfillment now ranks higher than family in public opinion polls. “Competitive individualism” grows at the expense of “family solidarity.” The ideal is “choice,” not “bonds.” In the language of capitalism, children have ceased to be “profit centers” and have become “cost centers.”

The response quite naturally is to form fewer families and to have smaller numbers of children. When children do exist, parents spend less time with them – 40% less than they did 30 years ago. With mothers at work, more than 2 million children under the age of 13 are left completely without adult supervision, both before and after school.

Effectively, no one ends up taking care of the children, but they have to be left alone because paying for day care would use up most of mother’s wages and negate the whole purpose of going to work in the first place.

Historically, the single parent has been the norm in no society, but patriarchal linear life is economically now over. Family values are under attack, not by government programs that discourage family formation (although there are some) and not by media presentations that disparage families (although there are some), but by the
economic system itself. It simply won’t allow families to exist in the old-fashioned way, with a father who generates most of the earnings and a mother who does most of the nurturing. The one-earner, middle-class family is extinct.

Social arrangements are not determined just by economics – there are many possibilities at any point in time – but whatever the arrangements, they have to be consistent with economic realities. Changes within capitalism are making the traditional family less and less compatible with the market.

As a consequence, the family is an institution both in flux and under pressure. Basic questions about how the family should be organized have been put in play by economic reality. (USA Today, January 27, 1997, 17A).

The equal though fundamentally different roles of men and women have been redefined, revalued and reordered, and the home has been the casualty. Whatever else may be said, this much is clear -- perhaps only the Latter-day Saints and a handful of devout leaders and members in other world religions have the only viable hope of balancing the course the world has taken. We have a chance because of the eternal perspective God has rained down upon our heads in the Restoration. Others who are honest in heart among the Christians, Muslims and Jews, will continue to value the traditional family. Pope John Paul II has never wavered in his support of faithful marriages, his renunciation of the sin of abortion and indiscriminate birth control measures, nor his advocacy of women rights, for example. Like our prophets, however, he too has been criticized for his views on women and the priesthood.

President Kimball spoke with penetrating prophetic accuracy, when he said:

Many of the social restraints which in the past have helped to reinforce and to shore up the family are dissolving and disappearing. The time will come when only those who believe deeply and actively in the family will be able to preserve their families in the midst of the gathering evil around us. (Ensign, October 1980, 4).

We speak not by way of alarm but by way of gentle counsel. Let us go back to the basics and follow the fundamentals. Thus we will experience a spiritual resurgence in our lives which will help us through these tempestuous times. (Ensign, May 1981, 80).

As fallen mortals we have an innate desire to “want it all,” even when all the choices seem so “good.” The good news is we have more choices as men and women than ever before.

Sometimes forgotten from our pre-mortal experience is the reality we came to earth to make choices here, as we did there. If we will follow President Kimball’s counsel and go back to the basics, we will rediscover the truths about men and women, eternal marriage and the pure absolute equality of the sexes. Such truths will anchor our vision of becoming eternal couples dwelling in celestial glory and creating worlds without end. The realization of such lofty aims is only the result of today’s choices. Those eternal choices have everything to do with our respective but equal roles.

Saturday, October 3, 2009

Merilee's act of extreme kindness



DATELINE:  Tonight, on the highway in a remote rural community where we live, another deer's life was spared because of the quick reactions of a youthful driver -- our daughter Merilee.

Unfortunately for Merilee and passenger Kate (her best friend), the vehicle in which they were traveling rolled and was pronounced dead at the scene by an investigating officer from the Utah Highway Patrol.

EMTs also responded to the 911 call from a passing motorist who witnessed the accident and stopped to assist the passengers. The driver and passenger who were both wearing seat belts were treated at the scene and released.

The vehicle came to rest on the driver's side. Merilee escaped unassisted through the rear window that had been broken out along with all the other windows in the vehicle, and her friend was cut out of her seat belt and assisted by the kindly passing motorist who then managed to tip the vehicle back on its wheels.

It was confirmed later in an interview with the deer's closest relatives who remained at the scene, that the deer had graduated earlier this summer from Woodland Deer Institute with high honors.  The deer's mother predicted a long and productive life for her daughter after this close brush with death.

No remuneration by either the deer involved nor her family was offered to our daughter, however.

My reaction?  Make that 19 deer in 20 years that have encountered one of our family members in various vehicles that sustained minor damages.  The other 18 weren't as lucky as the one tonight -- they were all slaughtered mercilessly by Merilee's brothers and sisters.

General Conference

I've always loved General Conference.  Today, I reminisce a bit about some of my earliest memories.  It was President Packer who recently said, "Young men talk about the future because they have no past.  Old men talk about the past because they have no future."  You can decide which I am for yourselves. . .

I grew up in the Church during the administration of President David O. McKay.  From my earliest memories of meeting him and shaking his hand in the parking lot behind the Lion House on the day I was baptized in the Tabernacle font as an eight year-old, until I was in the mission field serving in England, I never knew another president of the Church. 

There's an old black and white press photograph that hangs in my office today, taken at the October 1955 semi-annual General Conference outside the Tabernacle between the pillars of the building.  It shows The Quorum of the Twelve.  Seated on the front row is President Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, Mark E. Petersen, Matthew Cowley, and standing behind them are Henry D. Moyle, Delbert L. Stapley, Marion G. Romney, LeGrand Richards, Adam S. Bennion, and the newly sustained Richard L. Evans. 

Following that Conference on Sunday evening the First Presidency and the Twelve gathered at Grandfather's home to mark the completion of yet another General Conference.  I was asked to sing one of President McKay's favorite Primary songs, "A Mormon Boy."  Grandfather accompanied me on the piano.  Then as the dinner and refreshments were being cleaned up later I found myself on the lap of Adam S. Bennion admiring his watch.  It was gold and had a calendar imbedded in the face that he told me would turn over automatically at midnight.  I wanted desperately to stay until midnight to watch the miracle watch, but my mother was persistent in reminding me it was a school night.  Elder Bennion obliged my curiosity by manually advancing the date to my everlasting delight! 

These men were my boyhood heroes.  I wanted to grow up to be just like them!  Being the eldest grandson of Harold B. Lee always assured a front row seat to all the significant events as I grew up.  As an old man now looking back, I am so grateful for one abiding blessing -- proximity.  Rubbing shoulders as I did with great men has been an unexpected boon to my existence.

As a young deacon I accompanied my father to the Tabernacle for my first General Priesthood meeting.  It was the October semi-annual General Conference of 1959.  It was a warm fall evening, and all the doors and windows in the Tabernacle were wide open to provide a cross breeze if such could be found.  President McKay stood at the pulpit to begin the meeting and the first words out of his mouth were a suggestion that if we were too warm we could remove our jackets to make ourselves more comfortable.  The vast majority shifted in their seats, many arose, and did just as he suggested.  Suddenly the audience was transformed into a sea of white as their shirtsleeves predominated the scene. 

There were no television cameras in the Tabernacle in those days.  The Church Security Department hadn't been invented yet.  The Brethren on the stand would often mingle with the audience before and after the meetings.  There was no physical separation between the red chairs and the audience.  There were only a handful of General Authorites -- the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, Seven Presidents of the Seventy, and the Presiding Bishopric. 

We all remember how unwieldy it seemed when the Assistants to the Twelve were first introduced.  Where would they ever find the room to seat them all on the stand?  Seems funny now, when you look at the ever-burgeoning number of red chairs today in the Conference Center! 

The meetings in those days of my childhood were always more casual and intimate.  Many of the speakers addressed the audience without notes.  Hugh B. Brown, Sterling W. Sill and Bruce R. McConkie were orators in the first rank!  They are just three examples of accomplished public speakers I remember.  There were scores more, but we have seldom seen the equals of these three since. 

I remember watching General Conference sessions on our black and white TV in our family room.  Whenever Elder Bruce R. McConkie stood to speak, I always found a reason to exit the room and find something else to do.  He seemed too overpowering, too overbearing, too dramatic, too over the top.  I shudder to think about that now, but he was BORING to me as a young man.  As I matured, as I learned the gospel, as I spoke and taught the revealed truths of the Restoration, I valued Elder McConkie's teachings more and more.  He became an "acquired taste" over time.  By the time he stood at the pulpit and delivered his timeless prophetic sermon in the Sesquicentennial General Conference on April 6, 1980, entitled "The Coming Tests and Trials and Glory," I was a devoted disciple eager for every word he spoke.  The lesson is this:  He never changed.  He was as solid as the mountains that surround us.  But I changed a lot.  So it must be for all of us, I believe.  If you don't love Conference yet, persist in your faith -- you will someday.

A red light on the podium of the Tabernacle lit up if speakers were taking liberties with their alloted time.  President McKay controlled the switch from his seat.  Elder LeGrand Richards was priceless and always a favorite.  He never had a prepared speech, even after they were mandated later.  He'd stand at the pulpit and let 'er rip.  The red light always stopped him.  It was the ONLY thing that stopped him.  We all loved him.  Toward the end of his life he was living with his daughter in our ward.  He was confined to a wheel chair because his feet had been amputated due to poor circulation.  He was wheeled to the front of the chapel on one fast and testimony Sunday to bear his testimony shortly before his death.  He quipped, "All I can say is that it's a lot better to die from the bottom up than from the top down." 

The proceedings at Conference were much more informal, often humorous and folksy.  Nothing was ever predictable or timed down to the second.  The music was always provided by the men's chorus of the Tabernacle Choir at General Priesthood meeting.  President McKay's favorite hymn was "I Need Thee Every Hour," and it was sung at every General Priesthood meeting I remember.  The  rich harmony of those male voices in four (sometimes eight) parts still wafts through my memories as I write.

Television changed everything.  There was a camera installed with a seat for the cameraman on a hydraulic steel column that could be raised and lowered.  It was planted in the floor of the Tabernacle right in front of the pulpit.  There were two cameras mounted on the sides in the balcony, and another way at the back in the balcony.  Teleprompters were installed.  I'll never forget Grandfather showing us all how it worked after a session.  What a technological miracle that was!  Suddenly, there were time constraints, prepared texts, carefully guarded broadcast limits, and the clock became all-important. 

We always had a seat about thirty feet from the pulpit on the left side as you looked at the red chairs from the audience.  As the speakers would come to the pulpit one by one, Dad would always give me a brief commentary on each one.  Always and forever, when President McKay would take the pulpit to either conduct or speak, Dad would invariably say, "Keep your eye on President McKay.  This may be the last time we see him and hear him speak."  Of course, his longevity is legendary in the Church.  Every year of my youth the ritual was repeated, and the instruction never failed.  And he lived on.  He lived so long I don't think any of us thought he would ever die.  I remember him vividly.  His long flowing white hair, and his signature white suits set him apart from all other men of his era.  Tall and erect, his personna was prophetic.

I well remember his counselors, Stephen L. Richards and J. Reuben Clark.  President Clark had been the first counselor to President Heber J. Grant, and when President McKay succeeded him as president he made a "shocking" announcement that President Clark would be the second counselor instead.  Church members were stunned.  The move was perceived as a demotion.  But President Clark took it all in stride, teaching the ageless lesson to Church members:  It's not where you serve, but how that is important.

I always loved attending General Conference with Grandfather.  Our tradition as a family, particularly on the night of General Priesthood meeting was to gather at his home early in the afternoon.  An early supper was prepared, then we would pile into Grandfather's Buick and he would drive.  The Wilkins from Provo would come whenever they could and that was always my favorite part of the weekend -- to get to see our cousins and sit with Alan and Larry and my brothers and Uncle Ernie.  We'd drive to the underground parking lot, then walk with Grandfather through the tunnel connecting the parking lot to the Tabernacle.  Those were the days, of course, after the other Church Office Building ("the high rise" at 50 East North Temple) had been erected.  Grandfather would invariably point out where the tunnel intersected with the temple precincts en route to the Tabernacle.  He always became reverential.  In later years he rode in an electric cart, but I always remember best the long walks together in the tunnel, visiting and talking as we strode together with him (he always walked fast -- he seemed to always be in a hurry, and he was NEVER late for anything!).

Often we would also attend the general sessions of Conference to hear him speak.  I must have heard him deliver at least a hundred sermons before I was a missionary.  However, I never in all those experiences had an appreciation for who he was until I saw him in action in the mission field.  I spoke of that experience in an earlier post.

There is one particular memory I have of him when he was a counselor to President Smith in the First Presidency.  As we came through the tunnel after the meeting, he exclaimed to all of us, "Did you hear what the Lord had to tell the Priesthood tonight?"  He was referring to his own remarks, made to the brethren without a prepared script.  He was speaking under the influence of the Spirit and we had all sensed it.  Even he, it seemed, had been stunned with the power of what we had just experienced.

Of course, toward the end of his life President McKay needed assistance.  He was often carried into the meeting by others and placed carefully in his chair.  His sons took turns delivering his sermons as his physical condition deteriorated.  I have never forgotten how revered he was by the members of the Church. 

From the earliest recollections of my childhood to this very moment I have never ceased to carry in my heart a deep and abiding witness of the divine calling of the prophets, seers and revelators and others we sustain as General Authorities.  I know they are called of God, and inspired as His instruments to give guidance and clearly defined directions to the saints in these last days, "as if from mine own mouth," said the Lord referring to Joseph and extending down to the least ordained of all His priesthood leaders (see D&C 21:5).  I also know they are mere mortals, however, just like you and me.  I know personally of their humility because of the frailties and personal challenges of their mortal condition.  But I have always known this -- the most accurate measurement of my progress spiritually is the degree to which my heart and mind is aligned with theirs. 

It was President Harold B. Lee who said, "I listened to an excerpt of a testimony of a man who was a member of the Twelve and of whom President Grant had said that he never knew a man who had a greater gift of prophecy than did this man. There was put in my hands a quotation from a sermon that he had delivered some fifty years before, which proved to be the last sermon he had ever delivered as a member of the Twelve. Before another conference, he was dropped from the Council of the Twelve and subsequently left the Church. This is what he said, in that last sermon: 'That person is not truly converted unless he sees the power of God resting upon the leaders of this church and it goes down into his heart like fire.' And I repeat that to you here today. The measure of your true conversion and whether or not you hold fast to those ideals is whether or not you are so living that you see the power of God resting upon the leaders of this church and that testimony goes down into your heart like fire."  (THBL, 520).

All the examples I have cited in this post involve dead men.  Such is the fodder of memories.  But for those of us who still live we must never forget the most important leaders of the Church are the LIVING PROPHETS, not the dead ones!

I look forward to this 179th semi-annual General Conference as it opens today in Salt Lake City.  It's always a special time.  What a Church!!  What other Church on the face of the earth lets you attend services for two days in a row dressed in your jammies in front of your TV? 

What are your favorite memories of Conference?  Please share. . .  your comments are invited.