Partnership Is More Important than Rigid Roles

“The Church has nothing to fear from the strength of women. On the contrary, it desperately needs women--and men, too--who are not trapped in dysfunctional roles that involve playing out scripts that don’t really work. Partnership is a mutually supportive relationship that recognizes and honors both the differences and similarities between men and women, that draws deeply on the strengths of both, that focuses on working toward mutually decided goals, and that celebrates the contributions of both in the home, in the community, and in the church and kingdom of God. Help both men and women to work for partnership and to move away from the limitations of rigid roles.” 

- Chieko Okazaki, "Boundaries", p. 16

A Tribute to My Wife during a Difficult Time for Her

I posted this originally a few years ago, and I came across it again today, while looking for something else.

The past three weeks have been hard on my wife, and I felt like I should share, once again, my gratitude for the amazing woman she is and the grace that brought us together so long ago.

Michan  

We met – unplanned, unanticipated, unbidden – no idea what lay ahead. 

16 and 15 – too young and immature, right?  

Quick connection – recognized more instantly by me than her.

That piano bench, just a glance – future recognition of endless past.

Two years to dance, two years not so, then twenty-six years more –

College, children, heartache, joy – peace throughout it all. 

Where she starts – where I end – what is her – what me?

Looking forward toward unknown, enough simply to be.   

We Never Said Good-Bye

The program lasted twelve days; I dreaded its end for eleven days and twenty-three hours.  

We didn’t touch the entire two weeks.  We talked.  Oh, how we talked – hour after hour, minute upon minute, inseparable, the focus of whispered questions and gossip – sharing dreams for the future and experiences from the past.  She told me about her frustrations, her family, past crushes, a former boyfriend; I listened a lot and spoke a bit, content to be with her and moved by her.  I missed the dance – my only chance to hold her.  

We walked, side-by-side, still not touching, not talking about why we were going where we were going.  We ignored it – not intentionally, but completely, nonetheless. 

Her dad was waiting when we arrived.  I said hello, introduced myself, shook hands, exchanged brief small talk. He said they needed to leave to stay on schedule.  They walked away. So did I, not wanting to see her disappear. 

I learned later she turned and looked back.  I wasn’t there. She realized at that moment she really did love me. 

Thirty years and six children later, while writing about that moment, I suddenly realize we never said good-bye.  

We never said good-bye.  

The moment I dreaded never arrived. 

I will share this with her when I return home tonight and touch her for the hundred millionth time.

A Tribute to My Mother (and Father) on Her Passing

My mom passed away on Monday. It was completely unexpected, and nobody knows exactly why it happened. She had said recently that she wanted to be with Dad again, and we choose to believe her sincere wish was granted. 

On this day of thanksgiving, I am most grateful at this moment for parents who loved me - truly loved the unique person I was - and allowed me to be different - and treasured me for that difference.

I am grateful for six children who allowed me to try to emulate my parents' loving acceptance - even when their unique differences occasionally challenged my determination to do so.

I am grateful to have been raised with the idea that families are forever, literally. I don't know why I was and am blessed to be a part of such a wonderfully unique family, but I thank God for it. My parents were ordinary heroes, and I will treasure my association with them forever.

I am thankful, deeply, that my mother has been allowed to receive her fondest desire - to be with my father again. God bless you, Mom and Dad. Save a place for all of us. 

I wrote her obituary yesterday and share it here for my children to be able to remember their heritage: 

Nora Jane Westover DeGraw, of Ada, OK, passed from this mortal life to the next on November 23, 2015 of natural causes incident to age.  She was 75 years old.  

Nora was born on October 28, 1940 in Joseph City, Arizona to Lloyd Westover and Laura Hudson.  She was the fifth of six children.  She attended school in Santaquin and Payson, Utah, graduating from Payson High School.  She married her sweetheart, Curtis Lamar DeGraw, on March 29, 1961 in the Salt Lake City LDS temple.  Together, they raised eight children (losing one daughter to a stillbirth) in a home full of love and the gospel of Jesus Christ, later serving as a missionary couple in South Carolina. 

Prior to their marriage, Nora worked as a secretary on the staff of David O. McKay, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After their marriage, she dedicated her life to raising their children, returning to part-time work as a secretary at the Santaquin Elementary School after their youngest child started school. Her typing and shorthand skills were legendary. She lived most of her life in Santaquin, Utah – with a few years near the beginning of her marriage in Salt Lake City and the last five years in Ada, OK, living near a son and daughter and their families. 

Nora was a naturally spiritual person, whose smile lit up the world around her and whose tears were harder on her children than any punishment. She was small in stature, but she had the largest heart possible. She was known by all as one of the kindest, sweetest, most gentle people on this earth; nobody ever heard her raise her voice in anger or frustration, and she was never known to criticize others. Her optimistic, loving, accepting personality was a beacon to her family, their eventual spouses, her extended family and friends, and everyone with whom she associated. She loved her family, her religion, her friends, music (an accomplished pianist), reading (especially next to the heating vent under the kitchen desk during the winter in her Santaquin home), getting to know, appreciate and love others, and, most of all, her husband – her eternal companion.  She loved him truly, deeply and exclusively.  They were married for 52 years and were a testament to the power of complete love and fidelity.  Her greatest wish after his passing two years ago was to be with him once more, but she was willing to wait on the Lord’s timing for that glorious reunion.

At this time of thanksgiving, her family is grateful to have been a central part of her life. We miss her, but we are thankful that God saw fit to answer the prayer of one of His elect daughters and allow her to join Curtis, their daughter, Lorna Sue, and all of her departed relatives and friends. We can see our father greeting her on the other side of the veil, then waiting patiently, with a loving grin, as she greeted and hugged every person she ever knew and loved. Truly, we come from a long line of love, and we honor our parents for the incredible examples of Christ-like love they gave us.

Nora is survived by three siblings, eight children, thirty-six grandchildren and eighteen great-grandchildren.  She was preceded in death by her parents, two siblings, a daughter and a grandchild. 

As was the case when Curtis passed away, his family asks that each person who knew and loved Nora renew an individual commitment to love and serve others – that all who wish to honor her do so by accepting and internalizing the Savior’s words:

“As I have loved you, love one another.” 

 
She would prefer to be honored by what we do, how we live, and who we become more than by anything we might say.  In particular, she would want everyone to fill their homes with smiles and good music – the universal languages of love.

My Talk Today on Marriage and Family

I was assigned to talk today about Marriage and Family. The following is the general outline and content of my talk:

First, at the risk of further embarrassing your good Bishop, I appreciate the mistake he made earlier when he announced the wrong opening hymn. I have made far worse mistakes from the pulpit, and those mistakes actually are a good introduction to the topic I have been assigned.

Second, I don't want this talk to be a downer in any way, but I have felt impressed to address my topic in a way that will not be traditional and might seem depressing at first. I hope this approach was inspired and can help someone here today in some way.

There are a lot of tension points in the Church and the Gospel that deal with our desire to teach what we see as the ideal while living lives that are not ideal. We say there is opposition in all things, but I'm not sure we understand how true that is. As an example, we teach that reverence, including quietude, is important for proper worship, but we also bring our little children with us to our worship services each week - and we all know those two things often are incompatible.

Ideal vs. Reality (caterpillar / butterfly)

I love the analogy of a caterpillar to resurrection and the Atonement (a creature that lives, seems to die and then emerges as a whole new, beautiful creature), but I have been struck by another application of caterpillars as metaphors for our lives. We often describe caterpillars as "ugly" and "worthless" prior to their metamorphosis into butterflies, simply because of our perception of what beauty and worth mean - but caterpillars are of great worth ecologically and can be seen as beautiful in a very real way by those who are willing to see them that way. How we talk about them is dependent totally on our view of them, NOT on anything objective about their individual lives.

It is important to accept and value the caterpillars as caterpillars and not just future butterflies - and this applies directly to my topic today: marriage and family.

1) I have been blessed greatly in the area of marriage and family (described that a bit), but I know many faithful, sincere, wonderful, worthy members who have struggled in many ways with their marriages and family situations. Let me tell you about a few of them.

a) Sister Renlund (from "Just Call Me Ruth") - only having one child in a Church culture that can be dismissive and even derisive toward those with no children or only one child.

b) friend whose husband got addicted to prescription medication and ruined his life and their marriage, causing her to become a single mother who heard (along with her children) over and over again in church how broken and non-ideal her life and family was.

c) friend in her 50's who has never married and hears regularly that she is lacking worth as an ideal Mormon woman because she is not a mother.

d) young man who is one of the most talented, good-looking, smart, kind-hearted, Christian people I know who walked out of church one day and never returned because a high counselor said people like him (gay) are enemies and are destroying the world. This young man believes he has no realistic chance to have our ideal marriage and family.

e) a dedicated Relief Society President who finally left the man she had married in the temple who subjected her to years of terrible abuse.

I have no idea why I have been blessed so much in this regard, but I do know it has nothing to do with being more righteous or better in any way than those without the blessings I have experienced. What I have come to believe about marriage and family, given my exposure to so much suffering and fervent faith of others, is the heart of my talk today.

I appreciated the intermediate hymn today, "Where can I turn for peace?" I believe we have two places to which we can turn: the divine (our Heavenly Parents and Jesus, our Savior and Redeemer) and to each other. I want to focus on our responsibilities to each other with regard to marriage and family.

1) Help each other become what we desire to become (Perfect = complete, whole, fully developed) in our own unique situations and as a community, no matter the structure of our individual marriages and families.

2) The ideal of the Proclamation to the World (equal partners, helping each other in all aspects of marriage), applies to our interactions with everyone, not just to spouses.

3) Ward as family (hospital ward and automobile repair shop)

4) Advice to those with "ideal" and "non-ideal" families

a) To those who struggle, listen to those who express gratitude for family and marital blessing with kindness and charity, even when those expressions sometimes hurt. We don't mean to hurt others in those situations, and it is important to express thanks and gratitude. As a friend once said, "Bear my joy a while."

b) To those who don't struggle, express thanks for your blessings but be aware of those who might be hurt by your words. Accept them and their lives as valuable and worthy, and never, ever, ever judge them personally based on their situations. Truly, there but for the grace of God go you, and they have much to teach and contribute to you personally and the Church as a whole.

Seeing all as children of God (why we call each other brothers and sisters) - Atlanta temple experience when the Lord was black

Zion is possible within our ward families, but it is possible only when we see each other as beautiful caterpillars, first and foremost, and we love and serve each other no matter what, without exception. Each of us is loved by God right now, for who we are, not just for whom we may become. As we come to church, often carefully clothed and groomed and made-up in ways that mask our struggles and brokenness, may we see past those facades and love each other in that same way - for our humanity and not despite it. May we model among ourselves as a ward what marriage and family are meant to be ideally.

That is one way we can comfort those who stand in need of comfort rather than heaping more discomfort upon their heads. That is one way we can talk of marriage and family in a way that uplifts and heals rather than oppresses and hurts. That is the heart of the Gospel of Jesus, of Nazareth - true, deep, unconditional love, acceptance and service.

Analyzing Scriptures: Genesis 3:12 - Adam Did Not Blame Eve

There is frequent debate and disagreement about exactly what transpired in the Garden of Eden relative to the partaking of the forbidden fruit.  There are those who interpret the entire account allegorically – who come up with widely varying ways to liken it unto themselves.  However, even among those who read it literally, there are widely differing ways that the actions and statements are perceived.

One of the most often discussed verses, with the most wildly divergent perspectives, is Genesis 3:12, where Adam is quoted as saying:

The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

One common interpretation of this verse it to criticize Adam for passing the buck – for blaming the woman (and, by some interpretations, even God) for his actions.  However, when the words themselves are parsed strictly for what they actually say (especially when the PofGP version is considered), I believe a very different message and statement appears.

“The woman whom thou gavest [me]”

It is apparent in this phrase that Adam was referencing how he came to be with Eve – that they were together because God made it happen.

“to be with me [and commanded that she should remain with me]”

It is apparent in this phrase that Adam was referencing what God had told him about Eve – that they were commanded to stay together.  It also is worth noting that this commandment was given before the commandment to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil – meaning that the command to remain together appears to have been viewed by Adam as the “first and great commandment” he had been given by the Lord.

"she gave me of the tree"

In this phrase, Adam simply explains very succinctly and accurately what had happened, and it is important to point out that there are no disclaimers that would add any blame or recrimination or anger or any other emotion.  As actually worded, this phrase is as dispassionate as it is possible to be.

"and I did eat."

This phrase, like the previous one, is a dispassionate statement of what happened, and it also can be viewed as a summation.  It is the conclusion of a simple and straightforward “this, therefore” juxtaposition.  The only question is if there is some contextual meaning hidden within the words – and I find no reason to believe there is such hidden meaning.

Therefore, I believe the straightforward meaning of this verse, strictly parsed into modern terms, would be something like:

“You made this woman and commanded that she should remain with me.  Therefore, when she gave me the fruit to eat, and I realized we would be separated as a result, I ate it also in order to remain with her.”

Personally, to add a bit of the background story, I would fill it out thus – knowing that it is going beyond simple parsing, but confident that it is not wildly speculative or off-the-wall:

“You made this woman and commanded that she should remain with me.  That was the first and greatest commandment you gave me.  Therefore, when she gave me the fruit to eat, and I realized we would be separated as a result, I ate it also in order to remain with her – and fulfill the first and highest law you gave me.  I had a choice to stay with you alone or be with her outside your presence, and I chose to remain with her rather than to remain alone with you.”

I have read quite a few varying interpretations of this verse, but each of them requires that the interpreter make some core assumptions about the relationship between Adam and Eve – and, in almost all cases, those assumptions are a direct reflection of either our modern conception of relationships, an obvious argument for a particular politics- or gender-specific issue or a view that simply is not supported by the text itself.  As someone who sees the story figuratively rather than literally, I understand differing interpretations, but the one I have outlined is the only one that makes sense to me – given the totality of the account and the initial command to “cleave unto her and none else”.

Consider carefully the following point: “None else” includes the Lord, Himself – so, in a very real way, Adam was making the choice we teach that all will have to make in the eternities (to “leave home” and the presence of the Father and Son and embark on our own eternal journey as a united couple – “God” to our own spirit children).  Thus, I see figurative meaning in the Garden for both our mortal and immortal existences – and I see Adam’s statement in Genesis 3:12 as his straightforward explanation of his choice to accept the Father’s plan.  (I also see Eve’s partaking as a similar manifestation of her acceptance, but the difference between the two is a topic for another post.) 

Same-Sex Marraige and the Recent US Supreme Court Ruling

I debated whether or not to write this post and initiate this conversation, but enough people have asked that I have decided to do so.

I am approaching this in a question and answer format, and my only request is that it be a civil conversation and not be approached as a debate. I have no desire whatsoever to argue with anyone about this, and I will not engage in that sort of dialogue. What I would like is an open discussion in which I can explain how I feel about the Supreme Court’s decision regarding same-sex marriage and the reasons I feel that way. Rather than try to list all of those reasons, I have decided to share one (perhaps the most counter-intuitive one) initially. I will respond to any other reasons, for or against, as they are given.

The primary reason I support the Supreme Court’s decision is that I believe in religious freedom, particularly when it comes to issues as sacred as marriage. 

Just as I believe my own denomination should be able to marry whomever it chooses to marry, I believe other religions and denominations should have the same right. I believe in restrictions based on consent, including the legal ability to consent, but I do not believe in legal restrictions based strictly on religious ideology. There now are multiple religions, including Christian denominations, in this country who want to be able to perform marriages for same-sex couples; thus, if I truly believe in religious freedom in the realm of marriage, and if I insist on that right for myself and my religion, I personally must support other denominations’ right to perform marriages mine does not.

I would love it if the government got out of the marriage business altogether and focused solely on civil benefits for civil unions, leaving marriage strictly as a religious practice. Lacking that ideal, which the religious majority in the United States fought for a long time, the only way for the government to provide equal civil benefits was to issue marriage licenses.

The central issue to me is not that the government is issuing marriage licenses, although I would like to see that change; the central issue to me is that religions are performing marriages that provide civil benefits. Up until now, equal civil benefits were not possible for same-sex couples under that structure. It is the tying of civil benefits (with equality under the law as the core foundation) to religious ceremonies (with their inherent and important right to be selective based on doctrine) that is the central issue for me – and if religions were unwilling to allow the government to perform civil unions for same-sex couples (which, again, was the case in the United States), the only alternative to provide civil benefits equally and fairly was to legalize same-sex marriage within the public marriage structure while maintaining the right of religions and denominations to perform and refuse to perform marriages according to their own doctrine and beliefs.

The Supreme Court ruling has done that. Religions and denominations still can refuse to marry inter-racial couples, for example, with no legal ramifications, even though inter-racial marriage has been legal for a long time; same-sex marriage is no different, in that particular respect, with this recent ruling.

Thus, the primary reason I support the Supreme Court ruling is that I believe so passionately in religious freedom.

An Interesting Take on Wives Giving Themselves to Husbands in the Temple

I have read and been in involved in multiple conversations in my life about the wording in the temple where the wife gives herself to her husband and the husband takes her unto himself.   I know quite a few women who don't like that wording - who feel that it is sexist and offensive, since the husband doesn't give himself to his wife, as well.  I would have no problem whatsoever if the wording was changed to a more modern version of how most people view marriage now as a mutual giving and taking, but the following has helped me not be upset in any way about the current wording. 

I am not a young man by any stretch, and I know a woman who I think is old enough to be my grandmother.  I would guess she is in her 90's - which means her parents were born a few years before or after the turn of the century - around 1900. Those parents had grandparents who were alive during the Nauvoo period.

I asked this woman once about the temple wording addressed in this post, and the following is what she said, in my own summary wording:

Back then, they talked about sex in terms of taking and giving. They believed consent couldn't be "taken". Rather, it had to be "given". If a woman wasn't willing to "give herself" to a man, sex with her was not appropriate - since she would have been "taken" without permission. It was a way to put power in the hands of a woman in a physical situation where she most often could have been powerless.

Thus, in order for a marriage to be seen as legitimate, the woman FIRST had to "give herself" to the man BEFORE that man could "take her unto himself".

I thought that was fascinating - that what we tend to see as discriminatory against women was seen by this older woman as a wonderful construct to give her power and protection when she wouldn't have had those things otherwise.

Why I Don't Believe in Eternal Gestational Birth

Almost exactly two years ago, I wrote a post titled, "Who Gave Birth to God's Spirit Children?"  I had occasion recently to revisit a post on "Real Intent" titled, "Does Exaltation Mean Polygamy?" - and I added a clarifying comment in that thread to an earlier comment in which I said I was "appalled" by the idea of immortal pregnancy.  I am copying that comment here, along with links to the two posts I mentioned, in the hope that it will help someone understand why I feel so strongly about the belief in eternal gestational birth. 

------------------------------------------------------

It's not the idea that we will be creating life eternally that is appalling; in fact, I love that idea. That concept is one of my favorite in all of Mormon theology.  Eternal motherhood and fatherhood is beautiful and sublime - and, within Christianity, so unique.  To me, it is the very heart of the Restoration - the resurrection, if you will, of a murdered Divine Father and Mother (theologically). 

It's the idea that creating life after mortality will be exactly like it has been for thousands of years on earth that is appalling to me (although understandable, given the inability of people in the past to imagine any other way that life could be created) - and a large part of the revulsion I feel for that idea is the wink, wink way men often talk about only having one child if we had to go through mortal pregnancy and delivery.  We joke about it, but we mean it.  We (men) glamorize it but absolutely don't want to HAVE to go through it, so we are fine and dandy, thank you very much, if they (women) are the ones who GET to go through it there and here.  (Notice the difference in the bolded words; they are instructive to me.) 

I just don't see the creation of immortal spirits as an internal, gestational process that involves "birth" in the way we understand that word here on earth.  It's that concept (eternal, internal conception, gestation and birth) that I find appalling - especially since, generally speaking, men are deeply grateful we don't have to be involved in that process beyond the conception stage.  The fun without the pain vs. (ideally, but not always) the fun and the pain. 

Yeah, I can understand why many men might tend to be totally OK with women giving birth like that forever, but I disagree - passionately.

Real, True, Living Love

When You Think Your Love Story Is Boring - Lisa-Jo Baker (Huff Post: Parents)

This generally won't be seen as a Christmas post, but it certainly can be. 

Jesus' Private, Intimate, Romantic and/or Sexual Life - and a Tribute to the Woman I Love

My 28th anniversary is today, so I have been thinking a lot the last few days about my marriage and how grateful I am that I met my wife 32 1/2 years ago - and the life we have shared since then.

I linked previously to a post by Jacob on By Common Consent entitled "Men, Sex and Modesty".  I came across an exchange I had in that thread with another commenter and felt like I should copy it as a separate post.  

The other person said:

“To the best of our knowledge, Christ loved women in a non-romantic way. He wasn’t dating them, trying to get their attention, wooing them, courting them, much less marrying and eventually having sex with them.”

I responded: 

We have nothing (absolutely nothing) to tell us one way or the other whether the assumption above is correct or not. Given our actual historical record, “to the best of our knowledge” can mean that Jesus did every single one of those things – and every argument I have heard that claims he did none of them is based on prior assumptions and not grounded in historical reality. Sure, he might have been celibate and lacked natural attractions – but that would deny an important part of how we view and talk about the Atonement, in my opinion.

Thus, I reject it and the argument flowing from it. 

The other person then accused me of being snarky, to which I replied (edited to combine three comments into one comprehensive comment): 

My response contains no snark whatsoever. None.

I reject the statement I quoted simply because it is based on an assumption that is not supported in the scriptural accounts we have. There literally is no way to say one way or the other, or anywhere in between, what Jesus thought, felt and did in regard to those things (how he loved women [romantically and/or non-romantically] and how he felt about “dating women, trying to get their attention, wooing them, courting them, much less marrying and eventually having sex with them"), since there is no context given of his life prior to his ministry. In fact, without the reference to Peter’s mother-in-law being sick, we would have nothing whatsoever about the intimate, private, romantic and sexual lives of any of Jesus’ closest disciples. We simply don’t know, and we ought to admit that rather than claiming we do to some degree.

In other words, there is no “to the best of our knowledge,” since there is no knowledge at all about those specific things. Lack of knowledge does not equal knowledge of anything except its lack – so there is nothing that can be extrapolated knowledgeably about things for which we have no detail.

Thus, “to the best of our knowledge” is useless when talking about how Jesus approached women romantically or sexually. The best of our knowledge in that field is the same as the worst of our knowledge – non-existent.

I personally believe Jesus was married and that he had a romantic, intimate and sexual life that he "laid down for his friends" when he became a minister and went on a mission, so to speak.  I might be wrong about that, since there simply is no way to know for certain, but I believe he experienced all we experience, in some way, and I believe that means he experienced our greatest joys as well as our greatest sorrows and sins.

Looking back on the last 32 years of my life, since I met my wife, and the last 28 years, since we were married, I choose to believe he experienced my greatest joy - that of being married to a woman whom I love with all my heart and soul.  I don't believe his life could be "perfect" (complete, whole, fully developed) without that experience. 

28 Years Ago Tomorrow

Tomorrow is my 28th anniversary.  The following is not original but rather an adaptation of something I heard a long time ago: 

When my wife and I got married, we agreed that I would make all the important decisions and she would make all the unimportant ones - since she already had made the most important decision in my life by agreeing to marry me.

28 years later, can you believe there hasn't been a single important decision since then? 

"Natural / Primary" Gender Responsibilities in Marriage: Each Couple Must Structure Their Own Marriage for It to Be Ideal

I think it is safe to say that men's and women's "natural / primary" roles throughout history in most societies can be described as "provider" and "nurturer" quite accurately - even though the vast majority of women throughout history also have worked "outside the home". (The idea that women traditionally have stayed home and raised the kids while the men worked outside the home simply isn't supportable.  Not working for compensation of some kind is a luxury, and most women throughout history have not had the luxury of even considering not working.)  Defining "primary" or "natural" roles is not a comment on anything other than the historical result of differing biology, since men generally have been bigger, stronger, faster, etc. than women - and women always have been vulnerable due to the effects of pregnancy and childbirth.

Given that reality, it is understandable to frame the "natural / primary" responsibilities assigned to or assumed by men and women in that light. The interesting thing about the Proclamation to the World, in my opinion, is that it appears to lay out this "natural" distinction and then say, in effect,

"Regardless of these natural responsibilities we inherit due strictly to biology and culture, the ideal marriage is one where such distinctions are erased - where each partner shares the other's responsibilities to some degree and acts as an equal partner with the other overall."

I understand completely how hard it is to accept that reading based on all the previous statements by leaders over the years, and the fact that "presiding over" still is used in various quotes, but the actual wording of the Proclamation says just that.  Further, it says that each couple is obligated to make whatever adaptations are necessary for their marriage to work as well as possible.  In essence, it says that the "ideal" is whatever works best for the individual couple - understanding that the "primary roles" are to provide and nurture.   In other words, as long as a couple are united in providing for and nourishing their children, they are fulfilling their responsibilities as parents. 

I view this as similar to the statement, "All men are created equal." First, it is the best they could do in their time (not including women in it); second, it articulated an ideal the society itself wasn't living (slavery) and couldn't live (and still doesn't live). Just as it was important to have the ideal written into a foundational government document, I think it's important to try to live and accept the ideal of the Proclamation with regard to raising one's children, even though our society (inside and outside the Church) isn't living and can't live it yet - and even though I believe the document itself is not perfect. 

I Value My Wife-String as Much as My Me-Kite

I like Louis L'Amour books as brain candy. They probably are my favorite guilty pleasure. Most of them have the same basic plot structure, but I like the profound insights he throws into the stories as the simple plot progresses.

One thing he says in multiple books is that leaving the eastern cities and moving west across the plains had an enormously different effect on different people. It empowered some, by freeing them of the constraints in which they lived previously; it crushed some, who couldn't handle the endless expanse and never-changing scenery; it strengthened some who had never had to care for themselves and others; it drove some crazy out of constant fear of attack and the lack of law and order.

People need what people need, and people tend to construct their lives to provide them what they need - and want.

Being open-minded to me means, in the context of L'Amour's stories, not demanding that settlers be explorers - even as the typical settler mind-set is to be wary of and restrain the explorers. Often, explorers can explore in confidence largely because they know there always will be settlers waiting to welcome, feed, praise and provide security for a season when they return from their explorations.

Remember, also:  

A kite is not just the thing that flies through the wind; it also is the string that keeps it safely grounded.

I value my wife-string as much as my me-kite.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Practical Ways to Strengthen Marriage and Family

We focused today on practical things that we can do to strengthen marriage and family in our own lives. Most of the kids in my class have two parents at home, and today all of the ones in attendance have traditional families, so I structured the lesson around a series of reflective questions and input from the students. Also, the Sunday School President attended the class, as did my wife. (She was called today to teach the younger class and wasn't prepared with a lesson, so we combined the two classes.)

I asked each question, gave them about a minute to think about it, and got their answers - talking about each one, if further discussion seemed appropriate. The following are the questions and the answers that were given:

1) What do your parents do to strengthen their marriage?

They help each other with the small tasks around the house.
They communicate with each other / talk about everything before making big decisions.
They work things out without arguing with each other.
They look for things to do together.
They still do silly, romantic things - like dancing in the kitchen while the food is cooking.
They go on regular dates.
They talk nicely to each other.
My dad made it clear he loves us but loves my mom more - that she is his top priority and he won't let us disrespect her.

2) What do your parents do to strengthen your family?

They make sure we read the scriptures as a family at least a couple of times each week and have family prayers most nights. (I loved the focus on regularly when "daily" just didn't work, especially since these parents are ward leaders and would be classified as traditional members by pretty much everyone who knows them.)
They try their best to put up with the kids.
They make sure we eat dinner together, even though my dad works 12 hour days.
They do fun family activities, including my favorite: rides after church on Sunday.
They had fun Family Home Evenings, including things like basketball in the backyard, tag, hikes, etc.
My mom helps everyone. She takes us to all of our activities and volunteers to help others, also - even though that leaves her little time for herself.
They spend as much time together as possible and work hard to have good relationships with us.
They show appreciation for us and compliment us more than they criticize us.

3) What sacrifices have your parents made to help their marriages and their families?

My dad took care of me when I was little and my mom was bedridden with her degenerative disease.
My mom got a job to help support our family, even though she wanted to stay home with us.
My dad started a new job during the day while trying to keep his business open. He would spend hours with us each evening, then, when we would go to bed, he would spend hours each night trying to save his business. We didn't know what he was doing until after his business closed, since he didn't want us to feel bad about the time he spent with us.
My mom gets stressed out easily. She tried to take medication for it, but it made her feel like a zombie, and she couldn't help us while she was on it. She gave up the medication and is trying to find other ways to cope with her stress, even though it's really hard on her. She told us she would rather struggle to be part of our lives than not struggle and not be part of our lives.

I used the responses to that question to reiterate again how we tend to talk about an ideal when we talk about marriage, but I pointed out (by asking the questions directly) that all of them know single, adult members of the ward - and divorced or widowed members of the ward - or members who are married to non-members and attend church without a spouse - etc. I told them that what we were talking about is important no matter what their individual adult lives end up being like - that it's much like in October when we will talk about "Becoming More Christlike".

I finished with one last question, and I told them I would NOT ask for their answers. I told them that it was something to consider now but also over time - and that it might be one thing or twenty-seven things or any number of things. I first reiterated the core definition of "repent" (which they all know by now is simply "change") and told them that this is a great example of a way to approach proactive repentance (making changes NOT because of mistakes / sins of the past but in order to grow moving forward).

4) What do you need to change about yourself in order to be a better husband / wife or mother / father when you are ready to get married and have a family of your own?

Finally, I told them not to try to find "the perfect spouse". I told them, for example, that the apostles and their wives weren't apostles and apostles' wives when they met, fell in love and got married. I told them if they are with someone who makes them feel worse about themselves when they are together to run away from that person and find someone who makes them feel better about themselves when they are together. I told them to find someone who will make them the top priority - who will be willing to sacrifice in some way to support them and to keep a strong marriage.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: People Who Truly Value Family Don't Push Family Members Away, No Matter What

[Obviously, there are exceptions to the extreme wording of the title, but the concept still is incredibly important and, I believe, not understood deeply enough by many people - inside and outside the LDS Church.  The example my daughter shared below from her mission in Germany is an important illustration of what can happen if something is believed and lived deeply enough.]  

I took a unique approach today, after talking with my wife about what was going to happen in YW. (My wife is the Personal Progress Leader, and the entire presidency was gone today, so she arranged the lesson.) The topic for the month is "Marriage and Family", and since our daughter just returned from her mission in Germany, my wife asked her to talk with the girls during the third hour about how marriage and family is different in Germany and what she learned about those topics from her mission. I thought that would be an excellent lesson for the boys, as well, so the girls in my class joined the next younger class and left just the boys in my class (since the girls were going to hear from her the next hour, anyway).

Sarah started by mentioning that she had thought a lot about how to address the topic, since she had been bored stiff when she was their age by lessons about marriage and family. She said she always thought:

"I'm 14 (or 16). I don't care about this topic right now, especially since I've heard about a thousand lessons in my life about it."

That got a nod and laugh from everyone.

She then spent the time talking about how the German people, generally, and the German members view marriage and family - and she shared some specific examples of people and families with whom she had interacted on her mission. There is no way I can remember and record everything she said, and much of this summary has to be generalized more than when she said it, so I am going to focus on four things that were particularly striking to me: 

1) She said that Germans value family, but they tend to cut off family members entirely who do anything that is against the family wishes - even some things we would view as trivial, but especially "bigger"things, including joining the LDS Church. (One example she used is a woman in one ward whose aunt refuses to acknowledge the woman's presence when they are riding the same bus.) The fascinating result of that tendency is that members of the Church tend to go to the other extreme when they embrace the importance of family - meaning they try hard to not let ANYTHING separate them from their kids, even leaving the Church or not living standards the members view as extremely important.

She said it is very common in the wards where she served to have visiting family members who are not church members attend meetings on Sunday, even if those visitors have left the Church entirely and had their names removed from the records - that they aren't there to support the Church but rather to be with family. She said, essentially, that it's easy to see how strongly people REALLY believe in family by how they treat family members who disappoint them in some way - and there was an amazing spirit that was almost tangible when she was talking about that.

I wish everyone in the Church who badgers, hounds, judges, dismisses, rejects or in any other way mistreats family who struggle or leave could have been in the room to listen to that part, especially.

2) She said that Germans tend to be very loyal and are very committed to keeping their word - and that causes surprising issues with marriage. She said that the default in Germany is for boyfriends and girlfriends to live together, starting often as early as 16. She said they live together until they split up and simply move in with their new boy/girlfriend. Apparently, Germany has a VERY high divorce rate and a VERY low marriage rate - with the underlying assumption / belief that it's no big deal to be with whomever you "love" at the moment and then move on to the next person - and the next person - and the next person . . . She isn't sure which came first - the casual non-marriage attitude or cynicism caused by the high divorce rate, but she said the general attitude among the younger generations is:

"Why get married? It never lasts, anyway, so why bother with a ceremony and promises I'm not going to keep?"

They are devoted deeply to honesty and loyalty, but they are so jaded by such a long history of failed marriages being the norm that they have given up trying in order not to break what they see as impossible promises. This is such an assumed given by now that the people she met generally were okay with the Word of Wisdom (at least, that Mormons would accept it, even if they couldn't) and tithing (since all the churches collect money in some way from their members) - but the vast majority of people simply couldn't understand the concepts of the Law of Chastity, lifelong monogamy and eternal marriage. Again, however, when it did "click" for someone who then embraced it, it became an incredibly important, powerful part of their life - to such an extent that they would NEVER accept disowning or hounding their family members into adversarial relationships.

3) She talked about how that same attitude leaks into how the members interact with each other and those who are investigating the Church - their "extended family". Over half of the members in each unit where she served (often well over half) did not have the traditional family structure, so they saw the Church's teachings about the family as an ideal toward which they could strive in their own unique situations and which they could try to initiate for their own children - to break the cultural cycle of their own lives. They never beat themselves up over not being in the "ideal" situation; rather, they focused on having as close to an ideal "church family" as possible by accepting everyone who entered the church building as "family" and doing anything possible to make them feel loved, no matter their personal life situation.

This is the daughter who told me after her first temple trip that we work so hard to build the kingdom of God on Earth that we often forget to establish Zion, so it was especially touching to hear her describe a church experience that, while obviously not perfect, shows how it is possible to establish Zion if people are really committed to it.

4) She said that the missionaries who were the most successful working with investigators and inactive/less-active members were the ones who accepted each person and worked with them individually in whatever way honored their individual agency and showed real respect.

As an example, two Elders had taught a nine-year-old boy whose mom was active (having left the Church officially but being rebaptized about ten years ago) but whose father had requested his name be removed from the records and never rejoined. His mother wanted the boy to be baptized, but his father wouldn't give permission. The Elders taught the boy all of the lessons in about two weeks and then tried to convince the father to change his mind. To say it mildly, it didn't work.

Sarah and her companion started teaching the boy the lessons when they replaced the Elders in the ward and quickly were told about his father's opposition. Given the situation, they taught the boy about once a month and spent more time serving the family in whatever way they could - and praying every day that the father would change his mind and allow the baptism. After finishing all of the lessons, they told the father that they were done teaching the boy, that they believed he was ready to be baptized whenever the father decided it was the right time and thanked him for letting them teach his son. They continued to pray daily for the boy and his father, stopped teaching the boy and continued to serve the family as they had been.

Shortly after Sarah transferred from the area, the boy's aunt called her and told her that the father had been so impressed by the simple respect the sister missionaries had shown him as the boy's father that he had told his wife, completely out of the blue, that he would give his permission for the baptism. Less than two hours later, someone from the Area Presidency office called the mother to let her know that they wanted to schedule an interview to renew her temple covenants - not knowing her husband had just given his permission for their son to be baptized. Sarah said it was her favorite experience of her entire mission - that praying so intently for so long for the family had helped her love them (non-biological family) in a way she hadn't realized was possible previously. She said it helped her understand better how the German members felt about "extended church family" being real family - how powerful the concept of "sealing" can be when it is seen as communal and not just about biological families. 

Finally, she served about 2/3 of her mission (about a year) in what used to be East Germany. As a humorous but touching aside, she said that EVERY German member who had been in the Church for at least two generations knows Thomas Monson personally and absolutely adores him - personally but also for getting the temple built in Freiberg, which was a lifeline and indescribable strength during their decades of isolation. For example, there was a Bishop in one ward whose sister is the young girl President Monson has mentioned giving special candy to when he was visiting Berlin on one trip. They still call him "Elder Monson" in stead of "President Monson" and say:

"We know he is the Church President, but he is and always will be our Elder Monson."

It was a wonderful lesson, and I really wish more people could have heard it - but I am quite certain it made an impact on the youth who were there.