A Bit of Good Advice for a Successful Marriage

Sometime when I was newly married, when I was living in our first apartment, my father visited me and gave me two pieces of advice for having a successful marriage.  (It might have even been in the month before our marriage, before my wife moved in.)  Sadly, I don't remember the first of his suggestions, but I have always remembered the second.  He said:

"Always let your wife do what she wants with her hair."

That might sounds simple, but I think there's more to it than hairstyles.  It really strikes home with some, people, too; perhaps a year or so later I was in a marriage class at church and when we were asked about this subject (making marriage succeed) and I mentioned the advice my father gave me, one of the sisters in the front row responded with an energetic "Woohoo!" (or some similar exclamation).

I say that a woman ought to be entirely able to choose her hairstyle (including the length) for herself.  Sure, her husband will generally have preferences, and she ought to consider them, but the decision should be hers.  It's her body and her appearance; not only does she clearly have the greatest interest in her appearance, she is the only one with any real claim to control over it.

In past eras or other cultures, it might be highly normal for a husband to dictate certain things like his wife's hairstyle.  In the modern U.S. that kind of practice or attitude is surely less common, though (and this is mostly speculation) it might be more likely in the homes of some latter-day saints.  Members of the church are used to the idea of men being the leader in the home, responsible for guiding the family as the patriarch and priesthood holder.  There's justification for this way of living, and also some very clear warnings in Doctrine and Covenants Section 121:37 against "exercise[ing] control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness".

If my father's advice sounds to any women out there like something to celebrate, it's an indication that some husbands are exceeding the proper bounds of their decision-making authority.  There are times when it's important for a husband and father to seek out revelation for his family, and times when he should express conviction related to what his family should do, but there are also times when his wife's decisions are personal and he should not try to interfere.  If a wife feels like her husband is being domineering, he should genuinely listen to and consider her complaint, and if he's compelling her to the point where she doesn't feel like she's able to make any personal decisions for herself, it's basically a guarantee that he's doing things wrong in a way that is depriving them both of a lot of happiness.

Granted, a wife can definitely be the domineering spouse within a marriage, but in those cases it's the exception to the typical cultural phenomenon for Church members.

Last thoughts for now:
I don't want to focus on the negative side of this, and I would hate to give the impression that domineering spouses are more prevalent than they really are.  I do think it's important to remember the sentiment behind my father's advice.  We ought to respect our husbands and wives and their God-given agency.
(Also, as a side note, my wife does listen to my preferences for her hair and, while she is totally free to choose her hairstyle and length, she has never chosen something that I would dislike.  And she's beautiful.)

"Getting It Done", Percentages, and the Real Needs of Children of our Heavenly Father

While preparing for a talk I gave in church today, I came across the following words in a talk from W. Grant Bangerter in the October 1975 General Conference, entitled The Power of the Priesthood:

"I would like to ask tonight, 'What kind of a testimony do you have concerning the power of the priesthood?'

"How many brethren here are home teachers? Would you please raise your hands. Those of you who are listening in may also raise your hands. Now since we have just closed out the month of September, how many of you home teachers 'got your home teaching done?' Well, brethren, that’s a catch phrase. You know, the devil taught us to say those words: 'Did you get your home teaching done?' That is a very poor way to refer to the comprehensive mission embodied in home teaching. By getting us to ask 'Did you get your home teaching done?' the devil destroys 90 percent of our effectiveness. All that question implies is a quick visit the last day of the month so that we can send in the report."  (http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/10/the-power-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng&query=teach+in+home)

 

It strikes me that I've often heard the same language in reference to home teaching--"getting it done".  Before today it had never struck me that the devil had taught us those words.  I understand the attitude, though.  It's faulty to be concerned with whether or not someone made a perfunctory visit to someone's house during a given 28-, 30-, or 31-day period.

 

Part of the inadequacy of the "get your home teaching done" attitude comes when we ask the question, "Is there anything we can do for you?"  The answer, more often than not, will be something like, "No, we're fine."  I've found that it's much more helpful to appropriately probe a bit with specific questions.  "How is your car running?"  "Do you have plenty of food in your fridge?"  "Are you in need of a priesthood blessing?"  "How is your health?"  These sorts of questions allow us to A) show that we actually care, and B) serve as the eyes and ears of the elders quorum president (or high priests group leader) and bishop, who really shouldn't be the first people to hear about someone's needs.

 

We also talk about home teaching percentages and I think we often fail to inspire ourselves and others properly to perform one of the most important priesthood duties we have.  Here again, we miss the mark.  When it comes to percentages, the following are true: 1) The percentage of families visited by home teachers is an important part of quarterly reporting so that Church leaders can have a sense of how well the priesthood holders of a given unit are fulfilling their duties.  2) Having a high reported home-teaching percentage (and thus projecting an image of obedience) should not be our goal.  3) Any percentage below 100 indicates that families we know and love (or should love, at least) are being neglected.

 

Instead of setting percentages as our goals, what should we focus on?  People.  Real people.  Real children of our Heavenly Father, with real needs.  The underlying facts beneath some percentage of home teaching being conducted are that Brother X doesn't understand his responsibilities as a leader and teacher in his home or how to accomplish them; Sister Y is struggling financially and is critically losing faith; and the Z Family is passing year by year without any reason to believe that the Church of Jesus Christ inspires anyone, because no one from the Church cares enough to even stop by!  Home teaching is a vital priesthood service for both spiritual and temporal reasons, and is often the key to families resuming activity in the Gospel and in the Church.  Even if a given family has few evident needs during some month, we are still negligent as priesthood holders if we are not dedicating time to care for that family in their home.

 

Last thoughts for now:

It's perhaps easy for me to speak of home teaching mistakes we make in general when I haven't been assigned as a home teacher for months.  All the same, I know how important these assignments are, and I don't want to be found negligent by my God when reviewing my life with Him.  I don't want others to miss the blessings of the Gospel and of salvation because I failed to care.  I don't want to just "get my home teaching done".  The Gospel is about love, and if I am to show love to my fellow members of the Church I'll take the time to visit them and attend to their real needs.

Exact Words

Some members of the Church have a certain tradition or habit that really isn't necessary, and that I consequently avoid.  When blessing a baby and giving him or her a name, I often hear the wording like this: "and to give him a name by which he will be known on the records of the Church."  It's simply not dictated by any Church book of instructions.  It doesn't hurt, but I don't want to confuse things that are necessary and things that aren't, so I never use those words.  And I hope that people notice it and realize that they don't need to use them either.  That way we can focus on the traditions and elements of ordinances which are truly important and necessary.

Much of the time, priesthood ordinances do not use exact wording.  Any holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood, when reading the instructions for ordinances, will find key elements but rarely exact words.

But sometimes exact wording is important.  Temple ordinances, for example, use exact wording.  One thing I wonder is, other than the fact that the words have been prescribed for us, are the exact words absolutely necessary?  Perhaps not, and we know that temple ordinances have changed at times, but there are good reasons for using specific words.  A major reason is that there is much to learn from what is said during those ordinances.

Outside of the temple, I can think of two occasions when exact wording is dictated by scripture (in Doctrine and Covenants Section 20 and also in the book of Moroni): during a baptism, and when we renew our baptismal covenants with the sacrament.  Why do we use exact words then?  Is it because those exact words are necessary for the ordinance?  It seems clear that such is not the case when we review the wording used by Alma as he baptized Helam and others: "Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world."

I think along with the advantage of learning from specific wording comes the advantage of not having to think through it on the spot--we don't have to figure out what to say every week during the sacrament.  What seems to be the most important reason to me, however, is that by using the same words every time we don't distract ourselves from the ordinance itself.  Too often during regular prayers, the speaker turns to flowery and profuse speech.  If the person performing the baptism or blessing the sacrament wanted to "make it good", they could easily get lost in language that didn't really add to the ordinance at all.  Some people would even be tempted to praise the speaker, again being distracted from the ordinance itself.  The exact wording provides simplicity and focus when that is exactly what is needed as we make and renew covenants with God.

Last thoughts for now:
Making and keeping covenants with our Heavenly Father will bring us back to live with Him.  Sometimes, exactness and precision is required so that we can be most fully blessed.  I want to be precise when such precision is warranted, to keep learning throughout my life, and to stay focused on the simplicity of essential ordinances and covenants.

Thus Saith the Lord

Everything I know indicates that when God speaks, He does so to the living prophet. Each of us can receive revelation, but very few have heard the actual voice of God. Those who do hear God's voice are righteous.

Here's my question: would God speak directly to a murderer, one who "loved Satan more than God"?

I don't think so. Yet, that is what many understand from the story of Cain.

Background: Adam and Eve have many children, and teach them the Gospel (Moses 5:12). Adam is the prophet on the earth. Adam and Eve have two more children, Cain and Abel. Cain is wicked, while Abel is righteous. Satan commands Cain (who probably was not authorized with the priesthood) to make an offering to the Lord (using the "fruit of the ground"--a perversion of the ordinance). He does so; Abel also makes an offering (the right way). The Lord (THE LORD in the KJV Bible--indicating that the words are a replacement of the name Jehovah) "had respect unto Abel, and to his offering; But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect." (Moses 5:20-21)

I suggest that the reason Cain knew that the Lord didn't approve of his offering was because Adam, the prophet, said as much.

Then in verses 22-25 of Moses 5, the Lord speaks to Cain. After Cain kills Abel, the Lord again speaks to him in verses 34-40. It seems strange to think that Jehovah would speak to a murderer and given that we have no record of Adam speaking to his son about these things, I think that the Lord was speaking through His prophet, Adam, just as He has done with many prophets and even Joseph Smith in many sections of the Doctrine and Covenants.

In verse 26, we read, "And Cain was wroth, and listened not any more to the voice of the Lord, neither to Abel, his brother, who walked in Holiness before the Lord." Why doesn't it read, "neither to Adam, his father"? It wouldn't if the voice of the Lord was given to him through Adam.

It does make sense that Adam would speak to his son about these things.

Last thoughts for now:
This topic is much like my entry on Adam's creation; it is very speculative and unconfirmed by any published doctrine that I know. It does make sense to me, though. I think Adam was directly involved in his sons' lives, and I think he gave his children the words of the Lord as their prophet.

The Image of God

I'm not sure what brought on this thought, but I wondered the other day if perhaps our idea of what our Heavenly Father is like comes largely from what our earthly fathers are like.

People seem to have varied ideas about what God is like. I think they feel differently about His motives and His level of involvement in our lives.

Yesterday night I sort of completed the thought when it occurred to me that the father in the home is supposed to provide the best example to his children of what God is like.

(I then suppose that our mothers initially give us our ideas of what our Heavenly Mother is like, though of course we don't speak of her often.)

The father is the patriarch in his home. He is the priesthood leader in the family, and the priesthood is the power and authority to act in God's name. Just as the bishop is God's representative to all members of the ward, the father is God's representative to his family.

So when the world lacks an understanding of what God is like (and this is something I've seen many times over many years), I can only ascribe blame for that to fathers who failed to live as they should and to provide a good example to their children.

How many people feel as if God is not involved in their lives, that He doesn't care about them, or even that He does not exist? How many people have grown up in homes where the father was absent, or where he gave his attention to other things and rarely spent time with his kids?

Satan has been subtly undermining the roles of men (and women) for decades. How many in the world have lost faith in our Heavenly Father in recent years? Satan has also been discouraging people from having children, and thus denying themselves the most important opportunity to be examples of godliness and thus learn about Him that way. (After all, being a father has been the most instructive experience for me in learning about God.)

Naturally, though, the place in which I must really concern myself is in my own home, with my own children (and wife). That is where I can serve best, where the power of my example is the greatest.

Last thoughts for now:
I'm sure there are various other factors that shape a person's idea of God, particularly since my own father was often not present during my younger years. However, I believe that I have a responsibility in my own home to be a righteous man in whom my family can see godly attributes. The task of teaching my family, by example, the nature of God, is mine.

Only One Destination in the Plan

Most people within the Church are familiar with diagrams of the Plan of Salvation. As I've prepared my next lesson for the teachers in my ward (I'm the Teacher's Quorum Advisor), I've noticed that the diagram in the lesson manual is slightly different from the diagrams I've often seen in the past. It looks something like this:

Pre-earth life ---Birth---> Earth life ---Death---> Spirit World ---Resurrection and Judgement---> Celestial Kingdom

Usually I've seen this diagram with three kingdoms at the end. It strikes me, however, that these young men need to understand that there is only one kingdom for them. That goes for all of us. Yes, other kingdoms have been prepared, because in a practical sense, there will be plenty of people who will need such kingdoms in which to spend eternity, but that's not what we're here for.

If we have been sealed to our spouse in the temple, there is only one goal in sight: exaltation. Even if we have been endowed in the temple, there is only one goal in sight, which we will achieve after being sealed: exaltation. For the men, if we have received the priesthood, there is only one goal in sight. Even just having been baptized in the true Church, we have only one goal. Beyond that, I would think that even just having taken an early step by coming to earth, there's only one reason we should have done it and only one destination that is good enough for us, though the making of covenants is the key action I want to emphasize. The reason we make all of these covenants is so that we may progress toward and arrive in the Celestial Kingdom.

Back to the teachers to whom I'll give the lesson: if they're not planning on going to the Celestial Kingdom, there's no reason for them to be at church in the first place. It's the reason why we go to church.

Sometimes young folks are unsure of themselves, though. They feel that "I'm not good enough for the Celestial Kingdom." To be honest, older folks also aren't exempt from that uncertainty. However, no one should sell themselves short in envisioning their potential. Frankly, when they say th're not good enough, they're right; none of us are. That's why Christ atoned for our sins, and he did so for all of us, so that all of us have the ability to be exalted.

Last thoughts for now:
There's only one destination with which I'm concerned. The knowledge of the Plan of Happiness, including the Atonement of Jesus Christ, should guide me in everything I do, so that I may reach that destination. I'm going to the Celestial Kingdom.