Compromise of Conscience

As I indicated in my post of 3/26/12 ("Show Me Your Eyes"), the eyes are a window to one's soul. When we first converse with a stranger, we look into their eyes, and in them we can often get a feel for the choices they've made. A few days ago I had an experience confirming this.

It happened on a flight from Dallas to Phoenix. I had a window seat, and one of the last passengers to board was a young woman whom I would guess was in her twenties. She chose the seat next to me. She was very tan with bleached blond hair, and she wore very skimpy clothing and expensive jewelry. 

I had my noise-cancelling headphones on, so when she wanted to converse she did so with the fellow in the aisle seat. The headphones do an excellent job filtering out engine noise. However, even with them on I can still hear conversations going on around me, so I easily overheard her telling the fellow next to her all the reasons why she liked Dallas much better than Phoenix. She said she had lived for awhile in Phoenix, but there was nothing about it that she liked. On the other hand, she said she loved Dallas because Dallas was "where the money is," and in her line of work that's what it was all about. When he asked her what kind of work she did, her voice became hushed, so I didn't hear the response. 

Later, during a stopover in Albuquerque, she and I exchanged a few comments, and that was the only opportunity I had to look into her eyes. I observed that while she had the body of a twenty-something, her eyes seemed much older, as if they'd seen much of life that was rough and unseemly. We didn't visit very long after that because she decided to move to a seat that was closer to the overhead bin where she'd stowed her carry-on bag. 

After she left, the fellow with whom she'd been conversing turned to me and, rolling his eyes, asked if I'd overheard her response when he asked what kind of work she did. I said no. He said she told him she's in the "entertainment" industry (wink wink) . . . obviously referring to something akin to prostitution. I immediately recalled that world-weary look in her eyes . . . and it was then that I recalled remarks from a talk by James E. Faust in which he recounted comments made by the famous news commentator, Paul Harvey, following a visit to the BYU campus.

Of all the things Mr. Harvey saw during his visit, what impressed him most were the looks on the faces of the students. He observed: "Each . . . young face mirrored a sort of . . . sublime assurance." He went on to say there was a clear difference between what he saw in the faces of BYU students as opposed to faces of others he'd seen. He said that the eyes many, like the eyes of this young lady, reflect unwise choices, choices that do not reflect righteous standards of behavior: "These days many young eyes are prematurely old from countless compromises with conscience."

That was a perfect description of what I'd seen as I looked into that young lady's eyes: the look of one who had made countless compromises with conscience. I thought of her parents, wondering if they knew how she made her living. And then I thought about something else I'd overheard when she was talking with that fellow. When he tried to convince her that winters in Phoenix were milder than those in Dallas, she said that didn't matter -- that she didn't mind the cold. She was used to it because she'd grown up in Utah.

I wondered if somewhere in Utah there was a father and a mother praying for a daughter to stop compromising with her conscience. And I prayed for her. 

 

Respect for the Deceased

Yesterday I shared with you some comments about treating the emblems of the sacrament with reverence and respect. I suppose you could consider the following to be "Part 2':

If you want to have an interesting experience, think about two scenarios that prompt some serious questions:

Scenario #1: Sacrament meeting. What goes on in our minds from the time we get up on Sunday morning until the moment we take our seats in the chapel? What do we think about on the way to the church? What do we talk about? After arriving at the meetinghouse, do we merrily “work the room,” socializing right up to the point when the person conducting has stepped to the pulpit and begun speaking? [In my ward there are typically 15-20 people socializing in the aisles when the member of the bishopric begins the meeting.] Do the words of the hymns, sacrament prayers, and sermons leave their footprints on our hearts, or does the weekly routine numb us to their intended effect?

Now hit the “re-wind” button and consider another event.

Scenario #2: A funeral. How does the nature of this event affect what we think about as we prepare for and travel to it? How does it affect what we talk about along the way? How does it affect our attitude and demeanor once we enter the building? Does it affect the volume of our voices? Are we as likely to “work the room” in this setting, or, due to the nature of the event, are we more likely to be subdued, meditative, and reverent? Do the words of the hymns and the spoken words cause us to reflect upon our own mortality, prompting us in significant ways to resolve to be better?

I suspect most people will say they're likely to be more reverent and meditative in the funeral scenario. When you ask them why, their response will be something like this: “Well, naturally, at a funeral my actions and speech will be more subdued -- out of respect for the deceased.”

Interesting -- do we not attend sacrament meeting to honor and worship and pay tribute to the Holy One who was deceased for us? Are not the sacrament table and the linen-covered emblems as real a representation of His body as a casket standing before us at a funeral?

“Out of respect for the deceased” is a very praiseworthy attitude, but shouldn’t it guide our behavior before and during sacrament meetings and not just at funerals?

The Pitfall of Routine

Once we learn how to perform them, many daily tasks become so automatic and routine that we can do them without even thinking. This may be acceptable for menial tasks like mowing the lawn or washing a car, but it becomes a dangerous pitfall if regular priesthood duties are treated as mere routine.

This has become a concern to me as I’ve observed holders of the Aaronic Priesthood and their Young Men leaders preparing the sacrament. Some have done it every week for so long that they seem to have no thought for the sacred nature of the things they are handling and making ready. I try to imagine what an investigator or new convert would think – or the Lord Himself -- as they see these men, young and old, joking, laughing, even whistling as they gather around the sacrament table.

Instead of preparing the trays of bread in the room designated for that purpose, empty trays are brought to the table where a loaf of bread has been casually dropped. A young man reaches into the bag and grabs six slices at once. Then he hands them to another to place into the trays. Throughout this process, they visit and joke. It is such a familiar routine that they perform the assignment thoughtlessly -- without a thought of the sacredness of the assignment..

Contrast that scene with what was observed by a visitor to an LDS chapel in the Ukraine during the preparation of the sacrament:

“Two Aaronic Priesthood members came to prepare the sacrament. I have been a teacher and a teachers quorum advisor. You give me a couple of teachers and a good water faucet and the sacrament can be prepared in just a few minutes. It does not take a lot of attention.


“That was not the case with these young Aaronic Priesthood holders. The first thing they did was say a prayer before they started to prepare the sacrament. I assume they were praying to put themselves in the frame of mind for this holy ordinance. I had never seen this kind of devotion before.


“Then they carefully laid the first linen on the sacrament table. They stood back to make sure all the corners were perfectly correct. They carefully pressed out a few wrinkles. They placed cups in the water trays and with bottled water carefully and uniformly filled each cup. They placed the bread on the table, then reverently and with great solemnity covered the sacrament table as if they were covering the dead body of the crucified Christ. I do not think Joseph of Arimathea and the earlier disciples showed any more reverence when they took care of the body of our Lord.


“Watching these Aaronic Priesthood brethren touched me deeply and caused me to think about the teachings of the Savior.” (Gordon B. Lindsay, “And Always Remember Him,” BYU devotional, 26 July 2005).

In their weekly meetings in the temple, the Brethren partake of the sacrament. But even though some of them have been doing so for decades, it would be inconceivable to think that any of them would treat the sacrament as mere routine. Neither should we. The key, in my opinion, is found in being reverently and purposely thoughtful, not casually and routinely thoughtless.

Renewing of Their Bodies

At age 70 or older what do most men do to occupy their time?

        -- Sleep in

        -- Watch television

        -- Travel

        -- Putter around the house

        -- Watch television

        --  Read

        --  Play golf

        --  Nap

        --  Watch television

Compare that lifestyle with the daily schedule of members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

Consider their ages:

89 – L. Tom Perry

87 – Boyd K. Packer & Russell M. Nelson (born one day apart)

84 – Thomas S. Monson

83 – M. Russell Ballard & Richard G. Scott

79 – Dallin H. Oaks & Robert D. Hales

78 – Henry B. Eyring

71 – Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Quentin L. Cook, & Jeffrey R. Holland

67 – D. Todd Christofferson

60 – Neal A.  Andersen

59 – David A. Bednar

At a stage in their lives when most men would be “kicking back” and enjoying their “golden years,” these men work at an incredible pace of endless meetings, conferences, travel, etc. Just the travel and resultant jet lag across ever-changing time zones would wear anyone down.

Although these men do not speak publicly about how all of these pressures affect them, we are given an occasional glimpse. Here are two from Elder David A. Bednar:

1)       “I conclude with an experience Sister Bednar and I had with President and Sister Hinckley. We were eating dinner together at a banquet in Salt Lake City shortly after President Hinckley had returned from a demanding international trip. I asked President Hinckley, ‘President, given your travel schedule and the demands of your office, how do you keep up?’

“He responded, ‘David, I do not keep up. I travel through so many time zones that when I am supposed to be wide awake, I am sleepy. When I am supposed to be sleepy, I am wide awake. The paperwork and other demands in the office are never ending.’

“He then smiled and said something I will never forget: ‘But David, I just keep going.’” (“According to Thy Faith,” BYU-Idaho devotional, Aug. 29, 2000).

2)      On another occasion Elder Bednar offered this additional insight I into the private challenges of these men :

“Since my call as a General Authority, I have tried to observe and learn as some of my Brethren have faced the effects of aging or the relentless demands of physical limitations and constant pain.  You cannot and will never know the private and silent suffering some of these men live through as they serve publicly with all of their heart, might, mind, and strength” (“Who’s On the Lord’s Side? Now Is the Time to Show,” BYU-Idaho Education Week devotional address, July 10, 2010.)

Some suppose that upon being called to a high position in the Church, the Brethren and their families suddenly become shielded from trials and afflictions -- including physical ills, financial setbacks, and the ups and downs of life within the family circle. But as a recent Church News “Viewpoint” points out, that is not the case:

“Local leaders as well as General Officers can be recipients of our support and prayers . . . Especially should we remember the general governing bodies, including the Presiding Bishopric, Quorums of the Seventy, Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency. They shoulder heavy burdens of responsibility and need our prayers.

“Perhaps metaphoric of these burdens is a cameo of one of the Twelve at an airport, glimpsed hurrying to a distant gate down a long concourse, empty but for himself, the last to board. In his hand he lugs a briefcase stuffed to capacity. His face shows a more-than-slight desperation. He's just left people with high expectations. At the other end of the journey wait others with high expectations, and a long and tight itinerary.

“Undoubtedly, he has been detained by some pressing matter. Undoubtedly, he will use the air time to prepare for what is ahead. Undoubtedly, he hurries toward that distant gate with a nagging shortage of sleep.

“Such is the life of an apostle.

“On a yet higher pinnacle is the president of the Church, President Thomas S. Monson. Upon his shoulders is conveyed the heaviest cargo of all.

“Like mythical Atlas, he carries the world upon his back . . .

“As we pray for our prophet and his associates, let us also consider their families. For the most part, their children are successfully reared when the call comes to serve on a full-time basis. Yet so often, travel assignments come irrespective of the needs of family members. And each is the head of generations who are not at all secure. Spouses of General Authorities and General Officers sacrifice for the gospel in ways largely unknown to average members.

“When President Monson tells us, "I love you; I pray for you," he speaks to each of us, individually. He speaks to us as parent and child; to our family. When we pray for him, let us remember his faithful and sacrificing family who mean so much to him . . . In the closing session of last October's general conference, President Monson spoke "with all the feeling of a tender parent" (1 Nephi 8:37). Said he: ‘I love you; I pray for you. I would ask once again that you would remember me and all the General Authorities in your prayers.’

“And so it is with all the Brethren and General Officers. Their families are precious to them, even as they leave once again to the airport en route to another extended trip. They are, to a man and woman, deeply concerned for our families. As we pray for them, let us include their families in our prayers” (Church News, March 10, 2012).

With such a heavy physical workload week after week  -- and year after year -- how do men this age possibly keep up? The answer is found in Doctrine & Covenants 84:33 where the Lord promised those who magnify their priesthood callings “the renewing of their bodies.”

You and I are eyewitnesses of the literal reality of this promise.

Comfort Those Who Stand In Need of Comfort

I wish to share the following excerpt from "Follow the King," BYU devotional speech by Elder Marion D. Hanks, 11 March 1986. No further comment from me will be necessary.

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


"I have to share with you, as I finish, a letter received from a special human being you may know or perhaps will know because her story, I am told, is being published. I performed a wedding many years ago. A happy marriage followed, children came, and then one day came the announcement that he didn't want to be at home anymore; he had a male friend he would rather live with. On occasional holidays he was invited back home by this very unusual woman who taught her children that he was part of them, that there were many virtuous and lovely things about him, and that he had given them much. She could not justify the thing he had done or understand his problem. But she could help the children feel a sense of individual worth and value because there was much in them that came from the good in him. He came home to die of AIDS, attended compassionately in their own home among his own family. She wrote this:


Dear Brother Hanks:


I am writing now because I want to let you know that last Thursday [he] passed away here at my home, a victim of AIDS. He had not been well for a year, but in March he was diagnosed with the disease. He made every effort to maintain his strength, but it was not possible. No one recovers. He wanted to be here with us, and I wanted him to be here. I read Walt Whitman to him and played Beethoven for him and told him how much we all loved him and did what I could to make him as comfortable as possible. Last night the children and I and a few close friends held a private memorial service for him here at my home. It was a wonderful event and we are all able to release him with love. The children will miss [him] a great deal. I will too. He gave a lot to all of us.


Somewhere there is a sense to this. I have been granted a great deal of strength to help me through it, and for that I am grateful.

Then she compliments her choice bishop and stake president and friends and others who have supported and sustained her.

I wake up some mornings remembering her words: 'I read Walt Whitman to him and played Beethoven for him.' And sometimes I say, 'Lord, if today I can approach that kind of Christian quality I will be grateful.'

Follow the Christ. Live pure. Speak true. Right wrong."

Show Me Your Eyes

Generations ago, before video games and other electronic gadgetry became so commonplace, free time after school for boys my age meant playing outside—often until dark—games of hide-and-seek, riding bikes, exploring, climbing trees, and building forts. When we came home for dinner, hand-washing was a must. A boy who tried to fool his way to the dinner table without washing his hands would have to pass the ultimate gatekeeper—his mother saying, “Show me your hands!”

Times have changed. One writer says that nowadays when encouraged by their parents to play outside, the children say, “We don’t need to! We have the Discovery Channel!” Our electronic age has brought the outside world inside. Sadly, it has also introduced into many homes a new kind of dirt—pornography—aimed not only at boys but at their fathers and grandfathers.

The numbers are frightening:

- 12% of the websites on the Internet are pornographic.

- Every second, 28,258 Internet viewers are looking at pornography.

- 40 million Americans are regular visitors to porn sites.

- 1 in 3 porn viewers are women.

- 70% of men age 18-24 visit porn sites in a typical month.

- 2.5 billion E-mails every day are pornographic … that’s 8% of all e-mails.

- 35% of all Internet downloads are pornographic.

- Utah has the nation’s highest online porn subscription rate per thousand home broadband users.

- There are 116,000 searches for “child pornography” every day.

- The average age at which a child first sees pornography: 11.

- 20% of men and 13% of women admit to watching pornography at work.

- The least popular day for watching pornography online: Thanksgiving. The most popular day: Sunday.

(Sources can be found here: http://www.onlinemba.com/blog/the-stats-on-internet-porn/)

Those who use tobacco are given away by the odor about them. Not so with pornography. The user can show up for work or church—even wearing his Sunday best—and none will be the wiser. But for those who are spiritually sensitive, there is a way to detect this problem—looking into the eyes.

Jesus said, “The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness” (Matthew 6:22). “Touching” pornography with our eyes extinguishes the light in them, replacing it with a hollow darkness. Reflecting on the sinful decisions that eventually ruined his life, King David said, “As for the light of mine eyes, it is also gone from me” (Psalms 38:10). For those who choose to feast their eyes on pornographic images, it will surely be as commentator Paul Harvey once said, “These days many young eyes are prematurely old from countless compromises with conscience” (President James E. Faust, “The Light in Their Eyes,” Oct. 2005 general conference).

The change in one’s eyes is not figurative. It is a literal change, discernible to those who are spiritually observant. This was confirmed to me by a man who had served as a stake president, regional representative, and mission president. One day he was at an airport, awaiting the arrival of Elder Spencer W. Kimball. After the flight arrived, they were walking out of the airport, and Elder Kimball suddenly said, “President, let’s sit down a moment and visit.”

They were outside in the bright sun, and the stake president had his sunglasses on. Elder Kimball looked at him and said, very seriously, “President, please remove your sunglasses. I want to see your eyes.” The eyes of that man were a literal window into his soul. To the Lord’s seer, they would certainly reveal the things that those eyes had “touched.”

Unlike the dirt of my boyhood, pornography leaves no visible clues on the hands. One can secretly immerse himself in it and then come to dinner—or church—or the temple—without revealing what they’ve been handling because the “handling” was done with the eyes. When the prophet Alma counseled, “Come ye out from the wicked, and be ye separate, and touch not their unclean things” (Alma 5:57), surely he meant not only what we touch with our hands but with our eyes as well.

I pray that we may come to the table of the Lord with the confidence that comes from pure choices—not needing to turn our heads in shame when the Lord says, “Your hands are clean, but let me look into your eyes.”

PS: Watch great message here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWQ5dPeixdw

"We Seek After These Things"? (13th Article of Faith)

Well, it’s finally here -- the long-awaited film about a society's annual ritual of televised killing.

I know -- the best-selling book is a compelling read. Most fans, if not all, will tell me I’m an old goat who just doesn’t get it or that I should mind my own business. After all, even Deseret News film critic, Laura Marostica, says, “Those mature enough to see the violence in context, handle the heavy themes, and undergo a periodic shredding of their emotions are in for a captivating experience” (Film review, 3/22/12; emphasis added).

So that's the standard by which we measure acceptability? The ability to handle "violence in context"? 

Let me be clear: I am not getting worked up about this simply because I have a differing opinion. This isn't about opinion. It's about being true to what the Lord expects of a Latter-day Saint: to be distancing ourselves from what the world embraces, not rushing out to join in.

Re-read the 13th Article of Faith, and then please tell me where to find the loophole allowing us to ignore this counsel from the Lord: 

“Do not attend, view, or participate in anything that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way” (from "For the Strength of Youth,"  counsel from the First Presidency, emphasis added).

There are no footnotes saying:

(1) "This only applies to the youth of the Church; adults may disregard."

(2) "Naturally, this counsel does not apply to anyone who is mature enough to handle violence in context."

Agency allows us to make our own choices. I cannot argue with that. But choices bring consequences which cannot be avoided. Viewing repeated violence de-sensitizes one's spirit. It may bother us the first time, but as with repeated exposure to profanity and vulgarity, repeated watching of violence which at first would have caused us to recoil in shock or change the channel eventually dulls our senses and, ultimately, triggers no negative reaction at all. It is exactly as Alexander Pope observed, "We first endure, then pity, then embrace."

I side with BYU professor, Van Gessel, who said:

"It simply can’t just be a cosmic coincidence that the tangible object that the adversary most craves—a physical body—is precisely the object toward which he aims the most lethal of his fiery darts in his manipulation of the entertainment media. How to make mortals regard the human body as less than holy? Very simply, just strip its sacredness of all its modest coverings and parade it to public view; batter it and explode it and riddle it with bullets; and display it nakedly engaged in its most intimate activities to make sure the viewer or listener comes to consider public performances of sexual activity as commonplace. What our Father in Heaven regards as the Holy of Holies Satan treats as an open-set film studio. You can almost hear the fiendish laughs of the demons over every depiction of the physical bodies they so desperately envy being exposed to public view and treated like so much meat in a butcher’s shop.

"Some of you will regard me as hopelessly out of touch. I hope I am." (“The Welding Link of Culture,” BYU devotional address, 3 May 2005).

I hope I am too.

The Maid

Recently I watched a live performance of the Tony-award-winning musical, “Memphis,” on the PBS program, Great Performances. It is set in Memphis (where else?) in the mid-1950’s. The story is about how people’s lives were affected by two historic changes in American culture: rock-and roll, and the beginning of a change in white people’s treatment of blacks.

I was only eight or nine years of age when these two cultural changes began to shake the country. As for rock-and-roll music, I distinctly remember where I was when I first heard an Elvis Presley song. It was a Saturday afternoon, and our family was taking a drive in the car. When “Blue Suede Shoes” came on the radio, we laughed. It was a novelty. Like many people we probably thought that Elvis and his music were simply part of a passing fad. Little did we realize the tidal wave of change that was coming. Years later, in an article about rock-and-roll in Time magazine, Mick Jagger was quoted as saying that the whole purpose of rock-and-roll was to drive a wedge between children and their parents. Mission accomplished, Mick.

Because of my age and where I grew up (California and Oregon), I had virtually no knowledge of the racial tensions that existed between blacks and whites, particularly in the South. I was ignorant of the discrimination they suffered in schools and, for that matter, in virtually all public places, including the restrooms, swimming pools, and even the drinking fountains they could and could not use. All I knew from my own experience was that white people didn’t associate with black people. Until I was in high school, I never attended a school with a black student. There were no blacks in any of the neighborhoods where we lived.

Watching the musical brought back the memory of an incident that happened when I was a junior in high school. We were living on Knott Street in Portland, and my parents had decided to buy a brand-new home in the suburb of Parkrose. Our house was on the market, and one day my mother received a call from the real estate agent. She said she had a potential buyer who wanted to see the house. I happened to answer the door when they arrived, and there they were: our real estate agent -- and a nicely-dressed and rather shy black woman.

At no time, either before or since that incident, did I ever hear my parents say they were unwilling to sell to a black buyer. But during the six years that we lived in that house, from 1958-1964, there seemed to be an unspoken awareness among the neighbors that ours was a “white” neighborhood. We lived on the corner of 23rd Ave. and Knott. Black families were not known to live closer than about 15th Ave. Nobody ever spoke about the invisible line between the whites and blacks. But it was there. And  because our house was on the “white side” of that line, our realtor lied to us about the identity of the black woman, introducing her as the “maid” who was employed by a white couple that was interested in our home. She said that her clients weren’t able to keep the appointment, so they sent their maid to look at the house in their place.

I don’t remember how we learned the woman's true identity, but it turned out that the black woman and her husband were actually the prospective buyers. Afraid that my parents wouldn’t dare consider showing their house to a black person, the real estate agent, on her own, persuaded the woman to play the role of the maid.

Even now, in spite of the progress that has been made in the areas of civil rights and racial equality, we all know that, sadly, some invisible lines still exist.

"Speak, That I May See Thee" (Ben Jonson, British poet)

Conversation skills are not taught in school. They are of our own creation. Whatever helped mold them --heredity, environment, or other influences -- over time, each of us settles into a conversation style which, almost like a fingerprint, is unique to us alone. Our close family members and friends, if pressed to admit it, will tell us that our conversation styles are recognizable and probably quite predictable.

Some people's conversations are magnetic, drawing us in.

The styles of others are a sure cure  for insomnia.

Some are always uplifting, even entertaining. "A person who can bring the spirit of laughter into a room is indeed blessed" (Bennett Cerf) -- but never at the expense of others.

Some are very outspoken, leaving no doubt in others' minds that not only do they have a strong opinion, but that it is the final and authoritative word on the subject.

Some constantly interrupt.

One type of conversationalist to whom I have a strong aversion is the one who simply has to let everyone know what he thinks -- about everything! Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's wrong to have opinions. But where is it written that, "Thou shalt have no unexpressed thoughts"? I quickly become weary of those whose every statement begins with, "Well, I think . . ."

Some never miss an opportunity to burden or depress others by dwelling on their own aches and pains -- proving the old adage that, "Misery not only loves company -- it insists on it!" (Russell Baker).

Some are quick to humbly deflect any praise or attention, directing their concern to the welfare of others instead. As author Frederick Collins said, some people give us a preview of their conversational style as soon as they enter a room: : "There are two types of people: Those who come in into a room and say ‘Well, here I am!’ - and those who come in and say, ‘Ah, there you are!’”

Some only talk about one thing: someone else who isn't present. I have been in restaurants on more than one occasion and had the same experience repeat itself. It occurs when I'm seated next to a table of various professional women on their lunch break. While the women making up those groups is different each time, I noted something that each of those conversations has in common. It is the topic they spend more time talking about than anything else: the word "she."

Some, almost robot-like in their responses, react to whatever you may say in conversation with the same predictable word: "Awesome," or "Wow," or "Amazing." Whether you've just told them your dog had puppies, your child is on the honor roll, the toilet oveflowed, you have a hangnail, or the oil in your car needs changing, their response will always be that same predictable word. [Note: According to the dictionary, the word "awesome" is the appropriate word to use when describing 'an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc., produced by that which is grand, sublime, extremely powerful or the like; as 'in awe of God,' I guess this rules out the cashier at Deseret Book who, when I handed him a $5 bill, responded with, "Awesome."]

Some reveal too many details about their personal lives in the presence ot total strangers. (This is the reason for my very short-lived Facebook experience. It is incomprehensible to me the highly personal things people put out there for their "friends" to see. It was a mystery to me, for example, why a college educator of my acquaintance felt the need to keep others informed about his progress on Farmville. Hello? How about some real world accomplishments? All I could think to say after reading his postings were a couple of "awesomes," a handful of "wows," and a muttered "amazing!")

If we have patterns like these in our conversations, remember this: others notice how we speak. It takes a conscious effort to listen to ourselves and see if we need to get out of some of well-worn, comfortable, yet possibly damaging conversational ruts.

Three final quotes:

(1) "A big black leather chair stood in Brigham Young's office by the Lion House; it faced the window on the opposite wall by the President's desk in the middle of the room. First-time visitors to the office were invited to sit on that chair, facing the strong light of day and the calm blue eyes of Brother Brigham, who sat there at his desk, his back to the window, quietly waiting for his guest to say something. After all, the man had come to see him, and it was only right to let him state his business. President Young, according to Grandfather, would never say a word for the first three minutes. And at the end of those first three minutes he always knew exactly the sort of man he was dealing with, and the nature -- greedy, benign, or sinister -- of his business. 'And he never [here Grandpa smote the arm of his chair] had to change his mind!' . . . Brigham Young used to say that no man, if allowed to speak, could possibly avoid revealing his true character, 'For out of the abundance of the heart the tongue speaketh.'" (Hugh Nibley, "Educating the Saints," Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless, 230, italics added.)

(2) "Refinement in speech is reflected not only in our choice of words but also in the things we talk about. There are those who always speak of themselves, and they are either insecure or proud. There are those who always speak of others. They are usually very boring. There are those who speak of stirring ideas, compelling books, and inspiring doctrine. These are the few who make their mark in the world" (Elder Douglas L. Callister, "Your Refined Heavenly Home," BYU devotional speech, 19 Sept. 2006).

(3) "Wise is the man who says what needs to be said, but not all that could be said" (Elder Marvin J. Ashton, "Proper Self-Management," Ensign, Nov. 1976, 86).

This article is dedicated to the memory of my beloved father, Albert E. Knight, who passed away January 16, 2012. In the many expressions of love and praise from friends and family there was this common thread: Conversations with him were wonderful experiences because he was always delightful, unselfish, caring, and witty. May we follow his example. 

Plain and Precious Things

An angel of the Lord revealed to the prophet, Nephi, that the Bible, in its original form, contained “the fullness of the gospel of the Lord” (1 Nephi 13:24). Think about what that word “fullness” means. It means that all doctrines necessary for men to understand every doctrine essential to their salvation was once contained in the Bible.

But then the angel showed Nephi the rest of the story. He explained that in time, “many plain and precious things [would be] taken out of the Bible,“ and that this would be done intentionally in an effort to “pervert the right ways of the Lord . . . [to] blind the [spiritual] eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men” (1 Nephi 13:27).

Later in that same chapter, we find the angel telling Nephi that a merciful God, unwilling to let mankind forever grope in darkness for those lost gospel truths, would, in an act of mercy, bring forth “other books . . . [which would] . . . make known the plain and precious which have been taken away” (See 1 Nephi 13: 35-40).

After reading 1 Nephi 13 in its entirety there is no question but that the Bible no longer contains that “fullness” of the gospel. Thanks to the Book of Mormon and the other revelations given to the Prophet Joseph Smith, we do not need to rely solely upon that now incomplete Bible, for if we did, it would lead us into the same confused and contentious state in which we find all other Christian creeds.

Robert Millet and Joseph Fielding McConkie explain it this way:

“All doctrine and authority that we profess is rooted in revelations given to the Prophet Joseph Smith or his successors. It could be argued that we share the Bible in common with the historical Christian world, but in fact we do not. Joseph Smith stated the matter well when asked if Mormons believe the Bible: ‘If we do, we are the only people under heaven that does’” (Teachings, p. 119). We read the same words and tell our children the same stories about the faith of the ancients, yet we stand worlds apart in our understanding of the meaning behind what is being read. Where we accept scripture to be literal, the traditional Christian world often holds it to be figurative; where we accept scripture to be ever expanding, they declare it to be final and complete; where we hold gospel principles to be everlastingly the same, they hold them to be continuously evolving . . . In response to the question, How were the plain and precious parts taken from the Bible? we know enough to say that they were taken away quite deliberately. It is not scribal error that we are talking about, nor is it faulty translation. Both are matters of some concern, but they are not the major offense that purposely taking away verses, chapters, and whole books are” (Joseph Smith, the Seer).

The reason I am writing this is due to an event that occurred two days ago as I was visiting a ward in Salt Lake City. The gospel doctrine instructor was teaching from chapters 13-14 of 1 Nephi. When he began discussing the verses I mentioned earlier about “plain and precious things” having been removed from the Bible, a sister made the following comment:

“I think we’re being too hard on the Bible, too negative. I’ve found out for myself that the Bible contains every doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It’s all there. The only problem is that you need the Holy Ghost in order to understand it.”

She went on to say that in her home state of Texas, where much “Bible bashing” takes place, she has been able to hold her own against those not of our faith, defending Latter-day Saint doctrine solely through the teachings found in the Bible.

I almost fell out of my chair in disbelief. Did this woman really understand what she was saying? Did she realize she was claiming that the angel who spoke to Nephi was mistaken? That “plain and precious things” had not been removed from the Bible after all?

I wanted to ask her to show us—using only the Bible—references in the Bible that teach the following doctrines in plainness:

- That revelation is the “rock” Jesus referred to in Matthew 16:18.

- That God the Father has a tangible body of flesh and bones (D&C 130:22).

- The difference between angels and “spirits of just men made perfect” (D&C 129:1-3) and how to distinguish a a messenger sent from God and the devil (D&C 129:4-9).

- A detailed description of the three degrees of glory (D&C 76).

- The proper mode of baptism and the prayer to be said as prelude to that ordinance (3 Nephi 11:23-28).

- The approved name of the Church (3 Nephi 27:7; D&C 115:3-4).

- The actual name of the Melchizedek Priesthood (D&C 107:3-4).

- The meaning of the word “gospel” (3 Nephi 27:13-17).

- What happens to the spirits of all men after the death of their bodies (Alma 40:11-26; 11:42-45).

- What would have happened to Adam and Eve had they remained in the Garden of Eden (2 Nephi 2:22-23).

- The oath and covenant of the priesthood (D&C 84:33-41).

- Enoch’s call to minister, and the eventual establishment of the city of Zion (Moses 6-7).

- The prophecy made by Joseph, son of Israel (Jacob), of a latter-day seer also named Joseph and who was named after his father (2 Nephi 3).

- The baptism of Adam (Moses:6:64-65).

- The meaning of the Atonement and an explanation of justice and mercy (2 Nephi 2; 2 Nephi 9; Mosiah 3; Alma 7:11; and many more).

- What Christ suffered in carrying out the Atonement and the suffering that awaits those who do not take advantage of that great sacrifice by repenting of their sins (D&C 19:15-18).

- Why the plurality of wives was practiced in ancient times (D&C 132:1,37-39).

- The reason why Adam was commanded to offer sacrifices (Moses 5:5-7).

- An explanation of the differences in duties of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods (D&C 107:8,12,20).

- The differences between marriages sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise and those that are not (D&C 132:15-20).

And there are so very many more examples.

To my shame, I sat there in class and made no effort to correct what she’d said. Nobody else in the class said anything either. And to top it all off, the instructor actually thanked her for her comments! So there we are, folks—put away your Book of Mormon and forget all preaching about Joseph Smith and the Restoration. The Bible is complete!—at least according to her.

I related this experience to an LDS friend today. When he asked why I didn’t say anything to rebut what the woman had said, I replied, “Because I was just a visitor among strangers, and I didn’t want to create a scene by telling her she was wrong.”

At this my friend said, “You may have been a visitor, but you were still a member.” He was right. I had a duty to testify of truth—not to sit and consent to false teachings by my silence.

I am resolved to never let that happen again.

Perspective

Many years ago Joseph Addison wrote an essay called "The Mountain of Miseries." It tells of a man who dreamt that everyone who suffered from any type of affliction -- physical deformity, chronic pain, terrible illness, etc., was given the opportunity to come together in a certain place where each would be allowed to discard their worst affliction onto one huge pile -- hence the name, "the mountain of miseries."

But there was a catch. After discarding the chosen affliction, each was also required to take from the pile a new misery that another had left behind. You can imagine what the pile looked like -- crippled arms and legs, deaf ears, blind eyes, horribly bent spines, tumors, lumps, and other unspeakable afflictions. At first, all were eager to agree to this condition, reasoning that no other affliction could ever be as torturous or debilitating as the one they were laying down. However, their eagerness soon turned to painful disappointment as each one tried to deal with their new misery, complaining that it was ever-so-much worse than the original.

In the end, each one agreed to trade back for the original misery he'd been so anxious to leave behind. They'd learned a lesson from a valuable teacher called "perspective."

Last night I had an experience with perspective. It taught me just how insignificant my so-called "problems" are. Sitting in the comfort,safety, and warmth of my home, I was watching a football bowl game on television -- you know, one of those events considered to be, by some people at least, one of the most critical moments in the history of the world.

As usual, the commentators recounted the epic struggles and achievements that each team had gone through in order to be in this game. The game ended in an exciting conclusion. The winners couldn't contain their joy. The losers were sitting there thinking of what might have been if a certain play had not been ruled the way it was. I'm sure that celebrations continued on into the night. And in the end, millions of viewers simply flipped to another channel. I was one of them. But the program I chose to watch knocked me to my senses and left me weeping.

My own words are incapable of describing what I saw. I will never forget it. Here is a link to the program:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/opium-brides/  It lasts about 30 minutes.

Please watch it. Please.

And after watching it you will understand why I then encourage you to count your blessings, particularly the ones we all take for granted. And if you have children, gather them in your arms -- literally or figuratively -- and love them like never before.

Football games suddenly have little appeal. Perspective is a great teacher.