A Living Philosophy: Character and Real Life©

In my reading this week I came across Marshall Field’s “Twelve Rules For Success.” Field knew something about the subject. He was one of the more successful businessmen of his time. He started the famous Marshall Field company in New York City. Here are his “Twelve Rules.”

1. The value of time.

2. The success of perseverance.

3. The pleasure of working.

4. The dignity of simplicity.

5. The worth of character.

6. The power of kindness.

7. The influence of example.

8. The obligation of duty.

9. The wisdom of economy.

10. The virtue of patience.

11. The improvement of talent.

12. The joy of originating.(1)

I like this list! There is a lot to think about and implement in one’s life that will help in making that life a success by most any definition of the word. 

But, I want to call your attention to something which I think is important. Note how many of the things in the list involve character traits:

Perseverance

Character

Kindness

Example

Duty

Thrift (economy)

Patience

Creativity (originating)

Eight of twelve, or three-fourths involve important character traits. The other four: valuing time; work; simplicity, and talent, grow out of elements of one’s character. However, Field’s list, as good as it is, is incomplete. There are other virtues such as those stressed in the Beatitudes in the Savior’s Sermon on the Mount, and in 2 Peter 1 which should be added to Field’s list.

Below are four quotations culled from a large file on the subject, that illuminate the importance of character in various ways; the last of which can be considered almost “prophetic”:

DAN COATES:

Character cannot be summoned at the moment of crisis if it has been squandered by years of compromise and rationalization. The only testing ground for the heroic is the mundane. The only preparation for that one profound decision which can change a life, or even a nation, is those hundreds of half-conscious, self-defining, seemingly insignificant decisions made in private. Habit is the daily battleground of character.(2)

BOOKER T. WASHINGTON:

... I am conscious of the fact that mere connection with what is known as a superior race will not permanently carry an individual forward unless he has individual worth, and mere connection with what is regarded as an inferior race will not finally hold an individual back if he possesses intrinsic, individual merit. Every persecuted individual and race should get much consolation out of the great human law, which is universal and eternal, that merit, no matter under what skin found, is in the long run, recognized and rewarded.(3)

THEODORE ROOSEVELT:

Every great nation owes to the men whose lives have formed part of its greatness not merely the material effect of what they did, not merely the laws they placed upon the statue books or the victories they won over armed foes, but also their immense but indefinable moral influence upon the national character. It is not only the country which these men helped to make and helped to save that is ours; we inherit also all that is best and highest in their characters and in their lives.(4)

JOHN LUTHER:

Good character is more to be praised than outstanding talent. Most talents are, to some extent, a gift.  Good character, by contrast, is not given to us. We have to build it piece by piece--by thought, choice, courage, and determination.(5)

SAMUEL SMILES:

[W]hen the time arrives in any country when wealth has so corrupted, or pleasure so depraved, or faction so infatuated the people, that honor, order, obedience, virtue, and loyalty have seemingly become things of the past; then, amidst the darkness, when honest men–if, haply, there be such left–are groping about and feeling for each other’s hands, their only remaining hope will be in the restoration and elevation of Individual Character; for by that alone can a nation be saved; and if character be irrecoverably lost, then indeed there will be nothing left worth saving.(6)

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:  

1. Earl Nightingale, This Is Earl Nightingale, Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1969, 56.

2. Dan Coates, "Points To Ponder," Reader's Digest, (June 1996):252. 

3. Booker T. Washington, Up From Slavery, New York: Bantam Books, 1963, 28.

4. Theodore Roosevelt in, Reader's Digest, (November 1993):146.

5. John Luther, in Arthur F. Lenehan, (ed.), Leadership, (April 1994):3.

6. Samuel Smiles, Happy Homes and the Hearts that Made Them, Chicago: U. S. Publishing House, 1889, 87.

Valuable Things that Get Lost in Modern Philosophy and Culture©

(Revised, 13 December 2019.)

There's a tendency to throw aside old values as belonging to an earlier generation. Don't discard those values that have proven, over the period of time, their value. Just believe in those values that made our nation great and keep them: faith, family, hard work, and, above all, freedom.  --Ronald Reagan.(1)

In earlier blogs I have expressed concern that many people today, almost without question, accept the modern world’s philosophies as superior to anything that has gone before. In my view this bodes ill for not only the immediate future, but for subsequent generations as well. Materialism, hedonism, and secularism with their attendant subsidiary doctrines dominate modern culture and much good is left behind and lost.

This concern surfaced again this week as I’m just finishing an interesting book about True Success: A New Philosophy of Excellence, where I encountered two examples of things that are being or are already lost, though this is not the author’s main point. The first draws a distinction between personality and character. Tom Morris wrote:

Character is the moral core of personhood.  It ought to be thought of as the foundation of personality. As Stephen Covey and others have begun to point out in recent years, too much of the success literature of our century has been personality-oriented when it should have been character-based. A beautiful house built on a bad foundation cannot provide for secure and stable long-term habitation. Nor can an attractive personality veneered over a bad character provide for any sustainable and fulfilling form of success.(2)

The evidence of this retrograde situation surrounds us. One example, a ubiquitous example–is the near worship of the “celebrity culture.”  It is one that emphasizes externals of personality and largely ignores the interior matter of character. In recent months the “Me too” movement has begun to expose the shallowness of the veneer and the emptiness of the soul of some considered to be celebrities. Alas, that is only one aspect of a much larger problem arising from the emphasis on personality at the expense of character.

The second example comes from the following observation about the culture of winning so prevalent today.

Everybody wants to be a winner. Nobody wants to be a loser. It was once the worst kind of insult and severest sort of condemnation to be called a scoundrel, a cad, a louse, a liar, untrustworthy, unscrupulous, unethical, immoral, or just plain evil. In more recent days, the most dreaded affront and reproach seems to be “loser.” A label to be avoided at all costs. The lowest of the low. The realm of outer darkness.(3)

Interestingly, both of these examples come from a chapter about character and its role in success.  

I am only an amateur and part-time sports fan and I prefer college to professional sports. My two-cheer commitment to sports is due in the main to the nearly total commitment to winning at all cost, including cheating if necessary. Consider how often one observes “holding” penalties in football.  The rules clearly make holding an opponent while blocking a violation. Every act of holding is intentional. There is no “inadvertent holding.” I know this is true because I have played the game. Every act of holding is cheating. Yet we frequently hear announcers, commentators–color and otherwise–as well as coaches and players ignore, dismiss, or rationalize this obvious cheating.

This is just one of many examples of cheating found in football. Another example, which some may consider petty, is that universally ball carriers after they are tackled push the ball out ahead of where they were tackled, hoping the refs will “spot” the ball there. It almost never works, but apparently it works enough so that virtually every ball carrier does it to add more yardage than actually achieved in the run. This is an obvious and very observable attempt to cheat.

“A little thing” the avid fan says. My response: it is cheating and that matters. This is my problem with what is happening today–the casual dismissal of “little” efforts to cheat. Cheating seems to be accepted in most sports if one can get away with it, because as the mantra goes “winning is the only thing.” The situation is exacerbated in  “big money” sports where an economic motive contributes to the “win at any cost” mentality.

Reading in August 2019 brought two additional things that modernity has taken from us, or is taking from us to my consciousness.  They are, 1) freedom of speech is gravely threatened, and 2) pornography has robbed the generations since 1960 of sexual purity, thought purity, speech purity, innocence of children exposed to it readily on the Internet and elsewhere, and a whole lot more. Laws, liberal philosophy, attempts to mold culture and society, and most contemporary religions have proved impotent before both of these losses. I believe Harry Emerson Fosdick has the right answer. Regarding free speech he wrote in the early 1950s,

Nothing that we call progress will reverse that trend--only the restoration in us of our father's love of independence and liberty, their belief in freedom to think, and their determination in a democracy to say what, by God's grace, they see fit to say about the public weal.

And about pornography:

Nothing that we call progress will get us out of that--only the re-emergence in us of something old: self-respect, decency, disgust at things contemptible and low, public revulsion against panderers who grow financially fat on the exploitation of vice.(4)

Catholic Bishop Fulton J. Sheen argued that such losses happen because we have forgotten “the purpose of life” and replaced it with the idea of progress. Here too, we are confused and mistaken, because much of what we call progress can simply be "change without purpose". Thus we can confuse “a step forward with a step in the right direction.” That is, progress is considered good regardless of it’s direction, or what may have been forgotten, left behind, or jettisoned in it’s pursuit.  Progress, in this case, is it’s own purpose and goal, but may be largely misdirected, with the result being unsatisfying, unfulfilling and ultimately unrewarding if not inimical.(4)

Character, honesty, integrity, and fairness are just a few of the abandoned casualties in today’s modern philosophies and culture. I urge you to take such examples seriously and to be skeptical in a healthy way about the contemporary notion that the old is passe and whatever is new is superior. This is especially true regarding today’s erroneous equation of personality and character. Be wary of the popular notion that progress is inevitably good.  It may be retrogression dressed in the flashy fashions of sloppy, untested, and uncontested philosophy, especially if it encourages or contributes to forsaking much good that is old, simply because it is old.

Let’s think again together, soon.

Notes:

1.  Ronald Reagan, in Elizabeth Dole, comp., Hearts Touched With Fire: My 500 Favorite Inspirational Quotations, New York: Carroll & Graff, 2004, 96.

2.  Tom Morris, True Success: A New Philosophy of Excellence, New York, NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1994, 218.

3. Ibid, 219.

4.  Both quotations come from: Harry Emerson Fosdick, What is Vital in Religion: Sermons on Contemporary Christian Problems, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1955, 164, bold emphasis added.  What makes Fosdick's arguments all the more interesting, is that he is a progressive liberal, but in these and other cases he is arguing for a conservative position--the return to earlier philosophies and values that have also been jettisoned by recent generations.

5.  See, Fulton J. Sheen, Freedom Under God.  Washington, D.C., Center for Economic and Social Justice, 2013, chapter 3, “True Liberty,” pp. 19-28.  This book was originally published  by the Bruce Publishing Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1940.  I thank my friend Jim Smith for bringing it to my attention.

Why I Believe: Evidence Fifty-Seven: The Most Important Truths of the Universe Entrusted to a Lad–Along With the Charge to Disseminate Them to the World and He Pulled It Off©

101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith Was a Prophet of God:

Evidence Fifty-Seven:

The Most Important Truths of the Universe Entrusted to a Lad–Along With the Charge to Disseminate Them to the World and He Pulled It Off© 

Recently I quoted Neal A. Maxwell about a youthful blind spot–an “experience gap.”  (See “Living Philosophies” blog “Apostolic Counsel to the Young: Understand the "Experience Gap,” 2 September 2018.) But that is not the whole story, as most youth are almost universally aware. Elsewhere in his writings, Elder Maxwell writes about the other side of the newly minted coin. He observes the “frequency in history with which the young have done so much, so ably, so well, so soon,” and cites Benjamin Disraeli’s generalization that “Almost everything that is great has been done by youth.” Elder Maxwell continues:

While the lack of previous experience handicaps youth, previous experience can also hold hostage those who are older, preventing us from having or appreciating fresh experiences that could help us to restructure more correctly our understanding of the nature of the world and of life.(1)

Elder Maxwell cites the exquisite example of the youthful Joseph Smith. It is not uncommon for Church leaders to speak of young Joseph’s amazing spiritual contributions and ever expanding impact on the religious world. But, the insights which Elder Maxwell draws from Joseph’s earliest spiritual experiences–the First Vision and the recovery of the plates of the Book of Mormon–are at once thought provoking, articulate, and most importantly, they are evidentiary of Joseph's prophetic calling.  Elder Maxwell wrote:

God gave to mankind through a young man, Joseph Smith, the ultimate and immense truths of the gospel in this, the last dispensation. This young man who had no social status to protect, no private theology already worked out for God to endorse, and who had loving and listening parents, could report that theophany honestly and cling tenaciously to the truth of that first vision in the midst of great persecution. A sophisticated man who had community status to protect and his own ideas about what kind of religion the world needed–even though a good man–would have been sorely tempted to have traded off truth for the praise of the world. Paul reminded us that "the friendship of the world is enmity with God. . . ." (James 4:4.) Could any but a humble non-linguist have gone to the Hill Cumorah and, under the direction of an angel, be shown ancient records and be told, so boldly, that he, personally, would be the unlettered instrument in translating these for the benefit of all mankind, and still have believed all that–and helped such a marvel come to pass without wanting somehow to possess the plates rather than share their wisdom or to add his own mortal touches and flourishes to the manuscript?

In relation to his calling, Joseph Smith no doubt stood much like Enoch and Moses: overwhelmed that he had been chosen, but, nevertheless, humbly determined to do just what was asked of him. To the humble, the simpleness and the easiness of the way are glad realities; to the crowded, ego-filled minds of proud men, the sudden sunlight from a spiritual sunrise is irritating rather than awesome, and causes them to blink rather than to stare in reverent awe.(2)

The insight that the most important truths in the universe were entrusted to a 14-17-year-old New York farm boy with the responsibility to get them published and disseminated world-wide–along with acquiring the necessary economic resources, creating an organization, and initiating a long-term missionary effort implied by that initial responsibility to pull it off–boggles the thoughtful mind. That he accomplished that and so much, much more in the quarter century to follow, borders on the incredible.  I freely admit that I “stare in reverent awe.”  Thank you Elder Maxwell!

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  Neal A. Maxwell, That My Family Should Partake, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1974, 81-2.

2.  Ibid, 82.

Are We An “Age Beyond Wonder”?©

In 1977 a lightning bolt struck part of the electrical grid of the northeastern United States and New York City experienced a blackout. The fact that many New Yorkers took to looting, pillaging and burning out neighborhood merchants and complained that “mere nature” was allowed to disrupt technology was the occasion for an essay by one of America’s most brilliant pundits–George F. Will.  He considered that the  “extinguishing [of] street lights [was] enough to crack the thin crust of civilization in whole neighborhoods” as American barbarism. From the perspective of four decades, that perspective seems to have only deepened.

But the bulk of Will’s essay that week was devoted to the second issue–the irritation that “mere nature” inconveniently disrupted technology. Below are several excerpts which argue that this is evidence that a mature American society had lost its sense of awe and wonder. What do you think?  Has the computer age and the “age of Hubble” increased the sense of awe and wonder of Americans, or are they just more examples of Will’s argument?

*********

What most distinguishes modern people is that they have so slight a sense of awe about the world around them. ... [M]odern people should consider that, in a sense, they take more things on faith than did a thirteenth-century peasant tilling the fields in the shadow of Chartres.

When the peasant wanted light, he built a fire from wood he gathered. Modern people flip switches, trusting that someone, somewhere, has done something that will let there be light. How many switch-flippers can say what really happens, in the flux of electrons, when a generator generates?

The most advance form of travel for the peasant was a sailing ship or a wagon: the mechanisms were visible and understandable. This year forty-one million passengers will pass through Chicago’s O’Hare airport, obedient to disembodied voices, electronically amplified, telling them to get into cylindrical membranes of aluminum that will be hurled by strange engines through the upper atmosphere. The passengers will not understand, and will be content not to understand, how any of it really works. And we think the fourteenth century was an age of faith.

Perhaps ours is the strangest age.  It is an age without a sense of the strangeness of things.   ...

The human race has grown up and lost its capacity for wonder. This is not because people understand their everyday world better than people did in earlier ages. Today people understand less and less of the social and scientific systems on which they depend more and more. Alas, growing up usually means growing immune to astonishment.(1)

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  George F. Will, The Pursuit of Happiness, and Other Sobering Thoughts, New York: Harper & Row, 1978, 109-11, emphasis added.

Why I Believe: Evidence Fifty-Six: Joseph Smith Claims a Completely New Use for the Urim and Thummim©

101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith Was a Prophet of God:

Evidence Fifty-Six:

Joseph Smith Claims a Completely New Use for the Urim and Thummim© 

The Old Testament speaks of an interesting tool associated with revelation–the Urim and Thummim.  Its history is shrouded in mystery. Though there are a number of verses in the Bible which speak of this instrument, biblical scholars have a difficult time sorting out the details of both its purpose and how it worked.(1) Some passages make it sound like it was used to cast lots and gain information to “yes” and “no” questions. It seems to be largely a tool used by the High Priest rather than the prophets.

Interestingly a tool by the same name also appears in the Book of Mormon, but there it is the tool of prophets, and Aaronic High Priests play no significant role in the Book of Mormon narrative. Moreover, the Book of Mormon associates these instruments with interpreting and/or translating ancient records. Ammon called them interpreters (Mos. 8:13) as did Alma (Al. 37:21) and Moroni (Eth. 4:5). In the Book of Mormon they were originally given to the brother of Jared who sealed them up with his record as a means of translating it in the future. (Eth. 3:22-24) King Mosiah possessed a Urim and Thummim but its origin was not given in the text.(Mosiah 28:11-13).  Mormon described them and said they were “prepared from the beginning, and were handed down from generation to generation, for the purpose of interpreting languages....”(Mos. 28:13-15) Ammon taught that the individuals allowed to use them were called “seers.” (Mos. 8:13)

For my purposes today, the focus is on a much later period–the time of the Restoration. The angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith on the night of September 21-22, 1823, (195 yesrs ago) and in the course of instructing him about the plates of the Book of Mormon he also told him of the Urim and Thummim and commanded him that these items should not be shown to others. (JS-H 1:42) Later the next day when he went to the hill Cumorah and found the box where the plates were hidden, he also saw the Urim and Thummim for the first time. (JS-H 1:52) He obtained the plates and the Urim and Thummim four years later and they were used for a time to translate the sacred record. According to Joseph’s mother, Joseph also used them to receive visions. A number of the revelations in the early D&C were given through the Urim and Thummim.

What interests me about all of this relative to Joseph Smith is a brief passage I recently re-read from LeGrand Richards. I have learned many times over, the benefit of going back to re-read earlier documents and sources. With the perspective of more time and experience, they often have a way of calling attention to certain things that one has overlooked when he first read them, not appreciating the insight contained therein. That was the case with the following from Elder Richards’ Marvelous Work and a Wonder which I read during my first year of college just prior to my mission.  He wrote:

Would it be unfair to ask what the spiritual leaders of Joseph Smith’s day knew about the Urim and Thummim? Would Joseph Smith, of himself, have thought of claiming that he translated the Book of Mormon with the assistance of the Urim and Thummim?(2)

The question of Elder Richards is even more challenging when we remind ourselves that there is nothing in the Bible which even hints at using the Urim and Thummim to translate ancient documents! This was a whole new purpose for them. So, his question merits repeating “Would Joseph Smith, [under those circumstances] of himself, have thought of claiming that he translated the Book of Mormon with the assistance of the Urim and Thummim?” I guess it is possible if you are willing to attribute to him another example of creative genius–among a very large constellation of such examples–if he were to have written the book out of his own mind. But, don’t you also have to ask, wouldn’t he anticipate that students of the Bible would challenge this heretofore unknown use of the Urim and Thummim and laugh him out of town? How would he defend that? 

As much as I am willing to grant him religious genius, there are other factors that convince me that he did not make up either the Book of Mormon or the story of the Restoration of the gospel and the Church of Jesus Christ to the earth. I am grateful for this small, but important question. It is easy for me to answer in the negative. It becomes one more small bit of evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, operating on a completely unexpected level and in a completely unexpected, but not illogical way.

Let’s think together again, soon

Notes:

1.  For a detailed overview of these issues up to that time, see James Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible, 5 vols, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988, 4:838-41.  Originally published between 1898 and 1902.

2. LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, 72-73.

Why I Believe: Evidence Fifty-Five: The Book of Mormon and the Psychological Impact of Gross Immorality Upon Individuals and Society”©

101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet.

Evidence Fifty-Five:

The Book of Mormon and the Psychological Impact of 

Gross Immorality Upon Individuals and Society” 

Living in a sex-saturated society, I have often contemplated the wisdom of a passage in the Book of Mormon. The prophet Jacob, Nephi’s younger brother, in an attempt to magnify his office (Jac. 2:2), calls the people together to speak to them. Jacob is grieved, he tells them, because they “are beginning to labor in sin”(2:5), even a “very abominable” sin. He is further grieved because of “the wickedness of their hearts.”(2:6.) He knows his people have come to hear “the word which healeth the wounded soul”(2:8), but he is under “strict command” to speak of their wickedness.(2:10).  He begins with a discussion of the sins of pride, thinking they are better than others, and their serious misuse of their prosperity and wealth, which should be used with the “intent to do good–to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and afflicted.”(2:19)

But he has yet more on his mind– “grosser crimes” as he calls them.(2:22-23) They have justified and excused themselves of their “whoredoms”–including taking additional wives or concubines, by perverting scriptures written about David and Solomon. He went on to accuse them of being more wicked than the Lamanites, who kept the commandments concerning these things  given them by their father Lehi.(2:34) Then he utters this remarkable passage, of which there is no equal in the Bible:

Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you.  And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds. (Jac. 2:35)

This passage strikes me as not only extremely important for our day; it also raises an interesting question about the author of the passage, especially the last phrase, “many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.” It is common among Joseph’s critics to accuse him of possessing excessive sexual libido and a deficient character which led him into gross immorality. If he was so possessed, I ask where the sensitivity expressed in this passage came from? They would say it came from his own hypocritical heart. Having devoted myself for several years to produce an early study of his plural marriages, I do not believe it for a moment. Moreover, I have to ask, “What events may have transpired in his family life or near environment before he was the age of twenty-five, when this book was published, which may have so sensitized him? This, of course, is asked, from the critic’s view that Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon. But, I don’t believe that for a moment either. Nevertheless, I am not aware of any serious infidelity within Joseph’s immediate family which would have produced the understanding and deep feeling expressed in Jacob’s statement, and as far as I know we have no indication from him that any like event in his immediate society effected him deeply.

When one considers Jacob’s words without preconceptions and prejudice, the depth and poignancy of the psychological insight is staggering. Was Joseph Smith in and of himself, at age twenty-five, in possession of such wisdom?  I wonder, and as much as I respect him, I doubt. Here is what Neal A. Maxwell has written about the Jacob pericope:

Clearly there are psychological scars left in the wake of unchastity, however sophisticated the indulgent society may believe itself to be. Unchastity can cause a kind of inner death, resulting in bitterness, emptiness, or in equally disabling and profound passivity. Children also pay a price: witness what might be called the Sayonara syndrome—the resentment of thousands of young Japanese men and women now coming of age who were fathered by American serviceman and were abandoned, cruelly stranded between two cultures. At least the Lieutenant Pinkerton in Puccini's Madame Butterfly had to face the consequence of his abandonment of Cho-Cho San.(1)

I am sure much, much more could be said about the negative psychological as well as social and cultural impact gross immorality produces on the individual, family, and society. Personally, when I consider this brief but wonderfully profound episodic teaching, I stand in awe that the Book of Mormon which is literally filled with such gems, was produced by a relatively unlettered farm boy in back woods New York in 1830. To me it speaks of the greatness of the book and the divine inspiration which rested upon the boy-man who translated it by the gift and power of God. It is one more small evidence which encourages me to believe he was a prophet of God.

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  Neal A. Maxwell, A Time to Choose, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1975, 60.

Elder Maxwell on the Critical Importance of the Home and Family to the Individual and Society

Below is a wonderful outline of the vital and critical importance of the home and family to not only the individuals in the family, but to society as a whole.  Unfortunately, as he mentions below, this is not a subject which garners much attention in the public square.  Yet, it should, because, as he so persuasively points out, the home is the seat of the solution to most of the ills which plague modern society.  “The home,” he asserts, “lies at the headwaters of the stream of civilization,” and should receive receive the care and emphasis it merits.  There is much, much more, but it is best read in his own eloquent, thought provoking, and prophetic words.

*********

Our best opportunity to develop discipleship is in the home, including the skills needed for communication. The family is the institution about which few people talk, and about which little is done in America. Yet we continue to use compensatory educational, economic, governmental, and political programs to solve or treat problems that are actually rooted in the home. Even though these efforts are sincere and needed, they will never deal fully with the problem of an unloved child who has not learned discipline or work, and the resultant tragedy which so often occurs.

The American home needs help badly. The pressing need for effectiveness in solving human problems will turn our attention, finally, in America, to the home as an institution. It is there that we most often learn about love, trust, self-discipline, and work. Our society rests on "obedience to the unenforceable"—a special kind of self-discipline—and this is best taught in the home. In this sense, our roles as fathers and mothers are more crucial than our public roles, for "no other success can compensate for failure in the home." ...

Concentrating on the quality of life in the home is, ultimately, the best way to raise the quality of life in society. A concern for justice in the home—experienced and discussed—could do much to assure concern for the underprivileged. This could result in wise legislation or even make legislation unnecessary. One of the best ways to prepare to replicate love, trust, discipline, and concern is for children to experience them, to know their fruits, and to refuse to be satisfied with a world devoid of such qualities.

Failure in the home clearly calls for compensatory institutions, but the home lies at the headwaters of the stream of civilization, and we must keep it happy and pure. When the home fails or is polluted, we must, of course, support "treatment" efforts downstream. But we must not become so fascinated with the filtering operation that we ignore prevention and desert our post at the headwaters. Building a happy home may not seem to have the immediate human impact of counseling in a juvenile detention center. Both are necessary, but the emphasis should fall on the home if we wish to prevent massive misery.

So far as contemporary American society is concerned, it is difficult to conceive of any issues around which there could be such profound separation as that which now exists around the role and mission of the home and family. The current indifference toward the home includes such inaccurate assertions as:

—The family is no longer vital because it is not an effective economic unit.

—The family is irrelevant because one human being cannot really meet the needs of another. This is especially true in a situation in which authority is vested in imperfect individuals such as parents who often seek to meet their needs, not those of their children.

—The family and marriage are not so crucial because we must get used to ever-changing, temporary relationships with other humans, rather than those which make continuing demands of us, such as the family.

It seems peculiar that advocates of family change become upset with some of us because we are not enthralled with their new labels for old, and unwise, practices. The anti-family proponents have simply relabeled sexual freedom as a chance for meaningful relationships, which is just a cover for fornication or adultery. Rhetoric seems to cover the need for real reform.

It is also odd that a culture which has reached a plague level of alienation would have us cut away the final moorings of the family, and that a society in danger of anarchy should seek to depose one last source of authority—parents. Our society pleads for more outer controls to compensate for our unwillingness to discipline ourselves, yet attacks the home where there is still the best chance to learn self-control.

Where can one better develop his capacity to love while he is being loved unconditionally, than in family life?

The best place for procreation is still the family which can offer a child love and a sense of belonging. We have enough data to tell us about the extra perils of children born out of wedlock, who never know their father.

The home is still one of the best places to learn the importance of work. Gibran said that "work is love made visible," and the interplay of love and work learned in a family can affect one's whole lifestyle and the quality of his subsequent service to mankind.

The best place to struggle with our need to establish a balance between freedom and order is with those who can help us with our failures—the family. It is the best place to acquire beliefs and values with which to cope with life, just as a home is the best place for sanctuary and renewal.

A committed member of the Church must understand the implications of his beliefs with regard to the home. This different commitment will mean, among many things, knowing that—

—the home is so crucial that it will be the source of our greatest failures as well as our greatest joys.

—the home is one place that will press us to practice every major Gospel principle, not just a few as may be the case in some fleeting and temporary relationships.

—the pressures of life in a family will mean we shall be known as we are, that our frailties will be exposed and, hopefully, we shall then correct them.

—the affection and thoughtfulness required in the home is no abstract exercise in love. It is real. It is no mere rhetoric concerning some distant human cause. It is an encounter with raw selfishness, with the need for civility, of taking turns, of being hurt and yet forgiving, of being at the mercy of others' moods and yet understanding why we sometimes inflict pain on each other.

—family life is a constant challenge, not a periodic performance we can render on a stage and run for the privacy of a dressing room to be alone with ourselves. The home gives us a great chance to align our public and private behavior, to reduce the hypocrisy in our lives—to be more congruent with Christ.

Committing oneself to the unglamorous demands of discipleship in family life is not a task for those who wish to run away, nor for those whose human causes are chosen precisely because the cause is distant and makes no real demands of them. It is the same for all the basic teachings of Jesus which constitute that solitary path to salvation.(1)

Let's think together again, soon.

Notes:  

1.  Neal A. Maxwell, A Time to Choose, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1975, 84-88.