The Logical Fallacy of the Appellate Court

In an earlier post, I discussed the issue of identity formation as it relates to the discussion of homosexuality. Essentially, I argue that because we have come to consider homosexuality an identity as opposed to something a person does or feels, we have created a category of personhood that naturally calls to mind the need for a different form of legal recognition and provisions. I believe that changing the nature of marriage in the United States in order to accommodate the sexual preferences of everyone will shift our focus away from children, which I believe is the historic purpose of government involvement in marriage. However, I recognize that my opinion is not the only one, and I am therefore alarmed when the weighty decision about the nature and purpose of marriage is dictated by a court as opposed to the voice of the people. In the case of the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing the arguments for the constitutionality of Proposition 8, this concept of identity and a convolution of words has also caused the federal judges to make a critical error:

Quoted from Forbes magazine: "The 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the California ban on gay marriage violates the equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The equal protection clause states that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection under the law. Accordingly, the court ruled that denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry denied them the same rights provided to heterosexual couples." (italics added)

The Court's official statement: “Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted." (italics added - and will be explained below)

Their logic is sound. Different classes of people shouldn't be treated differently by the law. But are they? Are people with same sex attraction feeling discriminated against because they are being treated differently, or because they are being treated the same? While we certainly acknowledge the feelings of others, one’s feelings do not constitute a class that requires special treatment. Can individuals claim "LGBTIQ" as an identity or class of people they belong to? Of course - as much as vegetarians, alcoholics, lefties or nudists can. They also have to pay taxes, drive on the right side of the road, and put on their pants in the morning like everyone else. Without denying the fact that many people experience these real, undeniably strong feelings and form fulfilling relationships as a result, we have a right to vote on whether or not to make special legal provisions for them – especially the right to define marriage, a social contract. The problem is that those who see homosexuality as an identity are more likely to assume that they are being treated unfairly by a law that treats everyone equally.

This assumption has led the justices of the 9^th Court of Appeals to make a logical fallacy in their argument against Proposition 8. They reference the 14^th amendment to claim equal rights protection on “persons” and then automatically skip to declaring the right of “couples” to be treated equally. At first glance, this issue seems like discrimination against individuals – especially when the proposition is referred to as a "ban against gay marriage" - but is it really a ban on gay people marrying, or a ban on the type of marriage they want to exist? The meanings are lumped together in this pejorative phrase, but the distinction is critical.

A relationship does not have the same rights as an individual. We have encountered the same controversy in regards to corporate personhood - that is, while a corporation may be a group of individuals, a corporation does not have the same rights as an individual. Aren’t individuals with same sex attraction just as welcome to get married as anyone else – Muslim, blond, quadriplegic? Yes. In this sense, marriage is certainly an individual right. But can they dictate the requirements for that social contract? No; no more than can two cousins in love, or a Muslim in the U.S. who wants to take a second wife. Under our current laws, even Mary the mother of Jesus would probably be too young to get married to Joseph. But we can vote to change the contract, just like everyone else can.

This debate is not about whether or not gay people have the right to get married, it's about what the definition of marriage is. That should be obvious to everyone by now. Assuming that an individual is of age and mental capacity, everyone in America has the right to get married - everyone, equally. We also all have the right to vote to change the nature of the marriage contract - also an equal right. The 14th Amendment supports that and so do I. While marriage is clearly a more attractive option for some people than others (for a variety of cultural, psychological, social, biological, and financial reasons), it is the same option. No one is being treated specially here.

Individuals have the freedom to live as they choose, and we have the moral responsibility to respect each other regardless of our differences. Whether a relationship should be sanctioned as a marriage, though, depends on what you believe the purpose of marriage should be about - legitimizing relationships, rearing children, racial purity, gender relations, human population control - your priorities might be different than mine. But regardless of one's opinions about whether or not such relationships are inherently moral, we should not mistakenly use the Constitutional rights afforded individuals as a universal legal protection for all types of relationships. No one would agree with all the implications of that.

Some readers hopefully now realize a key lapse in understanding on both sides. We agree that getting married is a right, but who you marry is a social contract with lots of important implications for the future of our society, and therefore a contract in which society has some say. The courts do not have the right to redefine the contract of marriage without the consent of the governed. One’s personal feelings and preferences do not provide special rights or the right to force one’s opinions on others any more than my religious feelings and beliefs allow me to do likewise. It should be sufficient for us in a democratic nation to allow such factors to clarify our own priorities and inform our own choices. That is why we vote.

Religion vs. Sexuality - What Constitutes Identity?

One reader made an excellent comment I'd like to respond to with the following:
By arguing that sexuality is developed later in life, and that people change their sexual preferences over time, many Christians have argued that sexuality is therefore not a part of one's identity and should not be regarded thus. Sexuality in that sense is unlike race or gender. However, being Christians, there is clearly a flaw in their logic: Religion is also something developed later in life, and may change over time. How then can we argue that religion is part of one's identity? While religion unlike sexuality, is protected under the Constitution, I think this particular argument against accepting a homosexual identity flawed and unhelpful. Many things contribute to one's identity - family, school, language, style, activities - all of which are developed over time.

Fundamentally, the question then becomes, what is the difference between religion and sexuality? They're not just categories. What would you say? Religion is what you _____ and sexuality is what you _______.

Before I give my answer, let me be clear: For the sake of this argument, whether you consider yourself "religious" or "spiritual" or a "free thinker" or a "conservative" - I consider these all versions of religion - terms that that refer to one's set of beliefs about what is true, and what is good. Sexuality, for this argument, I'll define as how someone chooses to be fulfilled sexually.

So... I filled in the blanks thus: Religion is what you believe, and sexuality is what you want. If you generally agree with these categories, their difference should be clear. What someone truly believes about how the world is and should be is the overarching decision-maker in their system. In any society it should be master of the desires and appetites and train the body and mind with wisdom, discipline, and civilization. It doesn't sound very exciting, but this is one of the primary factors that differentiates us from animals.

Both religion and sexuality clearly influence identity, but certainly not in the same way. The attempt to equalizing religion and sexuality by saying that both are part of your identity is like saying that a teacher and an eraser are both part of a classroom. The executive nature of the one far exceeds the presence of the other in importance and scope. Sexuality only impacts you to the extent that your personal beliefs allow it, or as much as you allow your beliefs to be impacted by it.

Someone with a "Carpe Diem" tattoo is going to get upset at this notion, but while feelings and desires should be explored and enjoyed, wisdom should be the ultimate referee of our actions. And clearly, true wisdom is not the destroyer of fun, but the enabler. Wisdom dictates that saving, getting out of debt, and budgeting helps us to have leftover money for Disneyworld. Wisdom teaches us that eating well and exercising means we can look sexy on the beach or run a 5K. And wisdom shows us that waiting to have sex until it's done in the right way at the right time with the right person means we'll be a lot happier in the long run.

Where does this so-called wisdom come from? Well, research and experience etc. But these are only factors that influence what is ultimately filtered through the framework of our religion - in other words, the questions we can't study scientifically, the "why"s of the universe, the value judgments about what is ultimately true, good, and important. Regardless of how other factors may influence you, which answers you choose to believe, or what pieces of evidence you will consider the most important - your ultimate answers - come from your personal religious beliefs.

Note that I haven't made any statements prioritizing one religion over another. That's because I have faith that most people's fundamental beliefs are basically good. I believe that people are born with a basic sense of right and wrong, and that if that sense is followed throughout life, one's religion or worldview or personal philosophy will also be basically good. When sexuality, or appetite, or addictions, or any other type of preferences is regarded at the same level as religion, or allowed to dictate religious belief, we lose the executive that directs us to be moral, civilized, thoughtful people and lose all the privileges that wisdom offers us. Regardless of your sexual inclinations or sexual choices, at the end of the day they should be guided by, and not dictate, one's religious beliefs.

In conclusion, while we may claim many things that contribute to who we are, our religious identity should be seen as one of the most important, above sexual identity, vegetarian identity, or kid-from-the-suburbs identity, because it is and should be the executive function of our actions. We should believe in and act on the truest, best things we know, regardless of our own personal behavior, because what we choose to believe will dictate our actions, and ultimately, who we will become.

Extrapolating: Communists and Constitutionalists

I made an interesting discovery a while ago. As a sociologist and social worker by education, I had obviously been raised with liberal political views, and one thing I felt very strongly was that Republicans were bad because they hated poor people. My personal experience with staunch conservatives had been quite negative in this regard. It seemed clear that Republicans hated welfare, thought it was a waste of money, and didn’t think poor people deserved help of any kind from the rest of society. They were the “self-made” men, who from the viewpoint of Charles Dickens' character Mr. Bounderby in Hard Times, are ultimately a myth. Where you come from has such a huge impact on what you’re able to achieve -- without denying there are individual differences that may exacerbate or ameliorate an individual’s situation -- as a group there are clearly barriers to success that those from wealthier backgrounds don’t have to confront. Regardless of what we may say about everyone having a fair chance in America, some people just don’t. Whether they were taught poor values, born with a drug addiction, have an unstable family, or simply live in a neighborhood without jobs, public transportation, decent schools, or grocery stores that sell fresh produce. I have spent most of my educational life bitter and angry towards the selfish, snobby Republicans who are so clearly oblivious to these factors and think only of protecting their “hard-earned” money.

I found out I was wrong.

It was on a date, ironically, with a cute guy who seemed to have a lot in common with me - until politics were brought up. I was as far left as you could go while still thinking Communism was generally bad. He was a libertarian. He said, no government - I said, the poor need help. He said no government, I said, the poor need help. Then he said this: Yes, you’re right, they do need help. And I think we should help them. I just think it shouldn’t be the government that does it. He talked about enabling and inspiring people to develop community initiatives, nonprofits, and individual giving, that a reduction in taxes would give people and companies more freedom to do that. Woah. Uh, I hadn't thought of that. I struck back when I challenged that some underrepresented groups still wouldn’t get help and that we risked people not being generous to the poor because we’ve set a precedent of government help, but at the end of the date two things happened. I knew there wasn’t going to be a second date, and I realized that all Republicans don’t really hate the poor. They believe the poor should be helped - but that for many reasons it’s better that it not be the government who does it.

In eight years of higher education, no one had ever suggested that possibility. Read: no one in the sociology or social work departments where I found myself had ever mentioned it. It had never occurred to me. It totally flipped my worldview (Nevertheless, we did not have a second date).

Over the course of two years, I gradually came to accept the hypocrisy in my own education and the ignorance I had so long been seeing in others as my own fault as well. I became angry at the people who had kept me so polarized and narrow-minded -- what were they trying to do to me? Did no one ever suggest this possibility to them or were they too one-sided to recognize the ugly truth when it challenged their philosophical box? Yeah -- that’s how it went down. I kept it pretty undercover from my new husband (who started not one but two Republican-oriented clubs in high school, actively campaigned for local Republican politicians and wrote for his college conservative newsletter). I could now see holes in both arguments, and suddenly I wasn’t sure who the good guys and bad guys were anymore.

Then I found out I was right… Partially. I wasn’t wrong about my previous experience with Republicans. I HAD met some snobbish pigs. I just realized that they weren’t all in one party. The nature of the problem in both parties is taking a single good principle and extrapolating it to an extreme to the exclusion of all other principles.
People who feel very strongly about maintaining the original intent of the Constitution often get upset about the federal government overstepping its Constitutionally outlined powers. Doing so opens the doors to lawlessness the compromise of checks and balances and diminished power of local and state governments to respond to the needs of their citizens. However, as Mitch Daniels said to far-right activists known as the Conservative Political Action Conference last February, “We should distinguish carefully skepticism about big government from contempt for all government” (New York Times). Some people fall into exactly that hole. Their beliefs about big government dominate their beliefs about behavior in every other realm (When all you have is a hammer, etc). While Republicans are more likely to donate to charities than Democrats, overall attitudes toward poor and minority groups are more positive among Democrats. This is extrapolation: When Republicans believe that the governments shouldn’t help the poor, so therefore the poor don’t deserve to be helped. In fact, there is a baby being thrown out with the bathwater. The truth is more complex and more compassionate. While I am hardly an expert on what the role of the government should be regarding poverty and inequality in America, I know for certain what my role should be as a citizen, a wife, a daughter, a neighbor, a tax payer, and a member of my community. I know I have a responsibility to act with wisdom and compassion, being aware of and responding to the needs of those around me. This, however must not lead to false extrapolation #2 : socialism.

While Republicans may be more prone to top-down extrapolation errors, Democrats are far more likely to err from the bottom up. With the firm conviction of the power of and need for change and a deeply held concern for the well-being of those around us, Democrats reach for the tools at their disposal - including individual, community, and government initiatives, without seeing any significant differentiation between them. During my time in the field, the distinction between these entities was never regarded as significant, other than that individuals and communities SHOULD help, but the government is OBLIGATED to help. I attribute this to one of two possible causes: Social scientists may be so focused on the nature and cause of various social issues that they neglect a careful study of government and economics (which is certainly true in my case). Secondly, the concerns of Constitutionalists and economists may be overlooked or seen as trivial when compared to the urgent welfare of Burmese refugees, victims of child abuse, collapsing families, or racial inequality.

Democrats believe that the rich should help the poor, but instead of simply using personal influence to encourage those with means to improve the lives of others, it has become a matter of enforcing it legally. Democrats, as a result, are more likely to make this extrapolation: These individuals need help, and therefore everyone and every entity should be obligated to help. Such views, when taken to this extreme, compromise civil liberties and wear the mask of communism.

The concept of extrapolation, then, is a common among both parties. The issues are different, the directions are opposite, but the problem is the same. Let us understand better the role of government, the role of personal freedom, and understand the power of both in improving our lives and maintaining our freedoms. The solution is somewhere between the two -- not a compromise, but a synergy of truth. Our country can embrace freedom and equality, but only as government and individuals understand and fulfill their unique, vital roles.

Compensating for Something?

Compensating for Something?
It's a crude joke, but it's also terribly appropriate for this particular post. I want to introduce my topic, social compensation, with an insightful piece about the huge, mysterious temples in Central America, thought to be built by the Mayans. Based on commonalities between the two cultures, many Mormons suppose the Mayans to be related to the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations in the Book of Mormon. Ironically though, the dating on these temples puts them not at the height of the civilization, but near the end:

"C. Northcote Parkinson has demonstrated with withering insight how throughout history really ornate, tasteless, and pompous building programs have tended to come as the aftermath of civilization. After the vital powers are spent, then is the time for the super-buildings, the piling of stone upon stone for monuments of staggering mass and proportion. It was after the disciples of the early church decided to give up waiting for the Messiah and to go out for satisfaction here and now that the Christians of the fourth century took to staging festivals and erecting monuments in the grand manner, covering the whole Near East with structures of theatrical magnificence and questionable taste."

Ironically, he theorizes that truly great civilizations demonstrate their greatness by the success of their systems of government and economy; large, ornate buildings are often erected as compensation for when those things begin to fail. Dr. Hugh Nibley is quoted as comparing this in a religious sense to Christianity: Jesus' church was about hillsides and sheep and homes and fishing boats. Cathedrals and fancy papal robes weren't developed until hundreds of years after real apostles had died:

"How unlike the building program of the Church today which can barely erect enough of our very functional, almost plain chapels to keep abreast of the growing needs of the Latter-day Saints.

Though such piles as the great pyramid-temple of Chichén Itzá yield to few buildings in the world in beauty of proportion and grandeur of conception, there is something disturbing about most of these overpowering ruins. Writers describing them through the years have ever confessed to feelings of sadness and oppression as they contemplate the moldy magnificence—the futility of it all: “They have all gone away from the house on the hill,” and today we don’t even know who they were.

"Amid the ruins of the New World, as in Rome, we feel something of both the greatness and the misery, the genuine aspiration and the dull oppression, the idealism and the arrogance imposed by the heavy hand of priestcraft and kingcraft, and we wonder how the ruins of our own super buildings will look someday.

"The great monuments do not represent what the Nephites stood for; rather, they stand for what their descendants, 'mixed with the blood of their brethren,' descended to. But seen in the newer and wider perspective of comparative religious studies, they suggest to us not only the vanity of mankind and the futility of man’s unaided efforts, but also something nobler; the constant search of men to recapture a time when the powers of heaven were truly at the disposal of a righteous people." (emphasis added)

( Nibley on Book of Mormon Geography — Believe All Things http://www.believeallthings.com/1601/nibley-book-mormon-geography/#ixzz1cYpzgqnX)

Dr. Nibley's comparison between the lavish buildings of a false church and the simple but supreme power of the true church are reminds me of the scene from Indiana Jones where the growling black-robed Arab swings and slings his sword ferociously, and then Indiana pulls out his gun and simply ends the fight. As impressive as a sword might look, it can't come close to what a gun can do. What are we compensating for? To take a completely different example, an interior decorator once told me that the most beautiful homes are those with love in them. No amount of matching sconces and throw pillows can compensate if it's not there.

Unfortunately, it seems like we often choose to dress up instead of perform, or polish pewter instead of heal our relationships. How many other essential elements are we missing in our lives and in our society, and how are we compensating by putting way too much emphasis, time, effort and money into something that doesn't really solve the problem? Here are just a few:

1. Obviously, for me, family comes to mind first. We put a lot more effort into friends, pets, and jobs when our families are corrupt, disintegrating or nonexistent. Nice, but certainly not replacements.

2. As an early childhood educator, I've also observed that our society's focus on children's physical and mental development often completely excludes spiritual and character education, as though having a healthy mind and body was sufficient to ensure them a life of happiness. While certainly those areas of development are important, happiness is not correlated with intelligence or one's physical appearance (see: http://www.expatica.com/nl/health_fitness/healthcare/happiness-is-16773_9479.html). It is, however, closely tied to long-term, committed relationships (read: people who have learned to love, be patient and committed, work hard, and be selfless). And anyway, we believe that happiness comes from love, not money, right? Based on our own values, we should recognize the need for children to be given a strong grounding in truth and values, far above our insistent paranoia about potty training or listening to Baby Mozart.

3. Another obvious overcompensation for the lack of long-term, committed relationships is our obsession with sex has made it an end in itself, rather than a means to develop lasting, meaningful, awesome relationships that bring far more happiness.

4. Finally, as I discussed in my last blog post, we have compensated for the lack of real manliness in our society by making masculinity a matter of how big or how tough you are, or whether or not you cry, or whether your interests include sports and video games, when the most obvious definition of manliness is whether or not you can and do exercise your "manliness" - ie., have sex. I know it sounds shocking, and that's not to say that men don't also have a responsibility to be good people and demonstrate respect, civility, thrift, responsibility, honesty, etc. But because there are fewer married men, and therefore fewer men who can have good sex whenever they want to, the generation of sex-starved men have gradually decided to define their manliness by other, frankly quite silly, characteristics that have nothing to do with the ultimately unique characteristic of males.

Whether or not the great pyramids in central America were built near the end of their great civilization because the spiritual and governmental leadership had died or become corrupted, the evidence illustrates a truth that we can see in our own society today. When true greatness, or good families, or true religion, or clear principles of happiness are absent, we tend to overcompensate in other ways. Find the evidence of overcompensation in your life and in society in general - the things that we put far more into than they ever give back, then identify the real missing piece. If you have the courage to make the change, reprioritize, and don't be fooled again.

The Death of Manhood

Okay here's the article:
http://mw.cnn.com/snarticle?c=cnnd_latest&p=10&aId=20111004%3Abennett-men-in-trouble%3A1

Thoughts:
Any time we identify a social problem, our natural instinct is to look for the cause. We do the same thing with all problems. In the ecosystem, if we see an overabundance of algae in the ocean, or Asian carp in the Great Lakes, we look to human-imposed changes like industrial waste, introducing foreign species, over-fishing or over-consumption of a natural resource, etc. We don't tell the fish to stop eating each other or the algae to stop reproducing. With society it's different though. We tend to heap the blame for social problems on the individuals most closely connected to it. Why is there an increase in child abuse? Well, there are more evil parents in the world. Why is there an increase in murder and robbery? There are more bad people who don't have morals. We may extend it to blaming those people's bad parents, but we stick to individuals and rarely go beyond that.

Where there is a bad societal trend, there is a bad societal cause that needs to be studied through a sociological, not a psychological, lens. The article "Why Men Are In Trouble" is no different. Bennett relates statistics describing the average male 18-30 as immature, irresponsible, and playing a lot of video games (playing more than their 11-18 year-old counterparts). Why? Bennett claims that it's because men aren't taught how to be men, and because society doesn't agree on what it means to be a man in the first place. The things that have traditionally defined men have been work, marriage and religion. All of these things are decreasing. Men are working less (20% of men in their prime are unemployed, compared with 5% in 1950), getting married less (40% of children are born out of wedlock and 27% of children live apart from their fathers), and less religious (only 39% of men attend church regularly, compared with 47% of women). The author's conclusion that men "man up" is less than satisfactory. What is the societal action behind this trend? Why are men shunning family, work, and religion, more so than ever before?

While this post is not designed to answer such a question, I do believe that the answers may be in places we don't want to find them. For a society that has been focused so long on the oppression of women, we may need to take a hard look at some well-intentioned policies and practices and assumptions that have backfired. And this shouldn't hurt our feelings - even the best policies have unintended consequences. Have some of the programs and campaigns and messages designed to promote women's empowerment and independance gone too far? Are there unintentional consequences to our view of feminism, that ultimately disadvantage both sexes? Are we willing to ask hard questions in order to solve this problem? Or will we cling to the injustice of sexism of the past, claim "an eye for an eye" and use affirmative action indefinitely to disadvantage men? Because I won't accept the answer that men are failing just because that's how they are - and neither should you.

Why men are in trouble

By William J. Bennett, CNN Contributor

UPDATED: 10:26 AM EDT 10.04.11

For the first time in history, women are better educated, more ambitious and arguably more successful than men.

Now, society has rightly celebrated the ascension of one sex. We said, "You go girl," and they went. We celebrate the ascension of women but what will we do about what appears to be the very real decline of the other sex?

The data does not bode well for men. In 1970, men earned 60% of all college degrees. In 1980, the figure fell to 50%, by 2006 it was 43%. Women now surpass men in college degrees by almost three to two. Women's earnings grew 44% in real dollars from 1970 to 2007, compared with 6% growth for men.

In 1950, 5% of men at the prime working age were unemployed. As of last year, 20% were not working, the highest ever recorded. Men still maintain a majority of the highest paid and most powerful occupations, but women are catching them and will soon be passing them if this trend continues.

The warning signs for men stretch far beyond their wallets. Men are more distant from a family or their children then they have ever been. The out-of-wedlock birthrate is more than 40% in America. In 1960, only 11% of children in the U.S. lived apart from their fathers. In 2010, that share had risen to 27%. Men are also less religious than ever before. According to Gallup polling, 39% of men reported attending church regularly in 2010, compared to 47% of women.

If you don't believe the numbers, just ask young women about men today. You will find them talking about prolonged adolescence and men who refuse to grow up. I've heard too many young women asking, "Where are the decent single men?" There is a maturity deficit among men out there, and men are falling behind.

This decline in founding virtues -- work, marriage, and religion -- has caught the eye of social commentators from all corners. In her seminal article, "The End of Men," Hanna Rosin unearthed the unprecedented role reversal that is taking place today. "Man has been the dominant sex since, well, the dawn of mankind. But for the first time in human history, that is changing?and with shocking speed," writes Rosin. The changes in modern labor -- from backs to brains -- have catapulted women to the top of the work force, leaving men in their dust.

Hanna Rosin: Are women leaving men behind?

Man's response has been pathetic. Today, 18-to- 34-year-old men spend more time playing video games a day than 12-to- 17-year-old boys. While women are graduating college and finding good jobs, too many men are not going to work, not getting married and not raising families. Women are beginning to take the place of men in many ways. This has led some to ask: do we even need men?

So what's wrong? Increasingly, the messages to boys about what it means to be a man are confusing. The machismo of the street gang calls out with a swagger. Video games, television and music offer dubious lessons to boys who have been abandoned by their fathers. Some coaches and drill sergeants bark, "What kind of man are you?" but don't explain.

Movies are filled with stories of men who refuse to grow up and refuse to take responsibility in relationships. Men, some obsessed with sex, treat women as toys to be discarded when things get complicated. Through all these different and conflicting signals, our boys must decipher what it means to be a man, and for many of them it is harder to figure out.

For boys to become men, they need to be guided through advice, habit, instruction, example and correction. It is true in all ages. Someone once characterized the two essential questions Plato posed as: Who teaches the children, and what do we teach them? Each generation of men and women have an obligation to teach the younger males (and females of course) coming behind them. William Wordsworth said, "What we have loved, others will love, and we will teach them how." When they fail in that obligation, trouble surely follows.

We need to respond to this culture that sends confusing signals to young men, a culture that is agnostic about what it wants men to be, with a clear and achievable notion of manhood.

The Founding Fathers believed, and the evidence still shows, that industriousness, marriage and religion are a very important basis for male empowerment and achievement. We may need to say to a number of our twenty-something men, "Get off the video games five hours a day, get yourself together, get a challenging job and get married." It's time for men to man up.

On Truth and Tolerance

Dalline H. Oaks, former dean of the University of Chicago law school and member of the quorum of the twelve apostles, gave a remarkable treatise on the nature and relationship between truth and tolerance in an address to young adults on September 11. For a society that is often skeptical of absolute truth and universally in favor of tolerance, I think it is worth investigating the nature of these two concepts:

TRUTH AND TOLERANCE

(Watch entire address - Elder Oaks' remarks begin at 15:40 mark)

My dear young brothers and sisters, Kristen and I feel privileged to be with you on this significant occasion. We meet on 9/11, the tenth anniversary of an event that has profoundly influenced our lives and thinking, and will do so for many years to come. It is forever associated with the Twin Towers.

I have felt impressed to speak this evening about another set of twins, the twin ideas of Truth and Tolerance. These subjects were not chosen because they are uniquely your concern as young adults, like the dating, hanging out, and marriage I described to this audience some years ago. My treatment of Truth and Tolerance will invite you to consider and to teach these twin subjects because they are vital to the rising generation, in which you are the senior members.

I. Truth

First, truth. We believe in absolute truth, including the existence of God and the right and wrong established by His commandments. We sing:

Tho the heavens depart and the earth’s fountains burst,

Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst,

Eternal, unchanged, evermore[1].

In the words of President Joseph F. Smith:

“We believe in all truth, no matter to what subject it may refer. No sect or religious denomination in the world possesses a single principle of truth that we do not accept or that we will reject. We are willing to receive all truth, from whatever source it may come; for truth will stand, truth will endure.”[2]

The existence and nature of truth is one of the fundamental questions of mortal life. Jesus told the Roman governor Pilate that He came into the world to “bear witness unto the truth.” “What is truth?” that unbeliever responded (John 18:37-38). In earlier times the Savior had declared, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). In modern revelation He declared: “Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come” (D&C 93:24).

My young brothers and sisters, we know that the existence of God and the existence of absolute truth are fundamental to life on this earth, whether they are believed or not. We also know that evil exists and that some things are simply, seriously, and everlastingly wrong. You whom I address shun evil and seek truth. I salute you for your righteous actions and your righteous desires. As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, I seek to help you make right choices in a world that is increasingly polarized between belief and disbelief, between good and evil.

Shocking reports of large-scale thievery and lying in civilized societies in the last two months suggest a moral vacuum in which many have little sense of right and wrong. Last month’s widespread rioting and pillaging in Britain and the scandalous widespread cheating by teachers on state-mandated tests in elementary and middle schools in Atlanta, Georgia have caused many to wonder whether we are losing the moral foundation western countries have received from their Judeo-Christian heritage.[3]

It is well to worry about our moral foundation. We live in a world where more and more persons of influence are teaching and acting out a belief that there is no absolute right and wrong, that all authority and all rules of behavior are man-made choices that can prevail over the commandments of God. Many even question whether there is a God.

The philosophy of moral relativism, which holds that each person is free to choose for himself what is right and wrong, is becoming the unofficial creed for many in America and other western nations. At the extreme level, evil acts that used to be localized and covered up like a boil are now legalized and paraded like a banner. Persuaded by this philosophy, many of the rising generation—youth and young adults—are caught up in self-serving pleasures, pagan painting and piercing of body parts, foul language, revealing attire, pornography, dishonesty, and degrading sexual indulgence.

On the foundation belief in right and wrong there is an alarming contrast between the older and the younger generations. According to survey data of two decades ago, 80 percent of American adults believed “there are clear guidelines about what’s good and evil that apply to everyone regardless of the situation.”[4] In contrast, a more recent poll of college seniors suggests that “three-quarters of [them] believe that the difference between right and wrong is relative.”[5]

Many religious leaders teach the existence of God as the Ultimate Lawgiver, by whose action certain behavior is absolutely right and true and other behavior is absolutely wrong and untrue.[6] Bible and Book of Mormon prophets foresaw this time, when men would be “lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God” (2 Tim. 3:4) and, indeed, when men would deny God (Jude 1:4; 2 Ne. 28:5; Moroni 7:17; D&C 29:22).

In this troubled circumstance we who believe in God and the corollary truth of absolute right and wrong have the challenge of living in a godless and increasingly amoral world. In this circumstance, all of us—and especially you of the rising generation—have a duty to stand up and speak to affirm that God exists and that there are absolute truths His commandments establish. In doing so, we Latter-day Saints rely on the truth we sing in the hymn I quoted earlier:

The pillar of truth will endure to the last,

And its firm-rooted bulwarks withstand the rude blast

And the wreck of the fell tyrant’s hopes.[7]

As I face this audience of committed young people, I know that some of you may be wondering why I am speaking about what is obvious to you, and what you might assume is obvious to others. Recall the survey data I mentioned earlier, suggesting that about three-quarters of all college seniors believe that the difference between right and wrong is relative.

I have chosen to speak about truth because teachers in schools, colleges, and universities are teaching and practicing relative morality. This is shaping the attitudes of many young Americans who are taking their places as the teachers of our children and the shapers of public attitudes through the media and popular entertainment. This philosophy of moral relativism denies what millions of believing Christians, Jews and Muslims consider fundamental, and this denial creates serious problems for all of us. What believers should do about this introduces the second of my twin subjects, “Tolerance.”

II.

Tolerance is defined as a friendly and fair attitude toward unfamiliar opinions and practices or toward the persons who hold or practice them. As modern transportation and communication have brought all of us into closer proximity to different peoples and different ideas, we have greater need for tolerance. When I was a young adult, about sixty years ago, it was only in books and magazines that most Americans were exposed to great differences in cultures, values and peoples. Now we experience such differences in television and the internet, and often in personal interactions in our neighborhoods and the marketplace.

This greater exposure to diversity both enriches our lives and complicates them. We are enriched by associations with different peoples, which remind us of the wonderful diversity of the children of God. But diversities in cultures and values also challenge us to identify what can be embraced as consistent with our gospel culture and values and what cannot. In this way diversity increases the potential for conflict and requires us to be more thoughtful about the nature of tolerance. What is tolerance, when does it apply, and when does it not apply?

This is a harder question for those who affirm the existence of God and absolute truth than for those who believe in moral relativism. The weaker one’s belief in God and the fewer one’s moral absolutes, the fewer the occasions when the ideas or practices of others will confront one with the challenge to be tolerant. For example, an atheist has no need to decide what kinds and occasions of profanity or blasphemy can be tolerated and what kinds should be confronted. Persons who don’t believe in God or in absolute truth in moral matters can see themselves as the most tolerant of persons. For them, almost anything goes. “You do your thing and I’ll do my thing” is the popular description. This belief system can tolerate almost any behavior and almost any persons. Unfortunately, some who believe in moral relativism seem to have difficulty tolerating those who insist that there is a God who should be respected and certain moral absolutes that should be observed.

III.

I will say no more about the tolerance or intolerance of non-believers. I am speaking to an audience of Latter-day Saints who believe in God and in absolute truth. What does tolerance mean to us and to other believers, and what are our special challenges in applying it?

I begin with three absolute truths. I express them as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, but I believe that most of these ideas are shared by believers generally.

First, all persons are brothers and sisters under God, taught within their various religions to love and do good to one another. President Gordon B. Hinckley expressed this idea for Latter-day Saints:

“Each of us [from various religious denominations] believes in the fatherhood of God, although we may differ in our interpretations of Him. Each of us is part of a great family, the human family, sons and daughters of God, and therefore brothers and sisters. We must work harder to build mutual respect, and attitude of forbearance, with tolerance one for another regardless of the doctrines and philosophies which we may espouse.”[8]

Note that President Hinckley spoke of “mutual respect” as well as tolerance. Speaking at BYU a decade later, a Muslim scholar, Dr. Alwi Shihab, an Indonesian, elaborated that idea in these words:

“To tolerate something is to learn to live with it, even when you think it is wrong and downright evil. . . . We must go, I believe, beyond tolerance if we are to achieve harmony in our world.”

Relying on the teachings of the Quran, Dr. Shihab continued:

“We must respect this God-given dignity in every human being, even in our enemies. For the goal of all human relations—whether they are religious, social, political, or economic—ought to be cooperation and mutual respect.”[9]

Living together with mutual respect for one another’s differences is a challenge in today’s world. However—and here I express a second absolute truth—this living with differences is what the Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us we must do.

The kingdom of God is like a leaven, Jesus taught (Matt. 13:33). A leaven—yeast—is hidden away in the larger mass until the whole is leavened, which means raised by its influence. Our Savior also taught that His followers will have tribulation in the world (see John 16:33), that their numbers and dominions will be small (see 1 Ne. 14:12) and that they will be hated because they are not of the world (see John 17:14). But that is our role. We are called to live with other children of God who do not share our faith or our values, and who do not have the covenant obligations we have assumed. So it was that at the conclusion of His ministry, Jesus prayed to the Father, “not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil” (John 17:15). We are to be in the world, but not of the world.

Since followers of Jesus Christ are commanded to be a leaven—not to be taken out of the world, but to remain in it—we must seek tolerance from those who hate us for not being of the world. As part of this, we will sometimes need to challenge laws that would impair our freedom to practice our faiths, doing so in reliance on our constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion. As described by an attorney supporting a Lutheran school in a case now before the United States Supreme Court, the big concern is “the ability of people of all faiths to work out their relationship with God and one another without the government looking over their shoulder.”[10] That is why we need understanding and support—including your understanding and support—when we must contend for religious freedom.

We must also practice tolerance and respect toward others. As the Apostle Paul taught, Christians should “follow after the things that make for peace” (Rom. 14:19), and as much as possible “live peaceably with all men” (Rom. 12:18). Consequently, we should be alert to honor the good we should see in all people and in many opinions and practices that differ from our own. As the Book of Mormon teaches

“all things which are good cometh of God; . . . wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God. Wherefore, take heed . . . that ye do not judge . . . that which is good and of God to be of the devil” (Moroni 7:12-14).

That approach to differences will yield tolerance and also respect.

IV.

Our tolerance and respect for others and their beliefs does not cause us to abandon our commitment to the truths we understand and the covenants we have made. That is a third absolute truth. We are cast as combatants in the war between truth and error. There is no middle ground. We must stand up for truth, even while we practice tolerance and respect for beliefs and ideas different from our own and for the people who hold them.

While we must practice tolerance and respect for others and their beliefs, including their constitutional freedom to explain and advocate their positions, we are not required to respect and tolerate wrong behavior. Our duty to truth requires us to seek relief from some behavior that is wrong. This is easy as to extreme behaviors that most believers and non-believers recognize as wrong or unacceptable. For example, we must all deplore murder or other terrorist behavior, even when done by extremists in the name of religion. And we must all oppose violence and thievery.

As to less extreme behaviors, where even believers disagree on whether or not they are wrong, the nature and extent of what we should tolerate is much more difficult to define. Thus, a thoughtful LDS woman wrote me about her concern that “the world’s definition of ‘tolerance’ seems to be increasingly used in relation to tolerating wicked lifestyles.” She asked how the Lord would define “tolerance.”[11]

President Boyd K. Packer gave an inspired introduction to this subject. Speaking to an audience of Institute students three years ago he said:

“The word tolerance does not stand alone. It requires an object and a response to qualify it as a virtue. . . . Tolerance is often demanded but seldom returned. Beware of the word tolerance. It is a very unstable virtue.”[12]

This inspired caution reminds us that for persons who believe in absolute truth, tolerance for behavior is like a two-sided coin. Tolerance or respect is on one side of the coin, but truth is always on the other. You cannot possess or use the coin of tolerance without being conscious of both sides.

Our Savior applied this principle. When he faced the woman taken in adultery, Jesus spoke the comforting words of tolerance: “Neither do I condemn thee.” Then, as he sent her away, he spoke the commanding words of truth: “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11). We should all be edified and strengthened by this example of speaking both tolerance and truth: kindness in the communication, but firmness in the truth.

Let us consider how to apply that example to some other behaviors. Another thoughtful LDS member wrote:

“In Mosiah 18:9, Alma tells us that when we are baptized we covenant ‘to stand as “witnesses” of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in.’ . . . What does this scripture mean for our day and how can it be applied by Latter-day Saints?

“Living in the mission field, I often hear the name of the Lord taken in vain, and I also have acquaintances who tell me that they are living with their boyfriends. I have found that observance of the Sabbath is almost obsolete. How can I keep my covenant to stand as a witness and not offend these people?”[13]

Profanity, cohabitation, and Sabbath-breaking—excellent examples to illustrate how Latter-day Saints might balance their competing duties to truth and tolerance in their own lives in these different circumstances.

I begin with our personal conduct, including the teaching of our children. In applying the sometimes competing demands of truth and tolerance in these three behaviors and many others we should not be tolerant with ourselves. We should be ruled by the demands of truth. We should be strong in keeping the commandments and our covenants, and we should repent and improve when we fall short. As President Thomas S. Monson taught us in the conference where he was sustained as our prophet:

“My young friends, be strong. . . . The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance. Do not be deceived; behind that façade is heartache, unhappiness, and pain. You know what is right and what is wrong, and no disguise, however appealing, can change that. The character of transgression remains the same. If your so-called friends urge you to do anything you know to be wrong, you be the one to make a stand for right, even if you stand alone.”[14]

Similarly, with our children and others we have a duty to teach—such as in our Church callings—our duty to truth is paramount. Of course, teaching efforts only bear fruit through the agency of others, so they must always be done with love, patience, and persuasion.

I turn now to the obligations of truth and tolerance in our personal relations with associates who use profanity in our presence, who live with a partner out of wedlock, or who do not observe the Sabbath day appropriately? How should we react toward and communicate with them?

Our obligation to tolerance means that none of these behaviors—or others we consider deviations from the truth—should ever cause us to react with hateful communications or unkind actions. But our obligation to truth has its own set of requirements and its own set of blessings. When we “speak every man truth with his neighbour,” and when we “[speak] the truth in love,” as the Apostle Paul taught (Eph. 4:25, 15), we are acting as servants of the Lord Jesus Christ, doing His work. Angels will stand with us and He will send His Holy Spirit to guide us.

In this sensitive matter we should first consider whether or the extent to which we should communicate to our associates what we know to be true about their behavior. In most cases this decision can depend on how directly we are personally affected by it.

Profanity consistently used in our presence is an appropriate cause for us to communicate the fact that this is offensive to us. Profanity used out of our presence by non-believers probably would not be an occasion for us to confront the offenders.

Cohabitation we know to be a serious sin, in which Latter-day Saints must not engage, whatever the circumstances. When practiced by those around us, it can be private behavior or something we are asked to condone, sponsor, or facilitate. In the balance between truth and tolerance, tolerance can be dominant where the behavior does not involve us personally. If the cohabitation does involve us personally, we should be governed by our duty to truth. For example, it is one thing to ignore serious sins when they are private; it is quite another thing to be asked to sponsor or impliedly endorse them, such as by housing them in our own homes.

On Sabbath observance, Latter-day Saints know that we are taught to observe the Sabbath Day in a different way than many other Christians. Most of us are troubled by packed shopping centers and other commercial activities on the Sabbath. Perhaps we should explain our belief that our observance of the Sabbath, including our partaking of the sacrament, restores us spiritually and makes us better people for the rest of the week. Then, to other believers, we might express appreciation for the fact that we share common ground on what is most vital because each of us believes in God and in the existence of absolute truth, even though we differ in our definitions of those fundamentals. Beyond that, we should remember the Savior’s teaching that we should avoid contention (see 3 Ne. 11:29-30) and that our example and our preaching should “be the warning voice, every man to his neighbor, in mildness and in meekness” (D&C 38:41).

In all of this we should not presume to judge our neighbors or associates on the ultimate effect of their behaviors. That judgment is the Lord’s, not ours. Even He refrained from a final mortal judgment of the woman taken in adultery (John 8:11). Tolerance requires a similar refraining in our judgment of others.

V.

Having discussed the balancing of truth and tolerance in our personal behavior and in our relations with associates, I come to a different and more difficult circumstance. When believers enter the public square to try to influence the making or the administration of laws motivated by their beliefs, they should apply some different principles. As young adults, you may wonder why I am speaking to you about the principles we should follow when we seek government action, such as by the legislature. You might say, “That is a matter for senior Church authorities to handle.” I describe these principles to you young adults because you are current members and future leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ, and you will need to decide these kinds of questions sooner than you think. You need to understand how our efforts in the public square are informed by the balance between truth and tolerance.

Whether or how we might seek to obtain laws that would compel or influence behavior that we deem desirable because of our belief in God and His commandments is too large a subject for adequate treatment in the concluding few minutes of my talk. I will, therefore, limit myself to describing four paramount principles that should govern such an effort.

First, when believers in Jesus Christ take their views of truth into the public square they must seek the inspiration of the Lord to be selective and wise in choosing which true principles they seek to promote by law or executive action. Generally, they should refrain from seeking laws or administrative action to facilitate beliefs that are distinctive to believers, such as the enforcement of acts of worship, even by implication. Believers can be less cautious in seeking government action that would serve principles broader than merely facilitating the practice of their beliefs, such as laws concerning public health, safety and morals.

In any event, as defenders of the faith, believers can and must seek laws that will preserve religious freedom. Along with the ascendancy of moral relativism, the United States is experiencing a disturbing reduction in overall public esteem for religion. Once an accepted part of American life, religion is now suspect in the minds of many. To them it has become something that must prove its legitimacy as a part of our public life. Some influential voices even question the extent to which our constitutions should protect the free exercise of religion, including the right to practice and preach religious principles.

This is a vital matter on which we who believe in a Supreme Being who has established absolute right and wrong in human behavior must unite to insist on our time-honored constitutional rights to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues, and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice. In doing so we stand with angels. We must also stand shoulder to shoulder with other believers to preserve and strengthen the freedom to advocate and practice our religious beliefs, whatever they are. For this purpose we must walk together on the same path in order to secure our freedom to pursue our separate ways when that is necessary according to our separate beliefs. Guided by Heaven in this righteous cause, our words will be sweet and find place in the hearts of many.

Second, when believers seek to promote their positions in the public square, their methods and their advocacy should always be tolerant of the opinions and positions of those who do not share their beliefs. We should not add to the extremism that divides our society. As believers we must always speak with love and show patience, understanding, and compassion toward our adversaries. Christian believers are under command to love their neighbors (Luke 10:27), to forgive (Matt. 18:21-35), and to do good to those who despitefully use them (Matt. 5:44). They should always remember the Savior’s teaching that we “bless them that curse [us], do good to them that hate [us], and pray for them which despitefully use [us], and persecute [us]” (Matt. 5:44). As believers we should also frame our arguments and positions in ways that contribute to the reasoned discussion and accommodation that are essential to democratic government in a pluralistic society. By this means we will contribute to the civility that is essential to preserve our civilization.

Third, believers should not be deterred by the familiar charge that they are trying to legislate morality. Many areas of the law are based on Judeo/Christian morality and have been for centuries. Our civilization is based on morality and cannot exist without it. As John Adams declared, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[15]

Fourth, believers should not shrink from seeking laws to maintain public conditions or policies that assist them in practicing the requirements of their faith where those conditions or policies are also favorable to the public health, safety or morals. For example, even though religious beliefs are behind many criminal laws and some family laws, such laws have a long-standing history of appropriateness in democratic societies. But where believers are in the majority they should always be sensitive to the views of the minority.

We Latter-day Saints are sometimes accused of being self-righteous and intolerant of others, especially where we are in the majority or where others are in the majority and our beliefs cause us to oppose them. Surely Latter-day Saints do need to be more wise and skillful in explaining and pursuing our views and in exercising our influence when we have it.

That is the spirit of the two-sided coin of Truth and Tolerance. President Thomas S. Monson has provided an excellent example of the practice of these twin virtues. Throughout his life he has been exemplary in reaching out and working with the members and leaders of other faiths, in cooperative efforts on matters of common interest, and in the Christian fellowship and concern that have no denominational boundaries.[16]

Finally, the spirit of our balance of truth and tolerance is applied in these words of President Gordon B. Hinckley:

“Let us reach out to those in our community who are not of our faith. Let us be good neighbors, kind and generous and gracious. Let us be involved in good community causes. There may be situations, there will be situations, where, with serious moral issues involved, we cannot bend on matters of principle. But in such instances we can politely disagree without being disagreeable. We can acknowledge the sincerity of those whose positions we cannot accept. We can speak of principles rather than personalities.”[17]

VI.

I close with this assurance and this testimony.

The Bible teaches that one of the functions of a prophet is to be a “watchman” to warn Israel (Ezek. 3:17, 33:7). In revelation the Lord added this parable for modern Zion: “Set . . . a watchman upon the tower,” who will “[see] the enemy while he [is] yet afar off” and give warning to save the vineyard “from the hands of the destroyer” (D&C 101:45, 54).

I have spoken to you as one of those watchmen, on the subject the Spirit has assigned me. I assure you that my message is true. If you have doubts about this or if you have questions about how to apply these principles in your own life, I urge you to seek guidance from the same Source.

On the broader question being widely agitated by the atheists of our day, I proclaim my knowledge that God lives! His creations witness His existence and His servants hear and proclaim His voice. Modern revelation teaches that some have the gift to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, crucified for the sins of the world, and that it is given to others to believe on their words (D&C 40:13-14). As one who knows, I invite you to believe on my words.

I testify of Jesus Christ, the Lord of the vineyard. He is our Savior, and He reaches out to each of us with the timeless invitation to receive His peace by learning of Him and by walking in His way (D&C 19:23):

“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

“Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

“For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30).

In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

---

[1] “Oh Say, What Is Truth?” Hymns, 1985, no. 272, verse 4.

[2] Gospel Doctrine, Deseret Book, 1939, p. 1.

[3] “Is the U.S. a Nation of Liars?” The Christian Science Monitor, July 25, 2011, p. 20; “Anarchy in the U.K., The Economist, August 13, 2011, p. 14

[4] Stephen L. Carter, The Culture of Disbelief (Basic Books, 1993), 225.

[5] The Wall Street Journal, July 5, 2002, p. W11.

[6] E.g., John Paul II: The Encyclicals in Everyday Language, edited by Joseph G. Donders, 2005, 212-13; Rabbi Harold Kushner, Who Needs God, First Fireside Ed’n, 2002, 78.

[7] Hymns, no. 272, verse 3.

[8] Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley (Deseret Book Co, 1995), 665.

[9] “Building Bridges to Harmony Through Understanding,” an address at Brigham Young University, Oct. 10, 2006, included in Alwi Shihab, Examining Islam in the West (Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 2004), 405-6.

[10] Eric Rassbach, Becket Fund attorney, quoted in William McGurn, “Religion and the Cult of Tolerance,” The Wall Street Journal, August 16, 2011, p. A11.

[11] Letter to DHO, May 14, 1998.

[12] Be Not Afraid,” address at the Ogden Institute of Religion, Nov. 16, 2008, p. 5.

[13] Letter to DHO, December 22, 1987.

[14] “Examples of Righteousness,” Ensign, May 2008, 65.

[15] The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.

[16] See Heidi S. Swinton, To the Rescue, (Deseret Book Co, 2010), especially chapters 25, 28, and pp. 462-63.

[17] Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, Deseret Book Co., 1997, pp. 662.

Version 4.2.4.1

Is It Worth It?

In October, 2010, church leader and former pilot, Elder Dieter Uchtdorf, spoke at a world-wide conference about the importance of keeping our priorities clear, and in difficult times, learning to "slow down a little, steady the course, and focus on the essentials." He explained that when airplanes encounter stormy weather, they slow down and shut down all non-essential functions in order to lessen the impact of turbulence, which relates to the safety of the aircraft. He relates this to our lives, and encourages us when times are tough to not continue at our hectic pace but slow down and stick to our most essential priorities.

This theme is found in scripture as well. Alma, a prophet in the Book of Mormon, when he saw wickedness begin developing within the church, left the judgment seat and “confined himself wholly to the high priesthood…that he might preach the word of God, to stir them up in remembrance of their duty” (Alma 4:19-20). While his other responsibilities were certainly very important, he recognized his highest responsibility and made sacrifices to ensure that he fulfilled that.

It feels right, and it makes sense, that this is somewhat the case with us as parents, and particularly mothers. While the Proclamation on the Family, delivered to the world in 1997, talks about the "sacred duty" that parents have to raise their children well, the church doesn’t teach us to not have careers or pursue our talents and goals; in fact, the opposite is true. However, it is taught that the welfare of our children should be our highest priority, and for most people that means making sacrifices.

There are so many expectations on modern parents, especially mothers, and with few possible exceptions, no way to do everything we'd like to do. While many mothers both successfully hold careers and raise children at the same time, some also claim that both their career and their children are their "top" priority. What does this look like in practice? It usually means that sacrifices are occasionally made on both sides. A woman may put a child in day care for several hours a day so that she can focus on her job, but she may pass up promotions or raises to avoid spending extra time away from home. Unless the job is necessary for her children's well-being (starvation and homelessness being the alternative), these actions seem to demonstrate that the slot for top priority is interchangeable.

While safety is always first priority in an airplane, do children always need to be our first priority? Maybe a better question is this: Are they worth it?

For a million reasons, supported by studies in virtually every discipline (which I will gladly cite if anyone needs specific examples), I argue that our individual responsibility towards our children should always be our top priority. I think most people would agree. The implication however of having a top priority (that is always our top priority) is that we will likely have to give up or compromise other things that are important to us. If children are really our first priority, they are important enough for us to put on hold our quest for "self-actualization" and "self-fulfillment" and other "self" interests.

We may not have as much intellectual stimulation from changing diapers and washing dishes. We may feel out of our element. We may be ridiculed by our peers. We will almost certainly not make as much money. But it is worth it!

“Every child, with few possible exceptions, is the product of a home, be it good, bad, or indifferent. As children grow through the years, their lives, in large measure, become an extension and a reflection of family teaching” (Gordon B. Hinckley, “Blessed Are the Merciful,” Ensign, May 1990, p. 70.). The state of our society today is the cumulative effect of billions of parents' teachings and examples, both good, bad, and nonexistent. Our society tomorrow will be the product of our teachings and examples. As in considerations of safety, like putting on a seatbelt every time we get in a car, the question we ask ourselves should not be "Will this one time without a seatbelt have an impact?" but rather "Is not wearing a seatbelt worth the impact that it may have?" Perhaps juggling children as a priority with a career or other activities may not have an immediate, or visible, impact (although there are plenty of studies that can point to the impact on children over time), but is it worth whatever impact it may have?

For those who understand the importance of how we raise children on the future of our society, we have to be realistic about its implications. Parents are welcome to work, to pursue goals, to develop their talents - these are good and important things. There are ways of doing this that do not compromise one's role as a parent. But if the choice comes between the parents' interests and the child's - and it most certainly will come - we must learn to sacrifice. We cannot compromise our responsibility toward our children without consequences for both them, and us, and our community, and the rest of society.

The marvelous part of all of this is the promise given by Jesus Christ so many times in the New Testament: "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it" (Matt 16:25). In the end, no one who has sacrificed for their children will lose anything. There are rewards waiting in this life and the next. I believe this and trust in it. God is happy when we make sacrifices to be the best parents we can be, because he knows that in the long run that will make us the happiest.

Let us be more reasonable, let us be more selfless, and let us as parents not forget our "sacred duty" for anything else. I know it is worth it.