Dialann | Issue 7, July 2012

ISSUE 7 JULY 2012

Where are the fish?

NOT ON THE TRAIN— BUT IT’S FUN TO IMAGINE THEY MIGHT BE

ISSUE 7 JULY 2012

table of contents 4

THE JOURNAL

2

Susan: Low-inference observations

And some high-inference observations: Susan reflects on the 2011–2012 school year.

COLOPHON Our family Susan Jane Hibdon Joyce Dustin Tyler Joyce Fiona Claire Joyce

4 Dustin: Personal. Rapid. Unique.

Checking out the world’s first PRT system— in Morgantown, West Virginia, of all places.

8 Fiona: Take me out to the ballgame 8

Throwing balls and running in circles— baseball is my kind of game.

MILESTONES

10 January–June 2012 FIONA UPDATE

12 Where are the fish?

By Susan | Fiona talks, reads, makes messes, cleans up—and looks for fish everywhere.

A VISIT TO

12

14 The Panorama of the City of New York

By Dustin | A visit to the Queens Museum of Art’s model of the five boroughs.

OUR TIMES

18 You’re not special

By David McCullough, Jr. | An English teacher’s words to high-school graduates went viral—and they’re worth remembering.

OUR VIEW

21 A Saint on same-sex marriage 14

By Dustin | I’m a faithful Latter-day Saint, yet I have come to believe the government should allow same-sex marriage. Here’s why.

WE BELIEVE IN CHRIST

30 The purifying power of Gethsemane

By Elder Bruce R. McConkie | Elder McConkie’s powerful final testimony.

On the cover Front: Fiona rides Amtrak’s Acela for the first time, from Philadelphia to New York, 26 May 2012.

Back: Fiona goes Easter-egg hunting at Washington National Cathedral, Easter Sunday, 8 April 2012.

Sans serif text is set in Hypatia Sans Pro. Serif text is set in Adobe Text Pro. The motif color used in this issue is C=75, M=0, Y=100, K=25 This issue was designed on a Dell Inspiron ONE2305 desktop, with 4 GB of RAM, a 1 TB hard drive, and an AMD Athlon II X2 240e processor with a speed of 2.8 GHz. The software used includes InDesign, Photoshop, and Illustrator in Adobe Creative Suite 5.5, as well as Microsoft Word 2010.

The operating system was Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit.

Dialann—Irish for “journal”—is published quarterly at New York, in January, April, July, and October. dialann@seoighe.net youtube.com/DialannTV Published by Seoighe 646.397.0403 New York 202.643.0403 Washington, D.C. seoighe.net Printed by Blurb | blurb.com

editor’s note: You will notice some changes starting with this issue of Dialann. “Opening Thoughts,” “Closing Thoughts,” and “Focus on Fiona” have been discontinued. In their place and in the same vein, a new section called “The Journal” will contain a “journal entry” from each of us. This new section has an enhanced layout to distinguish it from the rest of the magazine, and the table of contents has been slightly reformatted to reflect these changes.

THE JOURNAL SUSAN The 2011–12 school year ended 27 June 2012.

Low-inference observations. And some high-inference observations.

J U LY 2 0 1 2

3 PHOTO TAKEN 3 JULY 2012 BY DUSTIN

THE JOURNAL DUSTI N

Personal. Rapid. Unique.

Checking out the world’s first PRT system—in Morgantown, West Virginia, of all places.

J U LY 2 0 1 2

10 April 2012

T

he fact that I got to ride the world’s first personal rapid transit system to enter regular revenue service isn’t the most interesting thing to report about my trip to Morgantown. The real adventure was in getting up there.

I had wanted to go check out Morgantown PRT for several years, since I first learned of its existence. When we decided to go back to Washington, D.C., for a visit over Susan’s spring break, I figured it would be a good opportunity finally to make the trek. It helped, too, that I could do it on the cheap: I got tickets on Megabus for $1 each way. So cheap, in fact, that I bought two sets of tickets, one for Tuesday and one for Wednesday. I figured that if inclement weather was predicted for one day, I could just go the other. After consulting the forecast, I decided the earlier date would work fine.

I tried to arrive early to the parking garage at Washington’s Union Station, where a number of intercity bus lines depart. My goal, of course, was to be in my favorite place to sit: the very front of the upper level of the double-decker bus.

I was disappointed to see that I wasn’t the first in line—I guess I didn’t arrive that early—but when I got on the bus I was able to go straight to my preferred seat. It was a good sign. (It was also a result of the fact that, unlike everyone else on the bus, I didn’t have luggage, since I was planning on taking the return bus that evening.)

Shortly after the scheduled 10.00 departure time the bus pulled out of the station. A few minutes late, but no big deal, even if we couldn’t make it up en route. The view during the initial part of our journey through downtown D.C. was great. We turned down North Capitol Street toward the dome of the United States Capitol and then on to Massachusetts Avenue. From there we turned on to H Street NW and had a magnificent view of the Chinese arch at H and 7th Streets NW. We then turned down 6th Street NW with its perfectly framed perspective of the dome and north portico of the National Gallery of Art’s West Building. We drove down Constitution Avenue NW, one of the capital’s great boulevards, lined with Smithsonian museums on the south side and the impressive neoclassical office buildings of the Federal Triangle on the north.

Then it was across the Roosevelt Bridge over the Potomac River and north on George Washington Memorial Parkway, which looked stunning clothed in spring flowers and leaves that bright color of green that new leaves always are. Half an hour into the journey and it was a thrilling trip so far.

The journey through Washington, D.C.

Chinese arch From 6th & H Streets NW

West Building, National Gallery of Art

George Washington Memorial Parkway

Looking down 6th Street NW

From GW Parkway the bus merged on to the inner loop of the Capital Beltway, Interstate 495, and headed east across the American Legion Bridge over the Potomac. (The beltway’s inner loop goes clockwise around the city while cars on the outer loop travel counterclockwise.) To continue the journey north, the bus was going to take Interstate 270, with which I am quite familiar because it is the freeway which connects Washington with Frederick, Maryland, where my family lives. Interstates 495 and 270 meet at a triangle of freeways, with 270 ending in two spur freeways, one to the southeast and the other to the southwest. The bus pulled on to the southwestern spur of I-270 following a small car which in turn was following a truck. The truck was an average-sized truck for business use (not a pickup truck) and was carrying a load of cardboard boxes. All three vehicles—the truck followed by the car followed by my doubledecker bus—were traveling in the right lane.

Suddenly one of the cardboard boxes on the truck fell off. Some other passengers on the bus said that the box hit the car directly, but as I recall—and I was in the very front of the upper level, so I had a pretty good view—the box hit the roadway. In either case it burst open, spilling all its contents across the lane. I’m not exactly sure what it was that fell out. Hundreds or thousands of identical objects. They were metal, the color of steel or aluminum. They looked like they were rings a few inches in diameter with—no joke—three spikes poking down from them. The

spikes were a few inches long. I’m not sure what they would be used for—perhaps something in construction or landscaping—but as I heard the clanging on the underside of the bus I thought, This can’t be good.

I thought we would have to pull over, but the bus driver continued on, out of the D.C. area, past Frederick, and on to Cumberland, Maryland. Then, somewhere around Frostburg in far western Maryland I could hear some sort of concern from the lower level of the bus. (It was easy for me to hear the driver’s conversation with another Megabus employee who was on the trip because a stairway to the lower level was right behind my seat.) It was clear that we were going to have to pull over, but I thought at first that it was because a passenger was having a medical issue. Then I learned: the bus’s dashboard has a pressure gauge for the tires, and the front left tire was completely flat. So at exit 22—10 or so miles (16 kilometers) west of Frostburg and 159 miles (256 kilometers) from Union Station’s parking garage (I know because I used Google Maps to measure)—we pulled off Interstate 68 and into a truck stop’s parking lot.

I later learned that that is where the bus normally takes a rest stop. But what is usually not included in a rest stop is a nearly two-hour wait for a mechanic to change a tire. So much for making up our departure delay en route.

The bus arrived, eventually, in Morgantown, where it stops right in front of the

5

Facts about Morgantown PRT Medical Center

Health Sciences Campus | stadium | Mountaineer Station (Megabus)

Towers

Student housing

Engineering

Evansdale Campus

Maintenance facility

Beechurst Main Campus

Walnut Street

Downtown Morgantown  Morgantown Personal Rapid Transit opened in 1975. It was the first personal rapid transit (PRT) system in the world and remained the only one for over 35 years. In November 2010, a PRT system opened in Masdar City, United Arab Emirates, followed by a system at London Heathrow Airport in May 2011. But Morgantown PRT remains the largest and most extensive such system.  The system is 8.3 miles (13.2 kilometers) long with five stations. It takes about nine and a half minutes to travel from one end of the system to the other.

Approximately 16,000 passengers use the system every day.  Much of the system runs along the Monongahela River. Much of it—65%, in fact—also runs over elevated track. The remainder is at or below ground level.  Fares are 50 cents for the public and free for students, faculty, and staff of West Virginia University. By contrast, a ride on the New York City Subway costs $2.25. Because the automated cars have no drivers to pay, the 50-cent fare covers nearly two-thirds of the system’s operating costs.

6

PRT system’s northernmost station, Medical Center. I went straight up a long flights of stairs to the station—the station is at the top of a hill, and the bus stops at the bottom. In my research before my trip, I learned that fares are 50 cents and must be paid in coins, so I had armed myself with about $2 worth of quarters. When I approached the turnstile, I dropped two quarters in and a row of four buttons on top of the gate lit up. Each button had the name of one of the system’s other stations (there are five total) written next to it. I pushed “Beechurst,” because I recalled the name from my earlier research. And off I went in the first PRT vehicle I could board.

It’s an impressive system, even more so when you consider it was built as an experiment in the mid-1970s. While the system was later expanded to its current size and computer and other systems have been upgraded, much of the system relies on the original 1970s technology and construction. It appeared that most of the vehicles were original, too. Stepping into one almost felt like stepping back in time, with passengers cocooned in white plastic seats and yellow plastic walls in shades that I’m not sure are produced any more. I’m not sure manufacturers in the 21st century even have the ability to produce such vintage shades of white and yellow.

The car sped past stations called Towers and Engineering, bypassing them on separate tracks necessitated by PRT’s point-to-point service. It turned out that Beechurst was the next-to-last station, a few blocks from downtown Morgantown. I realized my error immediately when the car pulled into the station with track continuing past. I’m not one to admit a mistake—I hate looking like a visitor, or having trouble riding transit—and I already felt a little dorky checking out a transit system surrounded mostly by cool college students. So I walked out of the station like I knew exactly what I was doing. After all, I was armed with quarters, and I could get back in with no problem once the passengers then waiting on the platform had boarded their car. Or so I thought. When I returned to the turnstile, I tried to drop my coins in, but I couldn’t. The coindrop was blocked.

Again, trying to save face, I left the station before anyone could really notice me and walked the rest of the way to the final station.

Along the way, I treated myself to a chocolate milkshake, which I thought I deserved after my bus journey was delayed so much. When I arrived at the final PRT station in downtown Morgantown, Walnut Street, I encountered the same problem with the coindrop as at Beechurst.

So I worked up the nerve to ask another passenger what I was doing wrong. As it turns out, for some reason rides from those stations were free that day. (I didn’t gather that rides from the other stations were free.) So I just pushed a button and walked through the turnstile.

I ended up riding the PRT system a several times during my few hours in Morgantown, visiting different stations and riding the entire system end-to-end at least twice. During my final end-to-end PRT trip, when I was going back to Medical Center to catch my return bus home, I got a car to myself. So I got out my camera and took video of the journey. I later turned that recording into a time-lapse video that I uploaded to Dialann’s YouTube channel.

The return journey was less of an adventure and more of an annoyance. I guess the bus, which originated in Pittsburgh, got caught in some rush-hour traffic and was delayed by

at least an hour. I thought that we could also, perhaps, with luck, make that up en route, until the bus driver had to take a break. I think he was required by federal law to do so, so at least he was following safe driving regulations. (I’m sure the bus driver was otherwise anxious for his workday to end, too.) But we didn’t pull in to Union Station’s parking garage until almost 1.00 the next morning. By that time, Metro was closed, and my only option to get back to Bethesda, where we were staying with Susan’s sister Karen and her family, was a taxi. The ride ended up costing $25.00, at least doubling the cost of my Morgantown adventure.

But I did it. And, in the end, I think it was worth it. Morgantown Personal Rapid Transit may no longer be the only PRT system in the world—since November 2010 it has been joined by systems in the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom. But it will always be the world’s first, as well as mine. d

 A PRT vehicle speeds along tracks bypassing Engineering station.

7

THE JOURNAL FIONA

Take me out to the ballgame. Throwing balls and running in circles— baseball is my kind of game.

A

few weeks ago, Mama and Daddy took me to a really fun thing called a baseball game. Daddy and I met Mama at her school and then took the subway a really, really long way to Coney Island. First we just walked around with Siby and Vinu, from Mama’s school, and looked at some of the games and rides that they have there. Then Daddy and Siby and Vinu went on a ride called the Cyclone. When they left, I didn’t really know what they were up to; Mama and I just went off to the side and stood in the shade and watched this little train go up and down and around in circles on a

J U LY 2 0 1 2 PHOTO TAKEN 2 JULY 2012 BY DUSTIN

track way up in the air. But then we went back to the gate, and I saw Daddy sitting in the very front of that little train! I wanted to ride it, but I guess I’m not tall enough. Daddy says he’ll take me as soon as I grow two more feet.

I’m hoping that will happen in the next few months.

Anyway, after that, we saw a few more rides and then went to the big building where the baseball game was. It looked cool before I even knew what it was, so I was happy that we went in. We found some seats where I could look out at the big green field.

There were cup holders in front of every seat, so I moved my cup around to find the best place for it—deluxe! We got some blue hats, which I really like to wear around. There were lots of people from Mama’s school there, and they played with me and talked to me. We also had some food and drinks. Then there were some loud announcements and lots of cheering. I didn’t catch everything, but pretty soon, there were all these guys on the field wearing hats kind of like the ones we had and throwing a ball back and forth. I was excited to see a ball, since I know how to say that word.

When the game started, I went to sit with some of Mama’s friends. They told me how the whole game works. I’m not clear on all the details, but basically, it goes like this: There are two teams. One of the teams sends a guy to the middle of the field with a ball, and the other team sends a guy to stand in front of him with a stick called a bat. The guy in the middle throws the ball, and the guy in front swings the bat and tries to hit the ball and make it go a long way. If he hits it, he gets to run around until someone tags him. Then they try again. After a while, the teams switch

places. It’s a really cool game.

Even though it’s cool, it was hard for me to pay attention the whole time, so sometimes I just talked to my new friends or played with Mama and Daddy. It was also fun to climb in and out of the chairs, because they fold up when you get out of them. Other than the actual game, one of the highlights of the evening was this big duck who went out on a balcony above us while a lady threw T-shirts at people. The duck would point at groups of people and they would shout and wave their arms, and the lady would throw a T-shirt.

Mama held me up in the air so I could cheer, too, but I was mostly just watching the TOOTHTRACKER duck. He was really funny! I’ve never seen Teeth as of 30 June 2012: 16 a duck that big. Somebody called him These grew in sometime between now and the last time we ran the ToothTracker (in January), but we an eagle, whatever that is, and someone failed to record the date. Oops. else said something about a “costume,” 7 March 2012 but I’m pretty sure it was a real duck. But the bad part was, after just a few minutes, he went away. I was so sad because he UPPER was so much fun to watch. I was pretty tired anyway, and the disappearance of the duck really didn’t help. I cried for a right left little while and Mama held me. I almost fell asleep, and then, suddenly, the game LOWER was over. We took the subway all the way home and I went to bed.

Now that I know what baseball 27 February 2012 is—and I can pronounce it, too—I 7 April 2012 understand my Sports Illustrated Kids a lot better. There are always pictures of baseball players swinging a bat or throwing a ball. I have two of them taped up on the wall by my room. I’ve also started practicing with Mama and Daddy. I can swing my arms like a bat. I haven’t hit anything yet, though. I think that’s the trickiest part of baseball. Oh, and that whole “catching” thing. d 9

January–June 2012

MILESTONES

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo

Jan

Feb Mar Apr May Jun

1

1

2

2

3

3

1

holidays events in our lives

travel events in the Church

birthdays world events

January 1

4

1

4

2

5

2

1

5

3

6

3

2

6

4

1

7

4

3

7

5

2

8

5

4

8

6

3

9

6

5

9

7

4

10

7

6

10

8

5

11

8

7

11

9

6

12

9

8

12

10

7

13

10

9

13

11

8

14

11

10

14

12

9

15

12

11

15

13

10

16

13

12

16

14

11

17

14

13

17

15

12

18

15

14

18

16

13

19

16

15

19

17

14

20

17

16

20

18

15

21

18

17

21

19

16

22

19

18

22

20

17

23

20

19

23

21

18

24

21

20

24

22

19

25

22

21

25

23

20

26

23

22

26

24

21

27

24

23

27

25

22

28

25

24

28

26

23

29

26

25

29

27

24

30

27

26

30

28

25

31

28

27

29

26

29

28

30

27

29

31

28

30

29

31

30

Dustin participates in confirming Rebecca Ramona Vandross a member of the Church.

9 Dustin 13 The Costa Concordia, a cruise ship, runs ashore on Italy’s western coast. The ship partially sank, leading to 30 confirmed dead, 2 missing and presumed dead, and 64 injured. By tonnage, it is the largest passenger ship ever to have sunk. The sinking, caused by captain error, was the worst maritime passenger disaster in recent history 15 Dustin speaks in sacrament meeting (see Dialann 6.21) 17 Uncle Chichi, possibly the world’s oldest dog, dies at the age of 24, 25, or 26 25 Gabrielle Giffords, Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Arizona’s 8th congressional district, formally resigns her seat. She was shot in the head during an assassination attempt during an event in her home district on 8 January 2011 (see Dialann 2.3). She survived and made a remarkable recovery, but the ongoing effects of the shooting left her unable to serve her constituents as she felt she should February 4 Florence Green, the last known living veteran of World War I, passes away two weeks before her 111th birthday 5 New York Giants win Super Bowl XLVI in Indianapolis 21-17 over the New England Patriots 7 Giants welcomed home to New York with a ticker-tape parade down the Broadway in Lower Manhattan. Dustin and Fiona attended. It was the first ticker-tape parade for both of them—and Fiona slept through it 11 Pop star Whitney Houston dies in Beverly Hills, California, at age 48 15 Fiona says her first word. The word? “No” 18–26 Family to Iceland 29 Susan and Dustin’s fourth wedding anniversary. Or first, depending on how you look at it March 23–26 25

29

Dustin to Frederick, Maryland, for his mother’s 50th birthday The Brooklyn New York North District is dissolved. The units in the district have their boundaries redrawn and become part of the surrounding stakes. Our branch, Bushwick 1st, absorbs the East New York Branch and becomes part of the Brooklyn New York Stake Canada’s federal government announces that it will remove the Canadian one-cent coin—also known as a “penny”—from circulation in fall 2012

30

Construction on the new One World Trade Center reaches the 100th floor 31–1 Apr 182nd Annual General Conference April 6–14 7

11

15 18 21

27 28–29 30

30

May 6

6 12

Family to Washington, D.C., for spring break Renowned television journalist Mike Wallace dies at 93. Mr. Wallace was known as a tough reporter who conducted challenging interviews.

But members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may remember him best for his interview of then-Church president Gordon B. Hinckley that aired on CBS’s 60 Minutes newsmagazine on Easter Sunday 1996. The two remained close friends for the rest of their lives Connecticut’s legislature votes to abolish the death penalty; it joins 16 other states and the District of Columbia in ending capital punishment The 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic Dick Clark dies at 82 Chicago White Sox pitcher Philip Humber throws a perfect game—only the 21st perfect game in the history of Major League Baseball (MLB)— against the Mariners in Seattle. The White Sox beat the Mariners 4-0 Space shuttle Enterprise arrives in New York City (see page 34) Brooklyn New York Stake conference The new, under-construction One World Trade Center becomes New York City’s tallest building, surpassing the Empire State Building’s height of 1,250 feet (381 meters) The NBA’s New Jersey Nets officially become the Brooklyn Nets, with a new logo and black and white replacing red, white, and blue as the team’s colors President Thomas S. Monson, President of the Church, dedicates the Kansas City Missouri Temple, the Church’s 137th The 75th anniversary of the Hindenberg disaster Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve breaks ground for the Provo Utah City Center Temple, being constructed in the shell of the Provo Tabernacle which burned in an accidental fire on 17

27

June 10

13

17

21 21

28

30 30

December 2010 Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve organizes the Hyderabad India Stake while Elder James J. Hamula of the Sevent and president of the Church’s Pacific Area organizes the Noumea New Caledonia Stake. Both stakes are the first in their respective nations President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, second counselor in the First Presidency, dedicates the Manaus Brazil Temple, the Church’s 138th San Francisco Giants pitcher Matt Cain throws a perfect game—the 22nd in MLB history—leading the Giants to a 10-0 at-home victory over the Houston Astros. (It may have been only the 22nd perfect game in MLB history, but it was the second this year. Check out 21 April) Rodney King dies of an apparent accidental drowning at age 47. Mr. King became a household name when his vicious beating by Los Angeles police officers on 3 March 1991 was videotaped by a witness. The acquittal of the four officers accused in the beating led to some of the worst riots in U.S. history. Over the course of six days, from 29 April to 4 May 1992, the nation and the world watched much of south central Los Angeles and the surrounding area burn; 53 people died, over 2,000 were injured, and over $1 billion in property damage occurred Fiona uses the potty for the first time Fiona attends her second-ever baseball game. The Brooklyn Cyclones lost 8-1 at home at MCU Park in Coney Island against the Staten Island Yankees. But we were among the first 3,000 fans who got a free jersey (we were, in fact, fans 2,998 and 2,999) and we got free Cyclones ballcaps In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court upholds the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance or pay a tax penalty mandated by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act France’s forerunner to the Internet, Minitel, is taken offline The Coney Island Cyclone, Brooklyn’s iconic roller coaster, celebrates its 85th anniversary

11

FIONA UPDATE

By SUSAN

Where are the fish?

F

13 June 2012 Fiona talks, reads, makes messes, cleans up—and is obsessed with finding fish wherever she goes.

iona is getting chattier and chattier all the time. She has some new words— birds, bus, and cheeks, for example—but context is essential if you want to understand her, since “bus,” “birds,” and “bike” all come out “bat-ch,” and “keys” and “cheese” sound the same. Her pronunciation of “baby” sounds rather French: “buh-BAY!” She also has some gestures that represent entire sentences. The weirdest one is when she sticks her hands out to the side, palms up, lowers her chin, raises her eyebrows, and says, “Uuh??” When she does that, we’re supposed to say, “Where are the fish?”

 Fiona wearing the newly rediscovered goat hat from the costume she wore last Halloween.

She responds with a quick point (at a garden, fountain, park, or minivan) and a satisfied “uuh!”

The last few days, though, it seems like she has started to say, “Ah dah!” Which may or may not mean, “Right there!” This came about when we were visiting Dustin’s family in Frederick, Maryland, where there’s a creek running through a park downtown. There were some fish in it, and I pointed them out to her. After a few minutes, she started looking for them, using her new “Where are the fish?” gesture. The next week, she wore, for the first time, a dress of Charlotte’s that has fish on it, and continually asked, “Where are the fish?” and responded by pointing to her clothes. At this point, she seems to have

NOTES 1. Dustin would, of course, call this a cabinet.

2. You can see this picture in this issue’s table of contents.

Susan included five photos, including the two on these pages, when she sent this update to our family. For the other photos, see the front and back covers and the table of contents of this issue.

J U LY 2 0 1 2

completely forgotten in what sort of environment she first discovered fish, and just likes to ask about them, and speculate about the strange places one might find them.

She does enjoy “reading,” and she sometimes “reads” an entire book out loud, page by page. What’s really fascinating about that is the fact that when we read to her, she usually insists on turning the pages too soon (although she is occasionally very insistent that we should not miss any pages). But reading is becoming a useful diversion, as in, “Fiona, we’re not going to watch any videos right now. Why don’t you go get a book and read to your baby?” She also subscribes to Sports Illustrated Kids (we got it for free using some airline miles that were about to expire—it was the only kids’ magazine they had), and whenever it arrives, we hand it to her and she goes straight to her bedroom, climbs up on her chair, and starts reading. We hear her turning the pages and saying, over and over, “Ball!” as there is one on almost every page and she is always happy to see another one. I guess it’s the perfect magazine for her. At bedtime, she finds a few books and shoves them through the bars on her crib so she’ll have some reading material; then, when we’ve put her in bed, she settles in and starts reading. As you can imagine, she gets mad when we turn off the light. I think I’ll do some investigating, and if I can’t find one, I will start marketing a baby reading light that slowly dims to darkness over the course of about ten minutes.

One of her new favorite games is squeezing people’s noses to see what noise they make. Most noses seem to say either “honk honk” or “beep beep,” but sometimes she finds a weird one. She usually only does this with people she knows, fortunately. She also really likes to make animal noises, and recently learned to roar. We’ve been making roaring noises for months, but she didn’t start roaring herself until spending time with her friend Elliott and his dad, Rob. Now, whenever Fiona sees Rob, she roars in greeting.

Although Fiona is extremely messy in many ways (she enjoys transporting all of her toys to the living room using her dump truck, bucket, and wicker basket), she also knows how to clean.

She puts her dishes away in the cupboard1 after we wash them, and most of all, she loves to clean  PHOTO TAKEN 2 JUNE 2012 BY SUSAN  PHOTO TAKEN BY DUSTIN

up spills. If she tips her cup too far, she says, “Uh oh,” and runs to get a towel to clean it up. The other day, Dustin was washing dishes and spilled some soap suds on the floor, and she got a towel to wipe up the bubbles. This all just seems sort of normal, but it gets weirder—a few months ago, when she first started learning to clean up spills, we were reading a book about animals. She saw a picture of a blue whale (just the whale in the center of the page, not surrounded by water) with a few tiny little drops of illustrated water on its fins. We barely even noticed they were there.

She took one look, said, “Owww!” and went running. We didn’t know what was going on until she came back with a washcloth she had found and started drying off the whale.

Last but not least, Fiona’s grand mess, the mess to end all messes: diaper cream. A few weeks ago, Fiona was “napping” on a Sunday afternoon when Dustin smelled a very strong odor of diaper cream coming from her room.

It seemed a little suspicious. He opened the door, and I’m sure you can imagine what we discovered. There is a picture attached in case your imagination fails you.2 It turns out that diaper cream is almost impossible to get off of anything except a baby’s bottom. We threw away her sheet and socks without even trying, and did some investigation online before discovering that that “cream of kerosene” type stuff that mechanics use to get the oil off their hands was our only hope. Her blanket still doesn’t look so great, but she doesn’t love it for its looks.

Love, Susan PS You’ll notice Fiona’s goat hat in the pictures.

She has recently rediscovered it (it was part of her Halloween costume), and she likes to wear it around the house sometimes. d

Easter-egg hunting at Washington National Cathedral on Easter Sunday, 8 April 2012.

13

A VISIT TO

The Panorama of the City of New York

By DUSTIN

J U LY 2 0 1 2

25 April 2012 Fiona and I took Alfred in our branch to check out one of the most remarkable constructions I have ever seen: the Panorama of the City of New York at the Queens Museum of Art. It is a scale model of the city’s five boroughs, including every existing building in the city as of 1992—all 895,000 of them!

Parkchester, The Bronx

 Fiona on the walkway overlooking the Panorama.

15

1 3 4 2 5 1 The Bronx

The 5 boroughs AY DW I N S A A O B R /Z T R J

D EK A L

STO CK HO

W

V KA

E EE

N

H IM RO HAR M

P U TN

CO RN

H A N CO

W EIRF

A

NU

E

AV EN U

TO ST R

STREE T

N STR

I LS

ON

E AV

NU

EET

E

EET

I KN

CK

E

O RB

CK

E

EET

REET

E

N VE RA

UE

REET

EN U E

ELIA S TR E E T

SO N A V EN U E

CK STR

IELD ST

A M AV

D BIN E

TR

VE LA

W

PAL M E T

O N ST

N CE

ET

G ATES

M AD IS

UE

EET

LIN D E

WO O

EET

N

E STRE

ET

AI

HAN S TR E E T

E AV EN

ET

TR

ER STR

AN STR

D STRE

EET

E /M

GROV

E

G REEN

B LE E C K

M EN A

NU

PE STRE

UE

NU

EV

GR ER

E AV

STAN H O

L M STR

VE EA

SH

IC

U EN

B AV EN

TL YR M

BU

J EFFER

2 Brooklyn

I IRV

NG

E AV

NU

E

Bushwick, Brooklyn

16

3 Manhattan

4 Queens

5 Staten Island  The model covers 9,335 square feet (867 square meters). By contrast, the real City of New York has a total area of 468.48 square miles (1,213.4 square kilometers), of which 302.64 square miles (783.8 square kilometers) is land and 165.84 square miles (429.5 square kilometers) is water.  All 895,000 buildings existing in the city as of 1992 are depicted on the model.

Why 1992? That is when the model received its last major update, though the Queens Museum of Art has started an ingenious fundraising campaign to maintain and update the model in which people receive “deeds” for structures on the model in exchange for their donations.  The fundraiser was kicked off in spring 2009 with the first new addition to the model since 1992: Citi Field, Queens, home of Major League Baseball’s New York Mets (the team sponsored the addition). The model of Shea Stadium, the Mets’ former home, will be displayed elsewhere in the Queens Museum of Art.

Manhattan New York Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

 The most recent addition is a model of Brooklyn Bridge Park, Brooklyn, which was installed on 29 February 2012.  The model is built at 1:1,200 scale, which means that one inch equals 100 feet in real life. At that scale, an average human would be about 1/16 inch in height.

Statue of Liberty

World Trade Center Lower Manhattan  Fiona seems to have developed some great affection for the Statue of Liberty.

 The Queens Museum of Art has chosen to keep the Twin Towers on the model until the new World Trade Center is completed, rather than leave a gaping hole.

 The Panorama was the brainchild of Robert Moses (go figure he was good for something other than destroying New York City’s neighborhoods and demolishing huge swaths of the city to build freeways) and was built for the 1964–65 New York World’s Fair.  The building that houses the Queens Museum of Art was the New York City pavilion at both the 1939–40 and 1964–65 world’s fairs.

OUR TIMES

By DAVID McCULLOUGH, Jr.

You’re not

1 June 2012 Wellesley High School, Wellesley, Massachusetts A high-school English teacher makes a splash (and becomes a viral video hit on YouTube) by warning graduates at his school’s commencement of the epidemic of our times. He pointedly tells the Class of 2012 that they’re not special—and in so doing points out that we all are.

This is the text of Mr. McCullough’s speech in its entirety.

J U LY 2 0 1 2

D

r. Wong, Dr. Keough, Mrs. Novogroski, Ms. Curran, members of the board of education, family and friends of the graduates, ladies and gentlemen of the Wellesley High School class of 2012, for the privilege of speaking to you this afternoon, I am honored and grateful. Thank you.

So here we are: commencement, life’s great forward-looking ceremony.

And don’t say, “What about weddings?”

Weddings are one-sided and insufficiently effective. Weddings are bride-centric pageantry.

Other than conceding to a list of unreasonable demands, the groom just stands there. No stately, hey-everybody-look-at-me procession.

No being given away. No identity-changing pronouncement. And can you imagine a television show dedicated to watching guys try on tuxedos? Their fathers sitting there mistyeyed with joy and disbelief, their brothers lurking in the corner muttering with envy.

Left to men, weddings would be, after limitstesting procrastination, spontaneous, almost inadvertent—during halftime, on the way to the refrigerator. And then there’s the frequency of failure: statistics tell us half of you will get divorced. A winning percentage like that’ll get you last place in the American League East. The Baltimore Orioles do better than weddings.

But this ceremony, commencement—a commencement works every time. From this day forward, truly—in sickness and in health, through financial fiascos, through midlife crises and passably attractive sales reps at trade shows in Cincinnati, through diminishing tolerance for annoyingness, through every difference, irreconcilable and otherwise—you will stay forever graduated from high school, you and your diploma as one, ’til death do you part.

No, commencement is life’s great ceremonial beginning, with its own attendant and highly appropriate symbolism. Fitting, for example, for this auspicious rite of passage, is where we find ourselves this afternoon, the venue. Normally, I avoid clichés like the plague, wouldn’t touch them with a ten-foot pole, but here we are on a literal level playing field. That matters. That says something. And your ceremonial costume: shapeless, uniform, one-size-fits-all. Whether male or female, tall or short, scholar or slacker, spray-tanned prom queen or intergalactic Xbox assassin, each of you is dressed, you’ll notice, exactly the same. And your diploma, but for your name, exactly the same.

All of this is as it should be, because none of you is special.

You are not special. You are not exceptional.

Contrary to what your U9 soccer trophy suggests; your glowing seventh-grade report card; despite every assurance of a certain corpulent purple dinosaur, that nice Mister Rogers, and your batty Aunt Sylvia; no matter how often your maternal caped crusader has swooped in to save you, you’re nothing special.

Yes, you’ve been pampered, cosseted, doted upon, helmeted, bubble-wrapped. Yes, capable adults with other things to do have held you, kissed you, fed you, wiped your mouth, wiped your bottom, trained you, taught you, tutored you, coached you, listened to you, counseled you, encouraged you, consoled you, and encouraged you again. You’ve been nudged, cajoled, wheedled, and implored. You’ve been feted and fawned over and called sweetie pie.

Yes, you have. And, certainly, we’ve been to your games, your plays, your recitals, your science fairs. Absolutely, smiles ignite when you walk into a room, and hundreds gasp with delight at your every tweet. Why, maybe you’ve even had your picture in the Townsman!* And now you’ve conquered high school—and, indisputably, here we all have gathered for you, the pride and joy of this fine community, the first to emerge from that magnificent new building.

But do not get the idea you’re anything special. Because you’re not.

The empirical evidence is everywhere, numbers even an English teacher can’t ignore.

Newton, Natick, Nee—I am allowed to say Needham, yes?—that has to be two thousand high school graduates right there, give or take, and that’s just the neighborhood Ns. Across the country no fewer than 3.2 million seniors are graduating about now from more than 37,000 high schools. That’s 37,000 valedictorians, 37,000 class presidents, 92,000 harmonizing altos, 340,000 swaggering jocks, 2,185,967 pairs of Uggs. But why limit ourselves to high school?

After all, you’re leaving it. So think about this: even if you’re one in a million, on a planet of 6.8 billion that means there are nearly 7,000 people just like you. Imagine standing somewhere over there on Washington Street on Marathon Monday and watching 6,800 yous go running by.

And consider for a moment the bigger picture: your planet, I’ll remind you, is not the center of its solar system, your solar system is not the center of its galaxy, your galaxy is not the center of the universe. In fact, astrophysicists assure us the universe has no center; therefore, you cannot be it. Neither can Donald Trump, which someone should tell him, although that hair is quite a

phenomenon.

“But, Dave,” you cry, “Walt Whitman tells me I’m my own version of perfection! Epictetus tells me I have the spark of Zeus!” And I don’t disagree. So that makes 6.8 billion examples of perfection, 6.8 billion sparks of Zeus. You see, if everyone is special, then no one is. If everyone gets a trophy, trophies become meaningless.

In our unspoken but not so subtle Darwinian competition with one another—which springs, I think, from our fear of our own insignificance, a subset of our dread of mortality—we have of late, we Americans, to our detriment, come to love accolades more than genuine achievement.

We have come to see them as the point—and we’re happy to compromise standards, or ignore reality, if we suspect that’s the quickest way, or only way, to have something to put on the mantelpiece, something to pose with, crow about, something with which to leverage ourselves into a better spot on the social totem pole. No longer is it how you play the game, no

“The sweetest joys of life, then, come only with the recognition that you’re not special.

“Because everyone is.”

longer is it even whether you win or lose, or learn or grow, or enjoy yourself doing it. Now it’s “So what does this get me?” As a consequence, we cheapen worthy endeavors, and building a Guatemalan medical clinic becomes more about the application to Bowdoin than the well-being of Guatemalans.

It’s an epidemic—and in its way, not even dear old Wellesley High is immune: one of the best of the 37,000 nationwide, Wellesley High School, where good is no longer good enough, where a B is the new C, and the midlevel curriculum is called Advanced College Placement. And I hope you caught me when I said “one of the best.” I said “one of the best” so we can feel better about ourselves, so we can bask in a little easy distinction, however vague and unverifiable, and count ourselves among the elite,

* The Wellesley Townsman is the local newspaper in Wellesley, Massachusetts.

19

 English teacher David McCullough, Jr., addresses Wellesley High School’s Class of 2012.

This text has been edited for stylistic consistency.

20

whoever they might be, and enjoy a perceived leg up on the perceived competition. But the phrase defies logic. By definition there can be only one best. You’re it or you’re not.

If you’ve learned anything in your years here I hope it’s that education should be for, rather than material advantage, the exhilaration of learning. You’ve learned, too, I hope, as Sophocles assured us, that wisdom is the chief element of happiness. (Second is ice cream—just an FYI.) I also hope you’ve learned enough to recognize how little you know—how little you know now, at the moment—for today is just the beginning. It’s where you go from here that matters.

As you commence, then, and before you scatter to the winds, I urge you to do whatever you do for no reason other than you love it and believe in its importance. Don’t bother with work you don’t believe in any more than you would a spouse you’re not crazy about, lest you too find yourself on the wrong side of a Baltimore Orioles comparison. Resist the easy comforts of complacency, the specious glitter of materialism, the narcotic paralysis of self-satisfaction. Be worthy of your advantages. And read. Read all the time. Read as a matter of principle, as a matter of self-respect. Read as a nourishing staple of life. Develop and protect a moral sensibility and demonstrate the character to apply it. Dream big.

Work hard. Think for yourself. Love everything you love, everyone you love, with all your might.

And do so, please, with a sense of urgency, for every tick of the clock subtracts from fewer and fewer; and as surely as there are commencements there are cessations, and you’ll be in no

condition to enjoy the ceremony attendant to that eventuality no matter how delightful the afternoon.

The fulfilling life, the distinctive life, the relevant life, is an achievement, not something that will fall into your lap because you’re a nice person or mommy ordered it from the caterer.

You’ll note the Founding Fathers took pains to secure your inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—quite an active verb, pursue—which leaves, I should think, little time for lying around watching parrots rollerskate on YouTube. The first President Roosevelt, the old rough rider, advocated the strenuous life. Mr. Thoreau wanted to drive life into a corner, to live deep and suck out all the marrow. The poet Mary Oliver tells us to row, row into the swirl and roil.

Locally, someone—I forget who—from time to time encourages young scholars to carpe the heck out of the diem. The point is the same: get busy, have at it. Don’t wait for inspiration or passion to find you. Get up, get out, explore, find it yourself, and grab hold with both hands.

Now, before you dash off and get your YOLO tattoo, let me point out the illogic of that trendy little expression—because you can and should live not merely once, but every day of your life. Rather than You Only Live Once, it should be You Live Only Once, but because YLOO doesn’t have the same ring, we shrug and decide it doesn’t matter.

None of this day-seizing, though, this YLOOing, should be interpreted as license for self-indulgence. Like accolades ought to be, the fulfilled life is a consequence, a gratifying byproduct. It’s what happens when you’re thinking about more important things. Climb the mountain not to plant your flag, but to embrace the challenge, enjoy the air, and behold the view.

Climb it so you can see the world, not so the world can see you. Go to Paris to be in Paris, not to cross it off your list and congratulate yourself for being worldly. Exercise free will and creative, independent thought not for the satisfactions they will bring you, but for the good they will do others—the rest of the 6.8 billion and those who will follow them. And then you, too, will discover the great and curious truth of the human experience is that selflessness is the best thing you can do for yourself. The sweetest joys of life, then, come only with the recognition that you’re not special.

Because everyone is.

Congratulations. Good luck. Make for yourselves, please, for your sake and for ours, extraordinary lives. d

A Saint on same-sex marriage On 8 May 2012, voters in my home state, North Carolina, approved an amendment to the state’s constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman and allowing the state to recognize no other union, effectively banning same-sex marriage. In response to a post I left on Facebook expressing my disagreement with the amendment, the seminary teacher I had for all four years of high school asked for my response to a statement issued by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 2008. The statement outlined the reasons for the Church’s support of Proposition 8, an amendment to California’s state constitution approved by voters on 4 November 2008 which banned same-sex marriage, reversing an earlier ruling by the California Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriage in the state. This was what I wrote in response to her request.

My response follows the same order as the Church’s statement. Section headers marked with an asterisk * are identical to those in the Church’s statement. Minor revisions have been made to this version.

I

believe that marriage—specifically temple marriage—is essential to God’s plan.

It starts with my belief in God. I believe that he exists, that we are his children, and that he has a plan for us, the plan of salvation. I believe that Jesus Christ is God’s Son and that his Atonement makes the plan of salvation operative. I believe that the Savior restored his Church through the Prophet Joseph Smith and that that Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is the only one the Lord recognizes as his own and the only one with his priesthood authority. I believe that the keys of the priesthood, including those of eternal marriage, are held today by President Thomas S. Monson. I believe that when President Monson directs how those keys are to be used, he is following the Lord’s will.

It follows then that from a religious perspective I have no major disagreements with the statement on marriage from the Church’s Public Affairs office on 13 August 2008 (the one or two religious disagreements I have with the statement will become apparent below).

However, the debate of whether the government should allow and recognize marriage between same-sex partners is a political debate, not a religious one. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is very clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Reasoning based solely upon religious belief should have no bearing on political issues. For both the religious and

OUR VIEW

By DUSTIN

I am a faithful Latterday Saint, yet I have come to believe that the government should allow same-sex marriage. Here’s why.

the irreligious, we should ensure that the wall separating church and state in America remains firm.

This document appears to be an attempt to twist religious reasoning into political reasoning.

It should be considered a political document, not a religious one. As a political document it is open to scrutiny and a critical comparison with personal opinion, societal consensus, and constitutional principles of American government. Therefore I will look at it from a political perspective. (Again, if I look at it from a religious perspective, I find little to disagree with.)

The following should not be viewed to be in any form or respect a personal attack upon the Church, its leaders, or its teachings, practices, or beliefs. I am proud and grateful to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is one of the most important things in my life, and I am committed to maintaining my baptismal and temple covenants. But while those covenants bind me to sustain Church leaders and teachings, I do not believe those covenants bind me to agree with the Church, its leaders, or its members on political issues—my Church membership does not compel me to vote for certain candidates or parties and does not compel me to hold particular political views. And this is one where I have come to disagree.

J U LY 2 0 1 2

The divine institution of marriage* This section’s title alone crosses the boundary between religious and political. While it lays a solid foundation for the perspective of the Church as a religion on marriage, the argument that we can’t alter the definition of marriage because God gave that definition doesn’t work in the political sphere. In the United States, government power and the policies and actions it undertakes with that power are derived from popular sovereignty, not divine will.

This principle is particularly important in a multicultural, pluralistic society like America’s, where everybody has a different God (or no God at all) whose will varies. Political questions, therefore, are answerable to the people’s, not God’s, will and the basic constitutional principles, rights, and protections we have all agreed to through the social contract.

Take Susan’s sister and her husband for instance. They are atheists and, clearly, they are married, civilly (they got married in his sister’s living room). Do they believe their marriage is a “divine” institution, of a God they don’t believe in? Should we restrict them from getting married because they don’t believe it’s a divine institution? Of course not.

What about people who don’t live up to our definition, as Latter-day Saints, of godly marriage, who violate what we view as the marriage covenant but that they don’t find applicable in their own marriage? Further, we as Mormons think marriage is good, but we think temple marriage is best. Indeed, we believe that God intends for us to be married for eternity by his priesthood authority. We can’t seriously argue that the government should restrict those who don’t share our religious view of marriage from getting married.

While I recognize that those who fall into the categories above are a small (but growing) minority of Americans—I think most Americans view marriage as a divine institution, that’s why they get married in churches—I am making a rhetorical point that religious perspective on marriage, whether or not it is the source of marriage in human society, has no relevance on political questions surrounding marriage today.

Again, we must be vigilant in keeping church and state separate, so reasoning or history based solely on religious belief, unaccompanied by scientific or sociological data, cannot be used as a

22

basis for political decisions.

From the Church’s statement: “As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, ‘The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.’”

It is dangerous reasoning to use one part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to support a political perspective that government should disallow gay marriage when other articles of the declaration can be used to support the perspective that marriage is a fundamental right that should be extended to everyone, regardless of partners’ gender. Further, the declaration offers no definition of “family.” Indeed, many cultures around the world have a much different perspective of what a family is from our idea of the nuclear family. Here are some other things the declaration states:  Article 16, where the above statement is found, states, “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.”

No definition of marriage or who may enter into a marriage is given.  The rest of the statement quoted in the Church’s document reads, “... and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” Again, different people have different definitions of what a “family” is. Just because someone’s definition of their family differs from my definition of family, why should they be entitled to any less protection by society and the state for their family than I am for mine?  Article 2: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” In other words, these rights are just as applicable to homosexuals as they are to everyone else.  Article 7: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.” If heterosexual couples

are allowed to marry, then homosexual couples should be allowed to, too.  Article 12: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” Many people hold the perspective that whom someone chooses to marry, including the gender of that person, is a private decision that should be made without interference of the state and would fall under the purview of the above statement. (This article could also be used to invoke protection for the Church and its members in the event gay marriage were legalized.)  Articles 18 and 21 serve to reinforce the wall that should exist between church and state and the idea that religious influence should not enter the political sphere and vice versa. Article 18: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes

freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” Article 21: “(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”

I understand that different people will have different perspectives of the real impact of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the gay-marriage debate. But my point here is to show that both supporters and opponents can use the declaration to support their arguments.

Challenges to marriage and family* Endorsement From the Church’s statement: “In recent years in the United States and other countries, a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of samesex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition.”

Government allowing marriage of any sort does not constitute an “endorsement.” Just because Susan and I, or any married couple for that matter, received a marriage license doesn’t mean that the government “endorsed” our marriage. Rather, the state recognizes that marriage is a living situation that many of its citizens will choose, whether or not they are religious, and the state acknowledges that it will act a certain way in relation to that relationship because of its impact on the partners who enter into it. Government merely recognizes marriages.

It may endorse the concept through tax and other benefits, but it endorses no one’s individually.

Think of Kim Kardashian. Just because she had a “government-sanctioned” wedding license doesn’t mean everyone accepted her marriage, or thought that it was anything other than a

mockery of the institution of marriage for her to be married for a mere 72 days before deciding it just wouldn’t work out. Not everyone buys Hollywood’s example or thinks that something is okay because bureaucratic procedure was followed.

Likewise, two people who love each other don’t need the government’s endorsement of their relationship. Quite frankly, Susan and I got a marriage license because we had to, not because we really needed the government to “approve” our marriage or love for each other.

Just because two people choose not to seek a government license for their relationship doesn’t mean they don’t love each other just as much as two people who do have a license for their marriage—indeed, given the divorce rate, they possibly love each other much more than some people who have sought the government’s supposed “endorsement” of their relationship. It also doesn’t mean they won’t live together as if they were married.

People’s relationships with and love for each other do not need government endorsement.

They don’t even need the government’s recognition, but if government is going to recognize marriage, it shouldn’t recognize one form and not the other.

23

“Traditional” marriage I have an issue with using the word “traditional.”

The Church’s definition of “traditional” family seems to have its genesis somewhere in recent decades, or the past century or so, reaching its idealized form in the 1950s. “Traditional marriage” has meant various things throughout history. Over the centuries and in various cultures, including Western society, it has included arranged marriage; marriage where a woman was stripped of her rights and property and became, essentially, the property of her husband; marriage where men were free to verbally and physically abuse their wives and children. “Traditional” marriage laws, some of which existed well into the 20th century in various parts of the United States, restricted women’s freedom and prohibited such things as interracial marriage.

Yet using the word “traditional” is an attempt to legitimize a certain definition of marriage—not including those traditional aspects of marriage above that we now view as wrong, but excluding other ways of organizing families— by arguing that it’s right because it’s been that way for so long. Really, it hasn’t been that way for that long, and while it’s a form that works, it’s not the only form that works.

It also speaks of a natural tendency to believe that somewhere in the past was an idealized form that we should attempt to replicate today and all will be well. As I mentioned above, it appears that the form we’re speaking of above appeared somewhere around 1955 and disappeared shortly thereafter. If we can just get back to that ….

Marriage is not the only realm where we have this tendency. The French, for example, do the same thing with their language. They tend to think that somewhere back in the mists of time French existed as a “pure” language and that it is a patriotic duty of the French to attempt to keep their language in that form, without undue influence from other languages or cultures (especially English and American). Among urban planners there is a tendency to think that the idealized American urban form came to fruition sometime in the late 19th or early 20th century, reaching its apex sometime before the Second World War, and that if we can just figure out what year that was and replicate how everything was built all the ills of modern urbanism—and climate change to boot—will be solved. (There was, of course, no such thing.)

Point being, “traditional” has meant a lot of things over time. And when those meanings

24

changed there was always alarm. But just because something has been a certain way for a long time doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t change. And just because it changes for society doesn’t mean it has to change for us as individuals or as a church.

The will of the people The Church has repeatedly used the argument that “the people have spoken” in support of defining marriage solely as between a man and a woman. As I stated above, while popular sovereignty is important, it is not the only governing principle in our republic. As citizens of the United States, we have all entered into a social contract with each other which has been codified in the Constitution. These constitutional principles, rights, and protections form an equal basis for our government with the will of the people. Sometimes the will of the people is in conflict with these rights and protections.

In those cases, we must be especially vigilant to ensure that the rights of the minority are protected. I believe gay marriage is one of those cases.

Though it is fair to note that popular opinion is shifting. In the United States as a whole, fully one-half of all citizens believe gay couples should have the right to marry. In some states that number is significantly higher, and across the country the shift in thinking continues. This shows one error in this line of reasoning: popular opinion changes. Making opinion polls or past referendums a crux of your argument is unsteady ground indeed.

Further, while public opinion, at least up until now, has been on the Church’s side, who’s to say it won’t shift away from the Church on this or any other issue? What if the people, either through their elected representatives or through referendum, chose to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Church and other religious organizations? Would the Church use the popular-will argument then? I don’t think so. (My guess is that it would switch to that other important aspect of our government, constitutional rights and protections.)

Tolerance, same-sex marriage, and religious freedom* Tolerance The idea that “tolerate” is synonymous with “condone” is erroneous, though I will agree that some segments of society take the concept of tolerance too far: a with-us-or-against-us siege mentality. That is why the word is used against Latter-day Saints rather than to describe us.

But it’s an argument we’ll never win. As long as the Church and its members attempt to use legislation, referendums,1 and other expressions of “popular sovereignty” to enforce our definition of marriage, everyone on the other side of the issue will continue to see it as an attempt to shove our beliefs down their throats. And quite honestly, no matter your definition of tolerance, pushing your beliefs on others through government authority is not part of it.

Beyond that, is it possible that Mormons fall short even of the Savior’s exhortation to “love thy neighbor,” described in the piece as “a much higher concept?” Absolutely. There continue to be stories of faithful Latter-day Saints who reject or disown their gay children or, for example, who don’t allow their children to play or associate with children of other faiths. They clearly fall short of what the Church is calling the Savior’s “much higher” standard. And I would say they fall short of the presumably lower standard of tolerance. We can allow others to exercise their agency while retaining our own faith.

Yet, not only because of our faith’s history of being persecuted but more importantly because of our belief that all human beings are children of God, our belief in the gospel and teachings of Jesus Christ, and our belief that the Savior rendered an infinite, eternal Atonement for all mankind, we should be the most tolerant and—that “much higher concept”—loving of any group, religious or nonreligious. If others don’t recognize us as such, maybe it’s not so much that their definition of tolerance or love is too different or extreme. Maybe it’s because we as individuals and a people still have a lot of spiritual growing to do.

We need to say, “You can practice your beliefs, secular or religious, and we will practice ours, and we will both rejoice in a system of government that allows us the freedom to do so and a society that permits us to live together peacefully and prosperously.”

Religious freedom I wholeheartedly agree that, regardless of how the government defines marriage and who can enter into it, religious freedom must be respected and maintained. Religious organizations should not be compelled to allow their facilities or clergy to be used to perform same-sex marriages if they have a religious objection. I support writing such protections into marriage laws if necessary, though I believe the First Amendment protects these rights as well.

However, the Church expresses a fear that “[o]nce a state government declares that samesex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples.”

Interestingly, earlier in the same document the Church expressed support for “policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples,” including “rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights.”

Even if at the state level government authorities attempted to use additional policies to prevent what they view as discrimination against samesex couples, federal courts—in particular, the Supreme Court—have generally sided with First Amendment protections of religion and association for organizations that are tax-exempt2 or even those that receive government funding.

Take the Boy Scouts, which falls into both categories: the Supreme Court upheld their right to eject a gay scout leader, even though the organization received federal funds, a remarkable protection of First Amendment freedoms.

In short, we cannot use government to impose our moral beliefs on those who do not share those beliefs. It is true that there is a set of behaviors that we as a society have come to a consensus should be regulated or prohibited by the government—generally, those behaviors which can cause harm to other persons or damage to property. But unless others’ actions fall into those categories, we generally should allow our fellow human beings the freedom to live their lives as they see fit. It is, after all, the best way to ensure that our own religious beliefs and practices will be, if not respected, protected and tolerated.

NOTES 1. I don’t like writing the plural of referendum as referenda.

2. I think it’s a fair point of discussion whether religious organizations should be exempt from paying taxes anyway, but that’s a topic for a different time.

25

How would same-sex marriage affect society?* The purpose of marriage Here, the Church, or whoever wrote this document, begins an examination of the very basic purposes of the institution of marriage.

“When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of selffulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children.”

The paragraph goes on to explain that the basic purpose for marriage is to raise children and that same-sex couples, because of their inherent infertility, should not be permitted to marry because they cannot fulfill this basic purpose of marriage. The issue is that this same reasoning could also be applicable to heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to have children.

If we think of a marriage license or certificate as a contract with the government, then a description, from the Church’s perspective, of that contract is found in an earlier paragraph: Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself.

Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.

Taking that to its conclusion, the childless couple—by choice or not—is in violation of that

26

contract with society and should have it nullified, right? Should two people who are too old to have children not be allowed to marry because they can’t fulfill this “obligation” above?

Further, two married people constitute a family. Susan and I formed a family before we had Fiona. You ask any married couple—and I think this would be particularly true among Church members—and they will tell you that they are a family, whether or not they have children.

Two married members of the Church, without children, are under the same obligation to hold family home evening, family scripture study, family prayer, and other family activities as a Mormon household with children. Just as parents are essential for children because they provide for their needs, the two partners in a marriage provide for each other’s needs in a way that they alone cannot. In that sense, the statement, “Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations,” is false.

Indeed, the marriage vows in most religious and civic settings exclude any mention of children, one, because there is no guarantee that children will come into a marriage, and two, precisely because marriage is “a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations.” Frankly, it surprises me that a Church member—I don’t know who wrote the Church’s statement, but I am certain he/she was a member of the Church—would even say that it isn’t. (This is one religious disagreement I have with the Church’s statement.)

Taking fears too far The remainder of this section takes gay-marriage opponents’ fears and not only validates them but takes them to the extreme. “An essential bulwark of individual liberty.” “An increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.” “The curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim.” Really?

It reads as if it were plagiarized from right-wing propaganda.

Sex education. One of the main reasons the state must teach children sex education in schools is because of the widespread failure of parents to do so themselves. If parents had been fulfilling their responsibilities in this area, the state would

not have had to take it over. Beyond that, just because a child learns something in school doesn’t mean he/she accepts it—especially if there are parents, teachers, church leaders, or others who are teaching the right. Children have a remarkable ability to recognize the truth and grasp on to what’s best for them. As members of the Church, we call that the light of Christ.

On my mission, for example, I taught a number of young children living in homes where parents smoked or drank. Yet when we taught them about the Word of Wisdom, they would immediately turn to their parents and admonish them for their bad behaviors. And here my companion and I were, two strangers who had just barely met them, yet they were taking our word over their parents’ bad example. Because children have the light of Christ, they know and recognize the truth when they see it, and they are anxious to follow it.

In another example, distributing condoms in school isn’t the government inviting children to have sex, and it doesn’t require parents to teach how to use them or to tell their children that premarital sex is okay or to distribute them themselves. (And, interestingly, studies have shown that distributing condoms in school does not increase the rate of sexual activity among teenagers, but it does lead to a decrease in teen pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.)

In the end, this paragraph is so ludicrous it’s laughable: As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment

of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.

An essential bulwark of individual liberty? It is ironic that the Church argues that allowing gay marriage would be an example of government overreach into the “sacred sphere of domestic life,” when supporting Proposition 8 and other efforts to ban gay marriage is exactly what the Church and its members are asking the government to do. And the idea that government will force parents in the home to teach that homosexuality is acceptable is absurd. Speech of almost any sort is protected by the First Amendment. Even what most people would label “hate speech” is protected because it doesn’t meet the threshold of inciting others to inflict injury or damage. Even what gay-rights activists might say is hate speech—say, labelling homosexuality a sin—is protected.

Conclusion There is no scientific or religious (as far as Mormons are concerned) explanation for homosexuality. There is absolutely no scientific consensus on the cause(s) of homosexuality, whether it is the result of nature or nurture, whether it is encoded in DNA, whether it is the result of hormonal or chemical differences. In the absence of such, we must accept gay and lesbian persons’ word that their sexual orientation is innate and cannot be changed. As a result, homosexuality is not unlike race or other innate, unchangeable human characteristics and is something that should not be subject to legallysanctioned discrimination.

My view on gay marriage, like President Barack Obama’s, has evolved over time. Back in 2004 I voted for the amendment to Utah’s state constitution that, like the recent amendment to North Carolina’s constitution, defined marriage as between one man and one woman and banned same-sex marriage in the state. I think I did so largely because I was toeing the Church’s line.

(Prior to the 2004 vote, the First Presidency sent a letter to be read in sacrament meetings in Utah that, while not explicitly endorsing the Utah amendment, reaffirmed the Church’s stance on marriage. Many members viewed it as an implicit instruction to vote for the amendment.)

27

We should not expect or use government authority to force our standards or beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs. Indeed, such a course of action is detrimental and contrary to our own beliefs. Alma and the Nephites in the Book of Mormon found that force was not an effective means to spread the gospel or its principles: “the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them” (Alma 31:5).

I continued to defend that view well into 2005, even as I was studying in The Netherlands (which, by the way, on 1 April 2001 became the first country in the world to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples). I remember having dinner with Barbara Hooper, one of my instructors at Radboud University Nijmegen who was a visiting professor from the United States, and defending the Church’s—and, at the time, my—view that same-sex marriage should be legally banned and that there were solid political reasons, not based on religious standards, for that view, even if I couldn’t quite articulate them.

However, as I continued to think about the issue, and as I examined what both sides were saying, I came to the conclusion that there is no political, sociological, or scientific reason we shouldn’t allow gay marriage, especially in a nation such as ours, a republic founded upon democratic principles protected by constitutional rights. (Clearly I don’t believe that state constitutions or the federal Constitution should be amended to protract rights.)

But living in a society that permits same-sex marriage does not mean that we have to forfeit our religious beliefs or practices, just as coming to the conclusion I have about the legalization of same-sex marriage has not forced me to forfeit my testimony. Indeed, we will likely find

28

that as we accord to others the freedom to live their lives as they choose that they will be much more willing to accord to us the same privilege, without the demand that we bend to extreme views of tolerance or political correctness. As we defend others’ constitutional freedoms, we may find that they are willing to reciprocate.

We should not expect or use government authority to force our standards or beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs. Indeed, such a course of action is detrimental and contrary to our own beliefs. Alma and the Nephites in the Book of Mormon found that force was not an effective means to spread the gospel or its principles: “the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them” (Alma 31:5).

The most effective way Latter-day Saints can protect and defend their beliefs and encourage others to adopt them is simply to live them themselves and cherish the constitutional freedom that permits us to do so. As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we should strive every day to improve our obedience to the Savior’s commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself ” (Matthew 22:39). This includes accepting others for who they are and affording them the same government protections and freedoms we ourselves enjoy. As Latter-day Saints, after all, we believe that God himself inspired the framers of our Constitution and government to create a system that would permit the establishment and preaching of the restored gospel and Church of Jesus Christ. And I do not believe that such acceptance is in conflict with the greater commandment to “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matthew 22:37).

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights defines the family as the “fundamental group unit of society” (emphasis added). But there is a more fundamental unit of society: the individual. I believe that only in a society that respects and protects the rights of the individual will righteous, loving, faith-filled families be able to flourish without interference or intervention from the state. And I believe that one of those individual rights that should be protected is the freedom of two consenting adults of age to enter into a legally valid marriage relationship, of their own free will and choice, regardless of those individuals’ genders. d

27 July 2009 Dearest Dustiekins, I’m finally finished with your wedding present. I came up with this idea over a year and a half ago, and I really wanted to have it done by our wedding day, because the design represents us and our life together. It turns out that it’s okay that it took me this long, because I think time and experience have confirmed what we both felt before: things were pretty good before, but they’re better now; and we were pretty cool before, but we’re pretty cool as a team, too.

I’m so glad I have you. I don’t believe that anyone loves anyone else the way I love you.

Thanks for finding me, sweetheart. And thanks for picking me, too.

Susan gave this to Dustin as a wedding present. It is paper in a floating frame of glass and wood. The pieces in the orange and purple designs on either side are rearranged to create the design in the center.

This is its meaning, in Susan’s own words.

Love, Susan

29

WE BELIEVE IN CHRIST

The purifying power of

J U LY 2 0 1 2

By ELDER BRUCE R. McCONKIE

I

feel, and the Spirit seems to accord, that the most important doctrine I can declare, and the most powerful testimony I can bear, is of the

atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

His atonement is the most transcendent

event that ever has or ever will occur from Creation’s dawn through all the ages of a never-ending eternity.

It is the supreme act of goodness

and grace that only a god could perform.

Through it, all of the terms and conditions of the Father’s eternal plan of salvation became operative.

Through it are brought to pass the

immortality and eternal life of man. Through

6 April 1985 At the Saturday morning session of the 155th Annual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve and among the foremost Latterday Saint scholars and scriptorians, gave what many Church members feel is one of the most powerful testimonies of Jesus Christ and his Atonement ever given.

Elder McConkie passed away on 19 April 1985, a mere two weeks after giving this address.

it, all men are saved from death, hell, the devil, and endless torment.

And through it, all who believe and

obey the glorious gospel of God, all who are true and faithful and overcome the world, all who suffer for Christ and his word, all who are chastened and scourged in the Cause of him whose we are—all shall become as their  The Garden of Gethsemane.

PHOTO TAKEN 3 OCTOBER 2006 BY STEVE CONGER, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 FLICKR.COM/PHOTOS/DUKIE1/3463003097

31

Maker and sit with him on his throne and reign with him forever in everlasting glory.

In speaking of these wondrous things I shall use my own words, though you may think they are the words of scripture, words spoken by other Apostles and prophets.

True it is they were first proclaimed by others, but they are now mine, for the Holy Spirit of God has borne witness to me that they are true, and it is now as though the Lord had revealed them to me in the first instance. I have thereby heard his voice and know his word.

Two thousand years ago, outside Jerusalem’s walls, there was a pleasant garden spot, Gethsemane by name, where Jesus and his intimate friends were wont to retire for pondering and prayer.

There Jesus taught his disciples the doctrines of the kingdom, and all of them communed with Him who is the Father of us all, in whose ministry they were engaged, and on whose errand they served.

This sacred spot, like Eden where Adam dwelt, like Sinai from whence Jehovah gave his laws, like Calvary where the Son of God gave his life a ransom for many, this holy ground is where the Sinless Son of the Everlasting Father took upon himself the sins of all men on condition of repentance.

We do not know, we cannot tell, no mortal mind can conceive the full import of what Christ did in Gethsemane.

We know he sweat great gouts of blood from every pore as he drained the dregs of that bitter cup his Father had given him.

We know he suffered, both body and spirit, more than it is possible for man to suffer, except it be unto death.

We know that in some way, incomprehensible to us, his suffering satisfied the demands of justice, ransomed penitent souls from the pains and penalties of sin, and made mercy available to those who believe in his holy name.

We know that he lay prostrate upon the ground as the pains and agonies of an infinite burden caused him to tremble and would that he might not drink the bitter cup.

We know that an angel came from the courts of glory to strengthen him in his ordeal, and we suppose it was mighty Michael, who foremost fell that mortal man might be.

As near as we can judge, these infinite agonies—this suffering beyond compare— continued for some three or four hours.

After this—his body then wrenched and

32

drained of strength—he confronted Judas and the other incarnate devils, some from the very Sanhedrin itself; and he was led away with a rope around his neck, as a common criminal, to be judged by the arch-criminals who as Jews sat in Aaron’s seat and who as Romans wielded Caesar’s power.

They took him to Annas, to Caiaphas, to Pilate, to Herod, and back to Pilate. He was accused, cursed, and smitten. Their foul saliva ran down his face as vicious blows further weakened his pain-engulfed body.

With reeds of wrath they rained blows upon his back. Blood ran down his face as a crown of thorns pierced his trembling brow.

But above it all he was scourged, scourged with forty stripes save one, scourged with a multithonged whip into whose leather strands sharp bones and cutting metals were woven.

Many died from scourging alone, but he rose from the sufferings of the scourge that he might die an ignominious death upon the cruel cross of Calvary.

Then he carried his own cross until he collapsed from the weight and pain and mounting agony of it all.

Finally, on a hill called Calvary—again, it was outside Jerusalem’s walls—while helpless disciples looked on and felt the agonies of near death in their own bodies, the Roman soldiers laid him upon the cross.

With great mallets they drove spikes of iron through his feet and hands and wrists. Truly he was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities.

Then the cross was raised that all might see and gape and curse and deride. This they did, with evil venom, for three hours from 9:00 A.M. to noon.

Then the heavens grew black. Darkness covered the land for the space of three hours, as it did among the Nephites. There was a mighty storm, as though the very God of Nature was in agony.

And truly he was, for while he was hanging on the cross for another three hours, from noon to 3:00 P.M., all the infinite agonies and merciless pains of Gethsemane recurred.

And, finally, when the atoning agonies had taken their toll—when the victory had been won, when the Son of God had fulfilled the will of his Father in all things—then he said, “It is finished” ( John 19:30), and he voluntarily gave up the ghost.

As the peace and comfort of a merciful death freed him from the pains and sorrows of

mortality, he entered the paradise of God.

When he had made his soul an offering for sin, he was prepared to see his seed, according to the messianic word.

These, consisting of all the holy prophets and faithful Saints from ages past; these, comprising all who had taken upon them his name, and who, being spiritually begotten by him, had become his sons and his daughters, even as it is with us; all these were assembled in the spirit world, there to see his face and hear his voice.

After some thirty-eight or forty hours— three days as the Jews measured time—our Blessed Lord came to the Arimathaean’s tomb, where his partially embalmed body had been placed by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea.

Then, in a way incomprehensible to us, he took up that body which had not yet seen corruption and arose in that glorious immortality which made him like his resurrected Father.

He then received all power in heaven and on earth, obtained eternal exaltation, appeared unto Mary Magdalene and many others, and ascended into heaven, there to sit down on the right hand of God the Father Almighty and to reign forever in eternal glory.

His rising from death on the third day crowned the Atonement. Again, in some way incomprehensible to us, the effects of his resurrection pass upon all men so that all shall rise from the grave.

As Adam brought death, so Christ brought life; as Adam is the father of mortality, so Christ is the father of immortality.

And without both, mortality and immortality, man cannot work out his salvation and ascend to those heights beyond the skies where gods and angels dwell forever in eternal glory.

Now, the atonement of Christ is the most basic and fundamental doctrine of the gospel, and it is the least understood of all our revealed truths.

Many of us have a superficial knowledge and rely upon the Lord and his goodness to see us through the trials and perils of life.

But if we are to have faith like Enoch and Elijah we must believe what they believed, know what they knew, and live as they lived.

May I invite you to join with me in gaining a sound and sure knowledge of the Atonement.

We must cast aside the philosophies of men and the wisdom of the wise and hearken to that Spirit which is given to us to guide us into all truth.

We must search the scriptures, accepting them as the mind and will and voice of the Lord and the very power of God unto salvation.

As we read, ponder, and pray, there will come into our minds a view of the three gardens of God—the Garden of Eden, the Garden of Gethsemane, and the Garden of the Empty Tomb where Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene.

In Eden we will see all things created in a paradisiacal state—without death, without procreation, without probationary experiences.

We will come to know that such a creation, now unknown to man, was the only way to provide for the Fall.

We will then see Adam and Eve, the first man and the first woman, step down from their state of immortal and paradisiacal glory to become the first mortal flesh on earth.

Mortality, including as it does procreation and death, will enter the world. And because of transgression a probationary estate of trial and testing will begin.

Then in Gethsemane we will see the Son of God ransom man from the temporal and spiritual death that came to us because of the Fall.

And finally, before an empty tomb, we will come to know that Christ our Lord has burst the bands of death and stands forever triumphant over the grave.

Thus, Creation is father to the Fall; and by the Fall came mortality and death; and by Christ came immortality and eternal life.

If there had been no fall of Adam, by which cometh death, there could have been no atonement of Christ, by which cometh life.

And now, as pertaining to this perfect atonement, wrought by the shedding of the blood of God—I testify that it took place in Gethsemane and at Golgotha, and as pertaining to Jesus Christ, I testify that he is the Son of the Living God and was crucified for the sins of the world.

He is our Lord, our God, and our King. This I know of myself independent of any other person.

I am one of his witnesses, and in a coming day I shall feel the nail marks in his hands and in his feet and shall wet his feet with my tears.

But I shall not know any better then than I know now that he is God’s Almighty Son, that he is our Savior and Redeemer, and that salvation comes in and through his atoning blood and in no other way.

God grant that all of us may walk in the light as God our Father is in the light so that, according to the promises, the blood of Jesus Christ his Son will cleanse us from all sin.

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, amen. d

“I am one of his witnesses, and in a coming day I shall feel the nail marks in his hands and in his feet and shall wet his feet with my tears.

“But I shall not know any better then than I know now that he is God’s Almighty Son, that he is our Savior and Redeemer, and that salvation comes in and through his atoning blood and in no other way.”

33

LAST LOOK

27 APRIL 2012

Enterprise arrives in New York The prototype space shuttle, Enterprise, took to the skies for the last time on the back of NASA’s modified 747 when it was delivered to New York to be prepared for permanent exhibition at the Intrepid Sea, Air, and Space Museum in Manhattan. It was important to me that I be able to say I took Fiona to see it. It looked magnificent flying past the Statue of Liberty. —dustin APRIL 2012 PHOTO TAKEN BY DUSTIN

SEE “WHERE ARE THE FISH?”, PAGE 12

IMAGE IN COLOR BAR ON NAMEPLATE TAKEN 2 MARCH 2007 BY DANIEL SCHWEN, CC BY-SA 2.5 HTTP://COMMONS.W IKIMEDIA.ORG/WIKI/FILE:GOE_PLATZ_DER_SYNAGOGE_DETAIL_2_NOCA.JPG

“The weirdest one is when she sticks her hands out to the side, palms up, lowers her chin, raises her eyebrows, and says, “Uuh??” When she does that, we’re supposed to say, “Where are the fish?” She responds with a quick point (at a garden, fountain, park, or minivan) and a satisfied “uuh!”

The last few days, though, it seems like she has started to say, “Ah dah!” Which may or may not mean, “Right there!””