Stories from My Life

I missed testimony meeting today. My wonky body at fault, not a reluctance to go. The following testimony--the stories of my life--isn't likely to be told from a pulpit anyway.

The experiences I think to tell come once or twice a decade. They are real in the sense that I never think to question that something happened. They are real in the sense that they changed my life. On the other hand, whether the immediate cause is an angel or indigestion isn't always clear, and the meaning is often obscure or unfolds over many years.

I am 13 years old. Dad and I have gone fishing. I’m stretched out on a big branch hanging over the river. The sun is shining. I am wearing my favorite shirt, a corduroy that mother cut down from one of dad's old shirts. The feeling comes over me, not words but a warm, bright, arms-around-me sort of feeling that communicates "you are loved."

I am a new senior companion, months before my language skills are adequate. Visiting in a home, we show a filmstrip and play a tape about Joseph Smith. I'm running the projector but otherwise a spectator and I hear as if for the first time. I have a warm burning-in-the-bosom feeling that says to me "something really happened."

I am sitting in the temple during an endowment session, Christmas break during my first year back after my mission. I'm worrying over my engagement, about which I have doubts. I really want a yes or no. Instead, I am blessed with a vision. It's of a hike in the mountains, with alternating views of a high narrow ridge and a broad open meadow. The voice-over says "this is what you should be thinking about, now you figure it out."

I am giving a blessing. One of many. The words are not my own. In some fashion I am a channel, an instrument, and someone else is playing.

I am driving home from a Saturday leadership meeting at the Stake Center, thinking ahead to the name-and-blessing ceremony for our new son the next day. As I drive, a strong impression comes over me that says "I know this boy, his name is Peter."

My best friend calls me, saying that his life has come apart, that he is an alcoholic now just acknowledging and trying to do something about it, that he has strayed far from religion and church. He is mostly confessing, but also invites support and advice. I recognize a classic golden moment missionary opportunity but I hesitate. The next day I hike up into the mountains. As the sun rises, I find a flat spot and pray. And then, in the closest to an actual voice of any experience of my life I hear "tell him to return to the church of his childhood, where he will receive the support that he needs." That “church of his childhood” is Catholic. I am surprised.

I stand at the veil, welcoming an old friend through. (The only thing I’ve ever done that exceeded my mother’s expectations.) He turns to me and says “in that moment you are acting out Christ’s role.” I shiver.

A young woman brings her baby daughter to the Church for a name and blessing. She is a recent convert, not married, not familiar with Mormon practice and not instructed in Mormon ways. She carries her daughter to the stand with the unspoken expectation that she will hold while we bless. We take the baby and close ranks, physically pushing the mother away. With that push I feel a physical pain like I've been stabbed. As we finish the prayer I determine not to do that again. It occurs to me that if the mother were included and my sister stood with me, I wouldn't feel that pain any more.

I kneel in prayer in my study, in the midst of mental/spiritual/emotional anguish. Direct help comes later by way of psychotherapy and the passage of time. But I do get two blessings. One is a vision that gives me a peek into how I am seen. The second is a name for G_d. Not a name I've heard anywhere else, before or since. For 20 years now it's the name I use.

After years of Mormon church interviews, on both sides of the table, I am struck with the awareness that I will not do that again. That my legs will not walk me into the room and my knees will not allow me to sit. Consequences follow.

I walk into a Mormon chapel and the whole front of the room is tinged red. This happens over and over, for 5 years or more. It occurs to me that "seeing red" as a metaphor for anger is not just a metaphor.

I am in recovery after cancer-related surgery dramatic enough that my every breath is a second life celebratory event. I have the impression that my only task in life now is to keep going for another 10 minutes, and when I get done, then another 10.

I am holding one of my grandchildren. The feeling comes over me that for purposes of any discussion about grace and works, or my mission in life, or The Plan, or The Way, this infant grandchild is my life's greatest accomplishment. And I did so very little.

Questions re: The Proclamation on the Family

[Repost from 2012 and 1998; last revision 1/3/1998; posted here for reference.]

If the Proclamation on the Family was the subject of study in my law class.

What is a "proclamation"

1.      History of proclamations. There have been four other proclamations (1841, 1845, 1865, 1980). Is this like the others? Different? How? Why?

2.      Is it scripture?

3.      Is it dogma (meaning a point of faith which is required or obligatory)?

4.      Is it revelation?

5.      Is it addressed to the world (like the proclamations of 1845 and 1980), or to church members (like the proclamations of 1841 and 1865)?

6.      Is it descriptive (a declaration of the world as it is), or prescriptive (a declaration of how the world should or must be), or aspirational (a declaration of how the world would be happiest)?

2.      What is the source of authority?

1.      It was prepared by a committee, as are various lesson guide (for example). Is it different? Who was on the committee? Does that matter?

2.      What has been said and by whom and with what authority to ratify or confirm or position the PotF as authority?

3.      Is a sustaining by the general church membership required? Why? Why not?

3.      What are appropriate or valid sources for definitions and explanations?

1.      The committee was probably most or all white American men born in the first half of the 20^th century. Is that correct? Is that an appropriate framing for definitions and meanings?

2.      Are the scriptures useful or appropriate for defining terms?

3.      What has been said (and by what authority) since the PotF was issued to explain or interpret?

4.      Is the PotF to be understood as a sui generis text? Or as a text with precedents within Mormon scripture and history? Or as part of a conversation with the external world? Consider the context in which the PotF was issued:

1.      Political environment: Republican Party platform, position of the religious right, Conference on Women (in China), welfare for single mothers and dependent children, immigration policy.

2.      Church environment: Elder Packer on intellectuals, feminists and homosexuals; SWK, ETB and GBH on the role of women.

3.      Legal environment: pro-life/pro-choice debate; capital punishment; same-sex marriage dispute in Hawaii.

4.      A number of Roman Catholic encyclicals and letters are pertinent, including Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) (3/25/95), about abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty, Letter to Families (2/2/94), Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (On Social Concerns) (12/30/88), concerning poverty in the modern world, and Economic Justice For All issued by the U.S. bishops in 1986.

5.      Text of the PotF

1.      Marriage

1.      What is marriage, that it is "ordained of God"? Is it a commitment, a legal relationship, a ceremony, a public declaration, an ordinance?

2.      Is the temple sealing "ordained of God"? Is it the same as “marriage”? What is the status of those who marry in a civil ceremony?

3.      If marriage is not limited to the temple sealing, what are the elements or parameters of an “ordained by God” marriage? Can it be self-declared? Common law? Only by a Mormon bishop? Only by a minister of some kind? By a Justice of the Peace?

4.      If marriage is a legal relationship, and the law (here or elsewhere) recognizes same-sex or polygamous or time-limited or other relationships, are they then "ordained of God"? What is the distinction? Who decides, or by what basis can we determine?

5.      Is marriage between one man and one woman the only possibility? Is polygamy within the scope of that which is "ordained of God"? Not ever?

2.      Nature of God

1.      Does “God is Father” mean God is male? What does “Father” mean? What does "heavenly parents" mean? Are those terms inherently gendered?

2.      When God is Father, in what sense is a woman created in God's image? Is that consistent with gender being eternal?

3.      Moses 2:27 says that God created man in the image of "mine Only Begotten." What does “in the image” mean if it is the same for men and women, for the Father and the Son?

4.      Is a man's divine nature and destiny to be like his heavenly father?

5.      Is a woman's divine nature and destiny to be like her heavenly father? Or her heavenly mother?

3.      Role of Christ

1.      God is "Eternal Father" and there are "heavenly parents." Where is Christ?

2.      Are "sacred ordinances and covenants" enough by themselves for individuals to return to the presence of God? What is the role of or need for the atonement?

3.      Is salvation and return to God and exaltation a family matter ("as a family or not at all") or an individual matter?

4.      Gender

1.      What does "gender" mean as used in the PotF?

1.      Sex--male and female? What about [1998]hermaphrodites/[2019]intersex persons? What about various chromosomal combinations other than XX and XY? Are those "essential characteristics" or are they aberrations which will be corrected (in the millennium?)

2.      Sexual nature? Is sexual orientation an essential characteristic? Or is it malleable? If malleable, then does that go both directions--i.e., is heterosexual orientation a learned trait which will not or may not be eternal? If essential, is that true for both hetero- and homo-sexual orientation? What significance is there to evidence that at least some part of orientation is genetic? What significance is there to evidence that a substantial part of orientation is apparent very early, i.e., before age 8?

3.      Social and cultural identification? (This is the most common dictionary definition of "gender.") Are there only two genders? Is the social and cultural setting that has an "essential premortal, mortal and eternal purpose" the late 20th century U.S. setting? Or the mid-19th century Utah setting? Or “here and now” for each reader?

4.      Role--some people ("fathers") are to preside and provide and other people ("mothers") are to nurture? If that is the case, how does one decide who are the fathers and who are the mothers? By reverting to some other definition of gender (see 1, 2 and 3 above)? For the many adults who do not live in a household with two adults and minor children--who live alone, or do not have children (or none at home), or are single parents for whatever reason—how would these role assignments make sense or be defining?

2.      What is the sense of "gender" in a premortal period, without a body and without sexual relations, without marriage and family?  

5.      Procreation.

1.      In what sense is “multiply and replenish” the first commandment?  

1.      First in time? What about "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat." (Genesis 2:17, and in Moses).

2.      First in importance? What about Christ's teaching about the most important commandments?

2.      Are people who cannot bear children (infertility by birth, by accident, by age) breaking a commandment when they do not "multiply"? What about a woman who is not married and does not bear children? Is artificial insemination a good way or acceptable way to "multiply"? What about sex without marriage?

3.      Are there some people who should not have children? Those who are not married? In cases where pregnancy or childbirth is physically dangerous? Where physical resources (food, shelter) are limited? Where the mother or the father is emotionally unstable? Where one or both of the parents don't want or don't like children?

4.      Does the "multiply and replenish" commandment have consequences for birth control?

5.      What does it mean to say that "the means by which mortal life is created" is "divinely appointed"? Is this simply an affirmation that sex is of God? Or is it a declaration of opposition to artificial insemination, test-tube conception, etc.? If the latter, what is "the means" which is divinely appointed? For example, what about in vitro fertilization using sperm and egg from husband and wife, married to each other?

6.      What does it mean to "affirm the sanctity of life"? Is this simply a general affirmation that we should not kill? Or is it a pro-life, anti-abortion statement? Can abortion ever be acceptable when life is "sanctified"? Does it suggest that capital punishment is wrong? What about fighting in a war?

6.      Sex: “the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded”

1.      Identify that “are to be” appears as a command. The PotF seems to have nothing to say about sex other than between man and woman, lawfully wedded (i.e., consequences, penalties). Is that right?

2.      What does "sacred powers of procreation" mean? Intercourse? Sexual activity of any kind? Foreplay? Kissing?

3.      Is the emphasis on procreation?

1.      What about sexual activity between a man and a woman of a type that cannot result in pregnancy?

2.      What about birth control? Sex after menopause?

3.      What about sexual activity between a man and man or a woman and woman, sex that by definition cannot be procreative?

4.      Is the emphasis on “lawfully wedded”?

1.      What “lawfully” is meant? Which state in the United States? Which non-U.S. country? What age limits? With or without mixed race restrictions? Under what divorce rules?

2.      What if the law changes? 

7.      Children.

1.      Parents have a duty to rear their children in love and righteousness. What is the appropriate role for uncles and aunts and grandparents and neighbors and friends? Extended families are to "lend support when needed." Is "need" only in the case of disability or death? If not, what are other circumstances? Divorce? Financial difficulty?

2.      In many cases one parent or the other is absent. Does that change the obligation of the remaining parent in any way?

3.      What is the role and obligation of a step-parent? Does it change if the second adult in the household is same sex? What if there are more than two adults involved?

1.      For example, a biological mother/biological father/step-father or step-mother.

2.      For example, a biological mother/mother's female partner/biological father/father's second wife.

4.      Parents are to teach children to (a) love and serve one another, (b) observe God's commandments, (c) be law-abiding citizens. Is this an exhaustive list or an illustrative list? If exclusive, what about [insert any number of teachings that might be important]? If illustrative, what else belongs on the list and does it mean anything that it is not stated explicitly?

5.      Do children have any recourse if they do not get their "entitlement," i.e., birth to married parents and growing up with parents who are completely faithful to each other? Do they have recourse to the Church? To the community? The state? To God?

6.      If a woman gets pregnant without being married, what is best to do for the child? Get married so birth is to married parents? Arrange for an adoption? Does it matter how old the woman is? Who the biological father is? What if the woman is married to a man who is not the biological father, or paired with another woman? Are those cases different, with respect to what the child gets of his or her entitlement and education?

7.      Who is the audience for the sentence "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony .. ."? Probably not the children (the effect would be to tell the majority that they were cheated) and probably not parents who are living together and faithful (they are already providing birth within marriage and charged with honoring their marital vows). Candidates include:

1.      Men and women contemplating adultery. This says "don't." But they already knew that.

2.      Men and women contemplating divorce. Does this mean that when there are dependent children divorce is never a good or right alternative? If divorce is sometimes the best alternative, what values counterweigh the children's entitlement? What about abuse?

3.      Couples contemplating having a child. If there is any doubt about staying together or complete fidelity, should they avoid having children?

4.      Single adults and unmarried (whether opposite sex or same sex) couples contemplating having a child. This would say "don't." Same for adoptions?

5.      Policy makers. Does welfare policy that penalizes families with two parents make it more or less likely that children will get their entitlement? Does accessible birth control for teenagers make it more or less likely that children will get their entitlement? Does abortion make it more or less likely that children will get their entitlement? Does same sex marriage make it more or less likely that children will get their entitlement?

8.      Role of women.

1.      Is the mother's "primary responsibility" of nurturing by divine design?

2.      Is there a role or a place for a woman who has no children?

3.      What does "equal partners" mean when roles are different for men than for women?

4.      Is heavenly mother a model of nurturing?

9.      Role of men

1.      What does it mean to "preside"? "Presiding" can happen only when there is someone to preside over. Is there a meaning of "preside" which is consistent with being an equal partner?

2.      Do men have a role in nurturing, teaching, playing with, modelling for, their children, or is that all for mothers? Do men have any responsibility with respect to children other than their "own" (and how is "own" defined)?

3.      What is a "divine design"? It can't be "the way God made the world" (like gravity, for example) because it is obvious that many fathers do not preside (whatever it is that preside means, when a father is absent he can't very well be doing it), some do not act in love and righteousness, and many do not provide the necessities of life. Is it a commandment?

4.      Does heavenly father provide the necessities of life?

10.  Families

1.      "Family" is not defined in the PotF. Does "family" = father, mother, children? (This represents a minority of households in the Church and in the world.) What is "family" when the children grow up and leave home? Does "family" = people living together and supporting each other? What is/was "family" in polygamy?

2.      Is "happiness" in family life and a "successful" family the same thing?

3.      What are "the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ"? [This could, of course, be a multi-semester course in itself.] What is added in listing "faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work and wholesome recreational activities"? Why is anything added? Why is there a separate list?

4.      Are Christian families happier than Buddhist families?

5.      Is family so important that people should get married and have children even when they have doubts about their own ability, or their spouse's ability, to make it work? Should some people never marry?

11.  Political activism.

1.      Violating covenants of chastity, abuse, and failing to fulfill family responsibilities seem to be accorded equal seriousness or severity. Should punishment under the law be the same?

2.      Do laws regarding abuse (which require reporting, and take the abuser out of the home, for example) maintain and strengthen the family? [Probably they do, but this is not a simple question.]

3.      Which direction on abortion maintains and strengthens the family? Why?

4.      What kind of welfare system best maintains and strengthens the family?

5.      What are "measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family"? (emphasis added). Is there some way to tell what has been so designed? Is it a call to promote measures with a "pro-family" label? Or is it to promote measures which it seems will actually help?

6.      Is the objective to promote the happiness and success of families, or is it to promote the family as a fundamental unit? (See the example below.)

Example: Suppose we use "father/mother/dependent children" as an operating definition of "family," and the issue we are asked to support or reject is a proposal for legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Analysis: We know that recognition will make "family" (as defined) less unique, less fundamental. If same-sex marriage is recognized then society will have to operate with a broader definition of "household" or "dependent group." At the same time, suppose we are genuinely convinced that families will on the whole be happier as a consequence of recognizing same-sex marriage, because their gay children will have a good option for their life, and because there will be a significant drop in the number of opposite-sex marriages where one partner is homosexual and either or both spouses are ultimately unhappy.

Question: Does the PotF say to vote for uniqueness, or for happiness?

Or does the PotF itself teach that the second part of the analysis wrong? Does the PotF in some way teach that recognition of same-sex marriage could not possibly make families happier? (Where is that message in the text?)

Or is the PotF an assertion that every measure which maintains the family as fundamental also (by definition?) promotes the happiness and success of families?

Copyright 1997 Christian E. Kimball

Revision date: 1/3/98

E-mail to: ckimball@pobox.com

Edward L. Kimball, 23 September 1930 -- November 21, 2016

My son Chase says:

“My grandfather Ed Kimball was my soft spoken hero. He was the man I want to be, in virtually every way: a dedicated teacher; a thoughtful disciple; a loyal son, father, and husband; a clear writer and honest historian. I love him, and I know he loves me.”

The list of Dad’s attributes is long: kind, smart, dedicated, thoughtful, honest, funny, considerate. I would like to illustrate a few, including some for which stories tell and single words fail.  

A.    Dad saw three-dimensional people. He did it in writing history and biography. He did it in serving on the parole board. He did it in serving as a bishop. He did it in parenting seven quite different children. He did not categorize or label people. He saw individuals and dealt with us as individuals.   

B.    Behind the Clark Kentish mild-mannered demeanor, Dad thoughtfully and knowingly challenged the status quo. He did it by asking good questions. I have called him “subversive” in the kindest most affirming sense. He would have rejected the label but smiled with recognition. Dad was not didactic. He seldom preached or argued. Dad was subversive in the sense that Socratic dialogue is subversive of things as they are. He was subversive in the sense that good history is sometimes subversive of revealed religion. Dad took pleasure in asking good questions.

C.    Dad would volunteer to act as scribe or secretary for faculty meetings. He explained to me that nobody wanted the job and it was a way to serve, and allowed him be more of a quiet listener than active participant. He was a modest, self-effacing man, always serving others. But the next sentence is important. He went on to say that when anyone wants to know what was discussed and decided, the minutes tell the story. By delivering the minutes in his voice, he had the last word.

D.    When I was 14, Dad and I went to the Boundary Waters in northern Minnesota for a 50-mile canoe trip. We paddled across lakes, then portaged the canoe and our packs from one lake to the next. Dad was commanding in the canoe but struggled to carry a small pack over the portages. I carried a pack on my back, a second in front, and the canoe on my shoulders. With powerful arms and shoulders, but something like 1-½ legs, Dad did the almost impossible feat of paddling and walking 50 miles. That’s big. Dad took his son on a once-in-a-lifetime trip. That’s really big. But the most important part of the story is that Dad humbled himself to make the trip even knowing that his 14 year old son would have to carry the load.

No son should see his father that way. It ruins the hero myth. But every son should carry his father, at least once in his life.

E.    In the context of a discussion about the nature of God and how we think about the God-Man relationship, I mentioned to my Jewish philosophy professor that one of my models was my father in that I knew about him that he loved me, without reserve, without regard to what I did or did not do. It was absolute bedrock certainty. The professor suggested that was valuable knowledge--unusual and to be treasured.

If I had one wish it would be that my children and grandchildren would enjoy that absolute assurance, that I love you, as my father loved me, as our Father and Mother love us.

F.    Dad is rightly lauded for the two biographies of Spencer W. Kimball. The first one in particular (written with his nephew Andrew) broke the pattern of hagiography that characterized stories of Mormon leaders. The usual narrative is that he was a truth teller, essentially unable to do otherwise than tell it ‘warts and all.’ That is correct. But the deeper story is that he knew what he was doing--consciously, intentionally, using all the advantages at his disposal. He told me once that he felt a filial duty to write about his father, but he also recognized an opportunity to make a difference in the world of Mormon history and biography. He had unparalleled access to the life of a living Mormon Prophet. He was confident that he could persuade his father to give permission. And he knew that it would work out to everyone’s benefit because his father was a genuinely good man--not perfect, but good.

Dad would not say it about himself, but would have warmed to my saying it of him, as he did of his father: Edward Kimball, my father, was a good man.