Another email about the family's attempts to help Duraye

31 August 2016

Dear Myreel, Corwin, Delon and Durelle...

I wanted you to be aware that Durelle had a long visit with Olivia on Monday night. Durelle called me last night on her way to California, I believe, to report on the visit. It was not good.

Olivia and Jeffery went on for hours telling Durelle a sordid saga of years of deceptions, lyings, addictions, self-destructing behaviors, etc. Their bottom line: Duraye doesn’t need an apartment on her own, she needs intervention…to be checked into an addiction recovery facility. It was heart-breaking. Feel free to call Durelle, if you want the details.

It, of course, raises the questions: are we doing the right thing? do we keep going?

Legally, we’re (or at least, I’m) committed. I’ve signed the lease, which begins tomorrow. The salt in the wound: the landlords didn’t require a first and last payment, but they did require a refundable security deposit that’s equivalent to a month’s rent ($950). So it’s the same thing, for which I’m deeply sorry that I didn’t ask the “right question” when asking abut the terms. So the up-front cost of this move is going to be a bit painful (about $2,700). I’ll send you details soon.

Let me confess to you that I don’t know that we’re doing the right thing. But I don’t see any other viable options.

For instance, while intervention is what may be needed, there’s no way we can force her into doing it. Things won’t change until Duraye decides she’s weary of her sad and miserable life—when she cries out from the depth of her heart for help…help from God and from those who love her most. So are we enabling her sad and miserable life by what we’re doing? It’s certainly a risk.

One option is, of course, to let her drown and hit that horrible rock bottom…penniless, maybe on the street, maybe suicidal (she carries a weapon…crazy, but she does).

Despite the long and sordid saga Durelle painted for me last night, I will tell you that I continue to believe we’re on the right path. I may be delusional and naive. If so, I can only ask your forgiveness. But here’s how I look at it.

Here’s what makes this time different…and maybe brings us hope.

Until now our picture of Duraye has come from lots of different sources—our own personal experiences, each of our siblings dealings' with her, her children, occasionally friends, telling us about her deceit and troubles. Duraye has tried to play us against each other and many of us have quietly slipped her cash in a moment of sympathy…cash, for all we know, that was likely used for feeding addictions.

So, for the first time, we are united as a family in taking action to address Duraye. Instead of threatening her (as she may deserve), we’re showing her mercy. We’re trusting in her. If she burns the same bridge she has burned with several in the family, who have reached out to her or who have been “used” by her, she now knows she’s burning the bridge with the entire family. There will be no one else, in her sphere of those who care and love her, to turn to for rescue or to be deceived.

Secondly, we now have the influence of the Church to help us. That was never fully available because Duraye, as a non-member co-habitating, caused the bishop’s hands to be tied. Hopefully, if we work closely with Duraye’s bishop, HP Group leader, Relief Society president, home and visiting teachers, we will find out within a few months if Duraye is making any attempts to change…to start a new life.

Yes, she can pull the wool over the bishop’s eyes…and others…but, in time, her attendance at church, her willingness to meet with the bishop, her willingness to receive home and visiting teachers, her willingness to serve (where non-members can serve) when asked, will tell us if there’s a ray of hope being kindled in our sister’s life.

For the first time, she will now be accountable to the family and to the Church. Hopefully she’ll figure out that such accountability cannot be faked forever and the true Duraye will be made known to us and, more importantly, to her.

While this is going to be expensive to all of us, I personally believe it’s our only hope that somehow our merciful actions plus her connecting again with the Church will allow a spark of repentance to be kindled and fanned so that she will ultimately cry out for help. It’s then, and only then, will she be open to receiving the professional help that none of us can provide, but is available through intervention services.

In all of this, I have had in my mind an image of facing Dad and Mom some day and telling them how much I love Duraye and that we did everything...even if it cost me dearly financially…to keep her with us.

If you feel we are going in the wrong direction, please know I understand if you choose not to participate in what’s happening. You have all been so supportive and encouraging and I can’t tell you how grateful I am for that. I, too, despair over all of this and find myself crying out for help. Thank you for not giving up on her…or me.

Love,

Crismon

P.S. We serve in the temple on Wednesdays so I will not be available to respond to any emails until this evening.

A follow-up letter to the family about our sister Duraye

Dear Delon, Durelle, Myreel and Corwin…

Thank you for your counsel and concerns about what is our next step in helping Duraye.

Let me share some feelings that I believe are overarching on everything we’re talking about here. Our discussion has suddenly turned from “how do we help Duraye because we love her” to “how do we rehabilitate Duraye because she’s a problem.” Please, I ask you not to allow our discussion to go there. 

Here’s why…

As we have all learned, one of the most divisive (if not THE most divisive) issues that can destroy relationships…especially between parents and children (including God and His children, for that matter)…is the lack of trust. 

That, of course, is why children get grounded or restricted in the parent-child relationship. But as children grow to adulthood, as parents, we must find ways to develop and nurture trust or we run the risk there will be no relationship. 

Duraye has broken trust with her family by her poor choices so now some of the consequences are falling upon us. We naturally resent that and sometimes think of her more as a child than our sister. 

On the other hand, we have broken trust with Duraye because we have withheld our love and support because we feel it’s our duty to judge and even “fix” her.

In short, we should not have an expectation that she’ll know how or even the desire to restore our trust. But, with the gospel perspective, the Lord expects us to restore trust with our sister so ultimately she’ll trust God.

In other words, in my opinion, we must not dictate or demand that she do anything differently to please us. We help her because we love her…she is our sister…and we trust she will make correct choices. That is not easy for us to accept when she’s broken our trust and our hearts over the years.

Still, just as the Lord’s merciful hand is constantly outstretched to us, we will win her trust again if we will learn to trust her. 

So, what does this all mean… (please forgive me for preaching)

We must set aside our fears that Duraye will go back to Mike...that Scottsdale will only lead to more evil...that she’ll never get or keep a job…that she can’t change unless she moves far away.

She needs to know we trust her and do not expect her to make any changes to please us. She needs to know that we will help her the best we can however much we can for as long as we can…because we love her, she is our sister! (Each of us must decide for ourselves how much and how long that is for each of us personally.)

We rejoice that she has chosen to leave Mike…after 16 years of a dead-end relationship. Please, let’s not try to direct her or insist that she go anywhere. Once we try to dictate where she must go, in her mind she becomes “our child…our project” and just another object of the “Lewis Family Rehabilitation Program” (her words) as she has seen most, if not all of us over the years, send some of our children to live with another family in hopes of correcting behavior.

I have asked Duraye, recognizing that both of her daughters are going to be in Utah by this January, if that is attractive at all to her. Would she like to find an apartment (or even possibly stay free with family) in Utah instead of Arizona? For a number of reasons, even though they may not make sense to us and may raise fears that she won’t change, she has no interest in going to Utah. She feels at home in Arizona and wants to remain here regardless of her daughters’ location. I trust her judgment that she’s making the right choice for herself.

So now we’re back to how do we help her break from Mike, get on her own, get stable financially, and ultimately get connected with a bishop?

We have two options that I can see right now:

1. We help her get into the apartment in Scottsdale. It’s a good apartment…not fancy but not run down…and it stays within the $1,000 / month budget that I asked her to stay within. She’s afraid to be alone, but she likes the apartment and the setting (it appears to be a safe neighborhood). Our natural reaction is: Hey, beggars can’t be  choosers. I don’t feel she’s being abusive of our generosity. She is very grateful to the family and feels badly that she has placed us in this position of having to rescue her…again. I don’t feel we should abuse her willingness to make a fresh start by requiring her to live in a dump. We want her to know that we desire for her to get a fresh start in a decent place.

The drawback is that there are no apartments…at least, decent apartments…that allow renters to pay month-to-month without a first-year lease. Fortunately, in this case they are not requiring a first and last payment, which is not uncommon.

Frankly, we don’t even know that she will qualify for this apartment…or for any apartment, for that matter. She has no current employment, a week employment history and a misdemeanor criminal record. Without a co-signer, she is trapped and may never be able to break.

Co-signing is a big risk, without a doubt. But a willingness on our part to co-sign sends her a HUGE message that we trust she will eventually get a good job where she can totally support herself in time….along with the Church’s help, her family's help and the Lord’s merciful hand.

If this is the option we choose, I need to pay the qualifying fee of $100 immediately so they can run credit and personal checks on both Duraye and me, as the co-signer ($50 per screening) and hold the apartment until the owner decides whether or not to accept Duraye.

The second option…

2. If the above is too much for us to swallow, then another option is for Duraye and Madelyn to stay in the apartment (yes, with Mike) for another few months. She and Mike are friends, but not romantic. In fact, Mike somewhat detests Duraye and tells her he hopes she’ll move. In her opinion, Mike wants to be a hermit. So she is a heart-broken, spurned woman and has no desire to stay, but Mike is decent to her and she is surviving on that tiny, sliver of security.

The plan would be to have Duraye stay in the apartment (Mike is picking up the rent, Duraye helps when she can) until the end of December, at which time Madelyn will leave for Utah (if she still plans to leave by then) and Duraye would move into an apartment somewhere in the Valley (I have tried to encourage her to find a place close to the freeway so she can get to a job most anywhere in the Valley). Hopefully by then she’d have a job to help her make the break or, if not, we, as family, hopefully would be willing to help her as best as we can as per option #1.

If she remains in the apartment with Mike for the next four months, there are several downsides: (1) we/she can’t seek church assistance, (2) there’s the chance she’ll give up and change her mind, and (3) she’ll still need immediate family assistance (she is destitute with debt)...if we’re willing to provide it under the status of co-habitating (I realize that’s going to be a hard pill to swallow for some, if not all).

Fortunately, her current living expenses are not exorbitant. They include:

$300 / month auto rental from Jordan, Madelyn’s old boyfriend who “flips” cars and as been very generous to Duraye to help her; otherwise, with her record, she’d be hard pressed to get a car; she obviously needs a car to seek and fulfill employment

$34 / month for auto insurance

$120 / month for phone (we know this is expensive, but her previous employer required it and now Duraye can’t get out from under it for a while)

$88 / month for the Interlock device on the car she must rent or lease so she can drive

$80 / month for the storage unit that she and Mike share ($160 / mo)

I’ve encouraged her to apply for food stamps (she didn’t know she’d qualify), which she is doing. So with other incidental living expenses, she can stay above water with assistance from the family of $600 / month…until she can land a job at which time the family assistance would no longer be needed…recognizing that we may be looking at implementing Option #1 in January, if she doesn’t have steady employment by then or can’t qualify to get into her own apartment.

I’m open to any other options you want to explore. I only ask that everything we do sends a signal to her that we love her and trust her…that we are willing to do all that we can, however long we can, so she’ll know—as never before—that we love her, trust her and we want to be family with her.

I hope this helps,

Crismon

A personal letter to the family asking for financial aid to help Duraye get on her own

18 August 2016

Dear Family,

Most, if not all, are aware that our sister Duraye continues to struggle in life. She has struggled to find and keep good employment. Living the gospel has not been easy for her either. In the process, she has broken trust with many in the family, which has created its own set of relationship challenges. 

In the past those struggles were placed on Mother, when she was with us, and more often than not on the wonderful Peases, who have an amazing gift for loving and caring for those with burdens—literally a lifelong ministry!

Due to some of their own family challenges last fall, Delon and others in the family asked that Vivienne and I, because of our ongoing relationship with Duraye in Reliv, serve as a conduit of sorts for the family to be a listening ear for Duraye and help where possible. 

We have tried to stay close to her over the past 10 months through phone and text. 

While her life is filled with more sorrow and loneliness than joy, thankfully Duraye loves her family and wants to be with us. However, when she distances herself through her actions and sometimes words, it's not easy for us to jump in and rescue her. And when we do help her, we understandably worry that we're enabling her to continue making poor choices. 

Our natural response is to say to her: “Duraye, just live the gospel and life will bring happiness." While that's easy to feel and say for those who live the gospel, it is a steep uphill climb full of fears, pitfalls and even suffocating feelings of guilt for those who have stayed away for so long. 

What I'm saying is that I feel we need to accept Duraye where she is. I'm not suggesting that we condone poor choices or inappropriate behaviors, but that we help her as best we can without holding her to a standard of behavior or an expectation she will change any time soon. 

In other words, she is our sister and we love and care for her not because of her conduct but because she is family. She is us and we are her. As the gospel teaches us, we are all unworthy beneficiaries of a loving, merciful Heavenly Father and His family plan. 

The greatest need Duraye has right now is to live on her own. In the past, she has not wanted to move. Now she does. She and Mike have "broken up" but are trapped in the same home because neither can carry the full financial load of their shared apartment in Mesa 

After visiting with Durelle and Delon and a few others, we are in agreement that the timing is good right now to help her get out of her apartment. We don't believe Mike will move, so our best option is to help Duraye move out, which we believe she can do without any financial penalty or repercussion. 

Unfortunately, this week she lost her latest job so she has no resources to move. Therefore we are recommending that the family come to her aid. 

We are asking all, who desire to participate, to commit $50 or $100 per month for at least three months. We hope those who feel they can commit more will do so inasmuch as it is difficult to get into a decent apartment in today's market for much less than $1,000 per month. Due to the common practice of requiring first and last month payments to get into an apartment, we may need to ask that the first month is a two-month payment of either $100 or $200, depending on what you feel you can afford. 

Duraye is working hard to get good jobs and to keep them. As you know, her track record in keeping a job has not been encouraging, but there are usually sales jobs out there and she's good at that. Our hope is that she will be able to catch her breath financially in the next three months so she can eventually support herself. 

Frankly, there's a decent chance she will refuse our offer.  She is fiercely independent and prides herself in being a "survivor."

Nonetheless, assuming we get family support and she's willing, the plan is to do the following:

1. Explain to Duraye, even this weekend if possible, what the family desires to do. No strings attached. We simply want to help her in this hour of need, just as she we would do for any of us if the roles were reversed...because this is what families do. 

2. Ask her to locate a reasonably priced apartment and give us the terms so we'll know the up-front and ongoing obligations.

3. Then identify her ward and bishop. I would contact the bishop personally and explain the situation (to what extent the family is able to cover rent  for the immediate future) to see if the ward would be willing to help make up the difference to give Duraye the security for at least three months (or sooner, if possible) to get on her feet and take on the full responsibility of paying for her own housing. Above all, we want her to know that her family and church care enough that we are here as her "safety net."

We feel the tie to the Church via rent or living assistance creates an important connection so Duraye isn't forgotten by her bishop and she will have reason to connect with him on a regular basis. 

Duraye is not a freeloader. She does not feel an entitlement to receive assistance. To her credit, despite her ongoing financial crises, she does not want or look for handouts. I feel strongly if she even accepts our offer, she will not abuse it. 

All of you are likely aware that Mother left an inheritance that she has willed to the Church. While it would seem reasonable to parcel some of those funds for this cause, legally it's impossible and it's important that Duraye understands our offer does not come without sacrifice from the family, a sacrifice we're happy to shoulder because we love her. 

So what do we do if she can't get on her feet within the next three months? I don't know except we will surely do all we can to keep helping her...we are family…while seeking guidance and counsel from Duraye's new bishop. 

In the meantime, she needs our continued prayers and she could use any employment leads or suggestions.

Finally, may I say it's important we understand this is not an "investment" in Duraye. We should have no false hopes or expectations that a different Duraye will come from all of this. We do this because we love her, not with the expectation she will change  to meet our standard of behavior. But just getting her into her own apartment may allow her to feel the Spirit of the Lord in her home again, which, as we all know, is the key for all of us to change, to become the person the Lord desires us to become. 

Will you please reply to this email in two ways...

1. Reply to ALL with questions, concerns or suggestions. All are welcomed. 

2. Reply privately to me with the financial commitment you are willing to make for the next three months so I can explain to the bishop what we can do as a family. 

Or, if any of you would prefer to discuss this personally, feel free to call me at 503-914-8689. 

Thank you for giving this your consideration.

Love,

Crismon & Vivienne

In response to President Paul Hansen, first counselor in the stake presidency, feelings about calling on leaders and members to bear testimony during quorum or group meetings

2 August 2016

Paul,

Thank you for sharing your feelings about having outgoing and incoming quorum leaders (and even members) share their testimonies during quorum meetings. You are a wonderful advocate for teaching doctrine and the gospel in quorum meetings…and making sure there is adequate time for instructors to teach. Thank you for speaking up on this subject often!

While I appreciate the importance of quorum instruction, too, I feel quite strongly about the importance of having quorum leaders and members bear testimony in the quorum or group meeting even at the expense of quorum instruction. For multiple reasons:

1) I want quorum members to hear the strength and depth of their quorum (group) leaders’ testimonies;

2) I want all to know that bearing of testimony is an important element of our discipleship and leadership, especially in the latter days;

3) I want quorum members to bear their testimonies because it has a way of helping those who sometimes sit back in ward testimony meetings to share their feelings, some for the first time in a long time;

4) I want the leaders to appreciate that the bearing of testimonies in the quorum setting creates unity.

The drawback, of course, is that we usually don’t have any lesson and the person, who prepared the lesson, feels slighted…for which I regret very much.

So going forward, will you please take the responsibility to make sure that when we know there is going to be a leadership change that the quorum or group leader and instructor know that the stake presidency may take up most, if not the entire, meeting time; that we plan to call on the outgoing and incoming leaders, and maybe some quorum members, to bear testimony? 

Feel free to assign this to the assigned high councilor. What I want to avoid is anyone’s feelings getting hurt because they prepared a lesson and didn’t have the opportunity to present it. So please help them be aware so they prepare a very short lesson, if possible, and know that there may not be time for any lesson at all.

Because of our schedule last Sunday, will you please plan to attend the High Priest Group in Estacada this Sunday and conduct a brief testimony meeting at the beginning of the Group meeting calling on the members of the outgoing Group leadership and then the incoming leadership to bear their testimonies. It will be an idea time for you to express again the stake presidencies gratitude. If you feel so directed, you may call on others in the Group to share their testimony. Please ask Brother Baird to prepare the lesson time accordingly. (I realize the Estacada HP meeting will end at the same time we go into the Tickle Creek HP reorganization. We are happy to excuse you from the TC meeting and give Brother Franklin or the new Group leader an opportunity to set apart one of the assistants.)

Please invite Brother James Anderson to attend with you and invite him, also, to share his testimony as a way for the Group to get acquainted with him. While you’re at it, please advise Bishop Hawkins of the HC assignment change that Bro Anderson is now replacing Bro Yates so he can properly recognize him in sacrament meeting this Sunday.

I realize this bearing of testimony during the quorum meeting is not a Handbook-approved “policy.” But, as you know, there are a number of policies and practices in our stake (and in most stakes, I assume) that are traditions or preferences, not Handbook-approved.

One that you’re very familiar with is the practice of bishopric members leaving the stand during the closing hymn to greet members at the door, which is now being practiced in at least two wards in our stake. 

While this is not Handbook-approved, I have not wanted to stop it because I want to give the bishops the flexibility to do what they feel appropriate to help them in their efforts to connect with ward members.

However, if a General Authority were to spend some time in our stake, I’m confident that this practice would be ended immediately for two reasons:

1) It causes the presiding authority to leave the stand, even though it’s only for a few minutes;

2) It sends a signal to members, especially children, that it’s OK to leave your seat during the meeting and go (what appears to be) outside the chapel.

I apologize for making this such an issue, but I sense you feel very strongly about the importance of not taking quorum-group meeting time for testimonies instead of gospel teaching. While I value your counsel tremendously, it’s important that you know I do not share your passion on this subject.

I will be happy to address this with you personally. And I hope that I have not offended you in the least. If so, please forgive me. You are a tremendous “right hand man” in the stake presidency and I appreciate very, very much the countless hours you put in to support me personally and to move forward the Lord’s work in our stake.

With love and gratitude for your continuing efforts to bless our stake,

Crismon

Brief thoughts about parenting of teenagers beginning to make worrisome choices

20 July 2016

Written to a bishop following our stewardship interview:

Bishop,

Thank you for visiting with me last night. Some of the feelings you expressed as we ended our visit have stayed with me. At the risk of preaching, I felt this morning in my private devotions that it might be beneficial to share a few thoughts.

I don’t pretend to have the answers on how to help teenagers…or their parents...when they begin to worry us with their choices. The natural tendency is to restrict, to hover, to “supervise.”

I would caution against that, especially if we’re talking about a 17-year-old. Just as it’s natural for us to restrict or hover, it’s natural for teens being restricted to pull back and even become resentful.

A great place for parents to begin when discussing on how to address these worries is to review what we know about our Heavenly Father (parents) and the relationship He so deftly nurtures with His children. It’s a wonderful study to identify some of His "parenting techniques."

You’ll notice at the top of His list are agency (trust), charity or love (unconditional), responsibility (accountability).

Finally, He leads by example. Giving priority in our busy schedules to consistently having family prayer, family scripture study and FHE all provide so much more influence in the lives of our children in making righteous choices than we’ll ever know. When our parenting worries increase, the answer may be to increase our consistency of family devotions.

The Church also offers lots of helpful insights and ideas for parents on how to address the concerns you are having. A suggestion might be to go to lds.org and search for topics like “Helping teens stay strong,” “Helping teens make right choices,” “Helping without hovering,” etc.

I hope this is helpful. Please know the last thing I want to do is “hover” over you. You and Dana are wonderful parents! So feel no obligation to follow this counsel and know that it is shared out of love for you and your family. I remember those anxious moments as a parent when you see your children begin to make choices you know can have painful consequences. The Lord will honor you and your sweet wife for the goodness and faithfulness in your home to say nothing of the marvelous devotion you both give in your callings.

We are so grateful for the blessing you and your family are to us personally as well as to our stake.

Crismon

Restrictions for calling temple workers

19 July 2016

Bishops,

Thank you for continuing to recommend members of your ward to serve as temple workers. There continues to be a great need at the temple and the temple presidency is very grateful when we submit recommendations. What a blessing it is also in the lives of so many in our stake!

As you know, any endowed member who has been subject to formal church discipline within the past 5 years is not eligible to serve as a temple worker. That means 5 years from the day the church discipline was resolved or removed.

The same guideline applies to those who have been divorced. The 5-year clock starts from the date the divorce took effect.

As for this latter guideline, I’m embarrassed to confess that I had forgotten this part and have actually suggested to a member that there was no divorce restriction. I will correct it with her. I share this so you and I don’t cause embarrassing (even painful) situations for those who have been divorced.

By the way, the above guidelines apply for both ordinance workers and veil workers. But they do not apply for volunteers (grounds, clothing, cafeteria, etc.).

Thank you again for continuing to encourage eligible members to serve in the temple.

I hope this is helpful.

President Lewis

P.S. One other reminder: while we can certainly discuss the blessings of temple service and even ascertain a member’s interest in serving, we are not to “call” or even tell members we are submitting a recommendation for them to be called as a temple worker. Acting upon recommendations and extending calls is handled solely under the keys of the temple presidency.

Catholic leaders join us for lunch at our stake center

One of the enjoyable events in the summer of 2015 was hosting our friends Mary Hay and Connie Ostlund. They were leaders at the St Henry's Catholic Church in Gresham. Mary oversaw the St Vincent de Paul food pantry and homeless feeding program while Connie was the director of all Catholic studies and curriculum at St Henry's. They were sincerely interested in our faith so Vivienne and I hosted them on July 16, 2016 for lunch at the stake center. We ate in the high council room and then gave them a tour of the building. Connie was perceptive as she said, upon entering the chapel, I can see your church puts emphasis on speaking (pulpit) and music (choir loft). It was a delight to introduce them to the church in this way.

Bishops Storehouse average order and welfare assistance instructions

12 July 2016

Bishops,

I congratulate you. All of you are very prudent about using the Lord’s food assistance program via the Bishop’s Storehouse.

I receive a report each month from the Bishop’s Storehouse showing me how many orders are placed and their value. The needs vary significantly. For instance, the number of food orders vary from one ward generating a total of 14 orders up through May of this year and another ward only two orders in all of 2016 so far.

So it’s not wise to compare between wards. 

It’s also not fair to compare the average value per order because the family dynamics and demographics of those receiving assistance vary dramatically. But I’m going to list for you the average value of food orders for each ward so far in 2016 just to give you an idea of how we’re doing in our stake. 

If this is hurtful in any way, please let me know and forgive me. My hope is this will give you some perspective on how you’re doing in relation to others. In my opinion, all of you are doing great and are being very prudent in your judgment…for which I am most grateful.

Average food order value thru May 2016:

Damascus - $108

Estacada - $191

Powell Valley - $220

Sandy River - $166

Tickle Creek - $121

Walters Hill - $224

If any of you were into the $300 average per order, I’d be concerned. But you’re not even close. Thank you again for being wise stewards of the Lord’s funds and commodities. Please pass along my thanks to your ward Relief Society presidents and others you’re involving in placing these orders.

May I remind you that it’s appropriate for you to involve members of the Ward Council in creating and holding accountable service opportunities for those who receive assistance. You are not breaking confidence by using the Ward Council to administer welfare assistance. If helpful, please explain this to the members when counseling with them about receiving assistance.

Also, please be careful that we don’t appear to be like other institutions giving handouts freely. All who receive Church assistance, either financially or with commodities, should be expected and held accountable to give some measure of service so they accept the assistance with dignity and have a way to express gratitude (confidentially) for the generous offerings of fellow members.

Gratefully,

President Lewis

Addressing concerns about cross-dressing and transgender conduct

10 June 2016

Emails about the Church's policy regarding cross-dressing and transgender conduct.

POLICY STATEMENT SENT TO STAKE LEADERS AND BISHOPS:

Stake Leaders and Bishops,

A question has been raised in our stake about cross-dressing and/or transgender conduct. 

My apologies for failing to communicate to all of you earlier that this was a topic of discussion at the latest CCM (Coordinating Council Meeting) under the direction of Elder Blunck, of the Seventy. He said the direction from Church headquarters is that both cross-dressing and transgender behavior (cross-dressing, showing affection, using restrooms, etc.) are prohibited on Church property and at Church-sponsored events. 

The most likely time we might confront this issue will be at a youth activity or dance. Elder Blunck said the instruction is that we are to address the matter at the entrance, if possible. We are not to make a scene, but kindly take the person aside and explain that cross-dressing and/or transgender conduct is not allowed and that they are to leave the premises and correct their dress if they want to participate in the activity.

If necessary, we are to remind them this is a private, Church-sponsored activity and that the Church has the legal right to dictate standards for its events.

If the person resists, we are to contact the person’s parents or Church leaders to ask for their help in enforcing the Church policy. If that doesn’t work, we can call the police to remove a trespasser, but only if absolutely necessary.

If the person becomes belligerent and tries to make a scene, then, as a last resort, we are to end the activity and send everyone home.

In short, the Church has a policy and has the legal right to enforce that policy on Church property or at any Church-organized event. However, we don’t want to make a scene over it. We want to address it as politely as possible. But as leaders we are to insist and ensure that all comply with the policy.

I hope I’ve covered it adequately. Please notify me personally if this becomes an issue at any activity in our stake. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you for vigilance in this and other policy challenges in our stake.

President Lewis

RESPONSE FROM STAKE YOUNG WOMEN PRESIDENT JANEEN HOUSE:

President Lewis,

Thank you for sharing this with us.

Something came up at our camp meeting last night in regards to skits at camp.  We said "no-cross dressing".  That prompted a further discussion to "what does that mean"?  

Does that mean Sister Nice can't wear her moss beard to promote her "panning for gemstones" with a "prospector look"?

Does that mean that girls can't portray a male in a skit? How could you portray a male for a skit when we are all female?  Voices? Hat? Mustaches? What is okay? 

How about boys portraying girls at scout camp with breasts and high voices?

Seems all very innocent in a camp setting, halloween, or drama production.  Unfortunately it is not so innocent anymore since gender identity is now such an issue.

I simply said "use your discretion" on the matter and gave them an example of how they could use a sign with a name on it or a face cut out to represent a boy.  It is funny how we need those specifics.  Sounds like the children of Israel.   It is the same with modesty issues for YW - "Tight fitting clothes comes to mind".  Well what does that mean exactly? The line for each person I have found can vary.

Anyway It lead me to the handbook, thinking I would have backup, but couldn't seem to find anything in it.

I haven't seen that cross dressing has been an issue at dances, but we have had dances where YW are dancing with YW.  This could seem pretty innocent with the fast songs as they don't really dance as a couple exclusively anymore but with the slow songs seems completely inappropriate.  

What about holding hands? Is that showing affection in an inappropriate way with YW? At one time perhaps that could have been viewed as innocent.  Certainly to me it seems very inappropriate with YM?  

Showing affection in the latino community two women may great with a kiss.  Would that same greeting by two YW be viewed today more as "showing affection"?

Anything further you would like me to share with the leaders regarding camp skits?  Do we need to be more specific with things at camp?

Sister House  

RESPONSE FROM PRESIDENT LEWIS:

Sister House,

Thanks for these sharing these concerns. You’re right, we don’t want to get into Law of Moses rules and regulations. 

Your response to teach correct principles should be adequate (not focus on the cross-dressing policy, that’s strictly for leaders to be aware of in case there is a challenge or concern). In other words, we are to judge the intent of the heart. Someone who is simply having fun in a skit has a different intent than someone who wants to flaunt their transgender identity. If the person’s intent is not obvious (it usually is), then the Spirit will guide us.

We do live in a different world so we will want to make sure that we don’t put down or mock those who believe in transgender behaviors.

Thankfully, our youth are very good and none of this is likely to become a problem. Just about every interaction, including holding hands and a non-romantic kiss on the cheek, are innocent. I wouldn’t be concerned about it, unless you sense someone wants to make a “political” point or statement by the way they repeatedly dress, act or talk.

I hope this helps,

Pres Lewis

In response to Jennifer Miller's concerns about the temple ceremony

June 2, 2016

The following is an email interchange with Jennifer Miller, of the Powell Valley Ward, who has consistently been offended by the temple ceremony. She wrote me an unsolicited email sharing her feelings. I am including my responses.

FROM JENNIFER:

Dear President Lewis,

I've been thinking about the beliefs of the LDS Church and how they shape me as a person. One belief that has made sense to me and seems very special is eternal growth and the idea that we can become like God. That idea is one that gave me much hope until I pondered on the covenants I made in the temple. Try as I might, I cannot reconcile the fact that Herb and I made different covenants. He promised to obey God and I promised to obey him. I realized today that the last covenant I made directly with God was when I was 8 years old. My experience in the temple has made me see that God doesn't want me to covenant with him anymore. 

The most sacred place in Mormonism teaches me that I will never be able to achieve what my husband can. I will never be able to perform a miracle by blessing someone like Christ did, but my husband possibly could. I will never be able to perform an ordinance that is bound in heaven. Any Godly power I experience will be through my husband or through another male. My understanding is that my husband will use his priesthood power to resurrect his family. Miraculous things I will never experience. I can never truly become like God. Although Mormonism taught me that I have a Mother in Heaven, the temple teaches me that she has no power. Her entire existence is to serve her husband - to be a Priestess and Queen to him - just as mine is.

The temple has taught me that the Gospel I learned in church meetings is not the real Gospel that Mormons believe in. One must make on-the-spot covenants in the temple to find out what the Church really believes. After 28 years, I am finally crushed. No matter what I do, no matter how faithful I am, no matter how much I love the Savior, I will never get to have the eternity I desire. I will never be a person equal in power and standing as a man. Years ago I spoke to you about changes I saw that need to happen in the Church for women. They don't seem important anymore. Why try to change something as insignificant as being able to audit Church finances or be a Sunday School President, when the eternities will be limiting for me anyway.

I believe that through Christ, all people can become perfect. Although the New Testament is written from the male perspective, I cling to the few examples we have of Christ's love for others. Everyone, regardless of gender, race, political views, ethnicity, etc. were equal in His sight. Even though He only called men to be His apostles, there is no teaching that I can find where He prepares women for a role of eternal service to God through men. This truth is what saves me from despair that there is no eternal happiness for me. The Mormon teaching of Heaven is one that makes me feel limited, held back, and secondary. It is not something I want. It is not something I'm willing to spend this precious earthly existence working for.

I have no idea why I'm telling you all of this except that you're the Stake President and I am a member under your leadership. There's nothing I expect you to do or say. I guess I just want you to know why I don't believe the way you do anymore.

FROM CRISMON:

Dear Jennifer,

Thank you for sharing your feelings. I don’t know that I can say anything that will change your feelings, but I do want you to know that there is another way of looking at those things that concern you about Church doctrine.

It’s as if you and I are looking at the same thing and seeing something totally different. I don’t know if this fits, but do you remember when the Mormon pop violinist Lindsay Stirling showed up at the Oscars or the Billboard Awards or some red-carpet event in what appeared to be a totally revealing dress? Many of her fans (LDS especially) were shocked that this returned missionary would parade in front of the public in such a dress. Others, who looked closer, realized that her dress was one of the most modest at the event because everything that appeared to be revealing was flesh-colored fabric.

Sometimes we see what we want to see.

Again, I don’t know if that’s a very good example, but you and I look at the temple through totally different lens. You see exclusion. I see inclusion.

First, if I’ve ever wondered if women use the priesthood, it’s only in the temple do we see women performing sacred ordinances, including laying on of hands identical to the men. Granted, women aren’t ordained to offices, but they’re using priesthood authority to bless and perform ordinances for other women. 

I realize the covenant you reference is a stickler for you. I don’t fully understand why the Lord has women make a covenant with him through a man, but I trust some day we’ll understand. All I know is that the end result is the same. A covenant of obedience is made and it is a conditional covenant upon the husband being completely obedient and righteous. Is that not what women truly want most in a husband? Instead of a put-down of women, to me it says, “Men, you’d better be righteous otherwise you’re not the only one affected by your choices."

Finally, that one covenant is the only one in which the woman does not make directly with God. With all the other covenants men and women make the same identical covenant in the same identical way. There is absolutely no distinction. 

The way I look at it, the covenants in the temple are in a progression reaching to the highest, most magnificent covenant and promises at the end of the endowment ceremony. If God wanted to slight women, he would have made the last covenant the one that she makes through a man, not the first. But He doesn’t. You and I make the same final covenant in the exact same way.

Furthermore, the highest of all covenants is made over the altar in the sealing ceremony. Again, there is no hint in this ceremony that the woman is to be less or subservient to the man.

You may find interesting, but one day while in the temple Vivienne and I compared the wording of the initiatory ordinances—the one for males, the other for females. I was surprised to discover there are a few slight differences and in my opinion, based on what she shared with me, the women get the better “deal.”

Jennifer, you have a right to your opinion, but please do not insist that it’s the way it is. To me, the temple endowment is a most remarkable instruction in which God shows those, who are willing to make covenants with him through the saving ordinances of baptism (and sacrament) and confirmation…He shows them the “rest of the story.” He literally shows all of us, regardless of gender, how to return to God’s presence so that we can not only live with Him but be like Him. Man cannot get there without the woman and the woman cannot get there without the man. That’s how much He cherishes the separate but very equal roles of man and woman in His glorious plan.

I hope this is helpful in at least letting you know that you and I see the same thing in the temple and walk away with a totally different perspective. 

Thanks again for sharing your feelings.

FROM JENNIFER:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, President Lewis. I know that you (and others who love the temple) see the temple differently than I do. I think it comes down to this: what bothers me just doesn't bother you. The fact that women perform one ordinance in the temple under the authority of the temple president doesn't make up for the fact that we still don't actually hold the priesthood. We can not bless our own children in the way that men can. When I'm feeling especially open minded, I can see how God in His divine wisdom could make all that seems unequal perfectly fair. Thankfully, I don't believe that equality and self-worth need to mean that people all have to be the same. I would love to feel the way you and your wife do about the temple, but I just can't make it work in my head or my heart. Maybe someday I will, and I can make covenants with God again in my heart because I understand what I'm promising to do. Until then, I'm not going to live my life by promises I made in the temple that I didn't understand I was making at the time. 

I didn't fully understand what you meant by this sentence,"The way I look at it, the covenants in the temple are in a progression reaching to the highest, most magnificent covenant and promises at the end of the endowment ceremony. If God wanted to slight women, he would have made the last covenant the one that she makes through a man, not the first. But He doesn’t. You and I make the same final covenant in the exact same way." Can you elaborate?

The other issue I have is the teaching of polygamy that is supported in the temple. Men receive and women give and receive. It just doesn't like like Heaven to me. It doesn't sound like women and men enter into an equal relationship.  It sounds like one more thing I'm supposed to accept as a woman because God loves me and is somehow going to change me so that I don't mind. 

I do appreciate you sharing your perspective. Maybe I'll hear something that sheds light on teachings that don't sit well with me.

FROM CRISMON:

Some thoughts below in caps…

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, President Lewis. I know that you (and others who love the temple) see the temple differently than I do. I think it comes down to this: what bothers me just doesn't bother you. The fact that women perform one ordinance in the temple under the authority of the temple president doesn't make up for the fact that we still don't actually hold the priesthood. We can not bless our own children in the way that men can. When I'm feeling especially open minded, I can see how God in His divine wisdom could make all that seems unequal perfectly fair. Thankfully, I don't believe that equality and self-worth need to mean that people all have to be the same. I would love to feel the way you and your wife do about the temple, but I just can't make it work in my head or my heart. Maybe someday I will, and I can make covenants with God again in my heart because I understand what I'm promising to do. Until then, I'm not going to live my life by promises I made in the temple that I didn't understand I was making at the time. 

RECOGNIZING THE COVENANTS MADE IN THE TEMPLE ARE SIMPLY WONDERFUL WAYS TO LIVE A LIFE, PLEASE DON’T ESCHEW THEM JUST BECAUSE THEY CAME FROM THE TEMPLE. TRUTH IS TRUTH AND LIVING THE LAWS AND ORDINANCES TAUGHT IN THE TEMPLE IS SIMPLY PRUDENT LIVING TO SAY NOTHING ABOUT THE PROMISES ATTACHED TO THEM.

I didn't fully understand what you meant by this sentence,"The way I look at it, the covenants in the temple are in a progression reaching to the highest, most magnificent covenant and promises at the end of the endowment ceremony. If God wanted to slight women, he would have made the last covenant the one that she makes through a man, not the first. But He doesn’t. You and I make the same final covenant in the exact same way." Can you elaborate?

AS YOU MAY REMEMBER, THERE ARE 5 LAWS TAUGHT AND 5 COVENANTS MADE DURING THE ENDOWMENT CEREMONY. THE COVENANT YOU REFERENCED IS SIMPLY THE FIRST OF THE 5. I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT THAT THE OTHER FOUR “HIGHER” LAWS AND COVENANTS ARE MADE BY BOTH GENDERS EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AND WITH THE SAME PROMISES. TO ME THE 5TH LAW AND COVENANT IS THE MOST POWERFUL AS IT HELPS US UNDERSTAND THAT THE ORDINANCES OF THE TEMPLE REACH DOWN INTO THE GENERATIONS AND BLESSES OUR POSTERITY….HENCE ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT REASONS OF GOING TO THE TEMPLE.

The other issue I have is the teaching of polygamy that is supported in the temple. Men receive and women give and receive. It just doesn't like like Heaven to me. It doesn't sound like women and men enter into an equal relationship.  It sounds like one more thing I'm supposed to accept as a woman because God loves me and is somehow going to change me so that I don't mind. 

I DON’T KNOW THE REASON FOR POLYGAMY, THOUGH WE MAY GET A HINT IN JACOB 2:30. I’M SURE YOU’VE HEARD THIS ONE BEFORE AND I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S TRUE OR NOT, BUT IT STANDS TO REASON THAT IF…

…A MAN CANNOT ATTAIN EXALTATION WITHOUT A RIGHTEOUS WOMAN AT HIS SIDE (WIFE); AND IF…

…A WOMAN CANNOT ATTAIN EXALTATION WITHOUT A RIGHTEOUS MAN AT HER SIDE (HUSBAND)…

THEN THE DOCTRINE OF PLURAL MARRIAGE TELLS ME THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE MORE WOMEN THAN MEN WORTHY TO ATTAIN EXALTATION, WHICH SHOULDN’T SURPRISE US AS WE LOOK AROUND AT THE CHURCH DEMOGRAPHICS AND MANY FAMILIES TODAY BOTH IN AND OUT OF THE CHURCH.

THAT, OF COURSE, IS JUST MY SUSPICION. IN OTHER WORDS, IT’S NOT A DOCTRINE SO MEN CAN HAVE A SEXUAL FREE-FOR-ALL, BUT IT’S A DOCTRINE TO PROVIDE A WAY FOR ALL WOMEN TO RECEIVE ALL THE PROMISED BLESSINGS OF EXALTATION.

SO HOPE THIS HELPS IN SOME SMALL WAY.

FROM JENNIFER: I'll think about the things you've shared. Thank you.

How do we address the pain inflicted by speculation when major leadership changes are announced?

May 2016

The following was an announcement made in the Sandy River Ward prior to the change in that ward's bishopric and the ensuing conversation with my counselors on the subject of speculating.

To the members of the Sandy River Ward,

This is to announce that your ward Bishopric will be reorganized next Sunday, June 5, during Fast and Testimony meeting. 

We cannot express adequately our gratitude for the service of your bishop and his counselors over the past five-and-half years. They have all served so faithfully and blessed your ward with extraordinary dedication and exemplary lives. 

We recognize there is a tendency, when major changes in leadership occur, to speculate on who will now be sustained. Will you please not speculate during the coming week? But join with us in praying that the Lord will bless us with an outpouring of His Spirit so we can come together in a unity of faith and follow His will.

We look forward to worshipping with you on Sunday, June 5.

Sincerely,

The Stake Presidency

President Paul Hansen suggested that there were some chuckles when the announcement was read about not speculating. He added:

That is the 64 dollar question!  I did not want to sound as though it was received poorly.  I do think it is important to have people come to sustain the new bishop and that message was heard and received.  I cannot even influence my brothers and sister and extended family from speculating over the years so I have not been very effective obviously.  I just think we teach the doctrine of calls and releases and the Lord's hand in the work and refrain from speculating personally.  That is really our focus and you model that well so please do not take my report as a negative one.  The Ward is prepared to sustain the new bishopric I felt.  Thx!

My response:

I certainly don’t want to make a major issue of it, but in time I hope we can help members understand how their speculating can be hurtful. if they only knew how hurtful it can be, they would not do it. 

I realize it’s natural to want to “guess right.” But in speculating they must mention the names of brethren they may “favor” or feel it’s “his turn.” To the speculator, it’s a compliment. To the brethren they name, it can be hurtful simply because when the call does not go to them there is a natural tendency to wonder why he was “passed over by the Lord.” Usually it doesn’t take long before we re-group and are grateful we weren’t called as we look at all the work and time the new leader is putting in :) but for some the pain of appearing to be “overlooked by the Lord” can be very real and lingering. 

I feel as strongly about this as I do the pain we can inflict with the traditional Mother’s Day programs (thank you for helping to end or minimize that in our stake). If members only knew how painful these traditions or practices can be on others, they would not continue them. 

I share this much detail with you in hopes we can find ways to teach this without making it major issue that needs to be addressed with a letter or series of talks. But I’d like to do something more than just set an example. We have been called to help all come unto Christ. Inflicting pain on each other, even subtly and unwittingly, keeps us from drawing close to Him.

I appreciate you sharing feelings on the subject and maybe, in time, we can help our stake in this part of becoming one.

Expectations of High Priest Group Leaders and Elders Quorum Presidencies

15 May 2016                                   

TO: All Melchizedek Priesthood Leaders

RE: Expectations of High Priest Group Leaders and Elders Quorum Presidencies

Dear Brethren,

We thank you for your service as the Melchizedek Priesthood leaders in our stake.

As members of the Stake Priesthood Executive Committee (Stake Presidency and High Council), members of a High Priest Group Leadership or Elders Quorum Presidency, we are tasked by the Lord to help everyone in our stake to become “true followers of…Jesus Christ.” (Moroni 7:48)

To fulfill this injunction, we ask that all Melchizedek Priesthood leaders give emphasis to the following three duties outlined in Handbook 2:

·   MINISTER TO OTHERS: (3.2.3) We ask you to make weekly visits, at the time of your choosing, “to minister to individuals and families…(especially to) new members, less-active members, and those who may be lonely or in need of comfort.” We ask your assigned High Councilor to participate with you in these weekly visits.

·   PRESIDENCY MEETINGS: (7.7.2) We ask you to conduct regular (weekly) presidency meetings. We ask your assigned High Councilor to attend the meeting as a resource for you. Please review the six recommended agenda items listed in this same section (7.7.2).

·   GROUP-QUORUM INSTRUCTION: (7.8.1) We ask that group and quorum instruction be improved by (1) calling instructors, if not already in place; and (2) ensuring all instructors, including the group leadership and quorum presidency members, are trained monthly as outlined in “In the Savior’s Way” and under the direction of the ward council.

Brethren, we are grateful for all that you do to encourage, teach and bless the members of your ward. We feel strongly that as we give emphasis to the three areas above, our effectiveness as priesthood leaders will be magnified and even more lives will be blessed.

The Stake Presidency

Family discussion about the presidential elections of 2016

I know we’re all scratching our head as to why so many Americans have fallen under the Trump “spell.” Can that many people be duped? I think so, as I don’t believe he is a man of true character or integrity…but an opportunist driven by ego. Nonetheless a lot of Christians, including LDS, support him despite his antics. 

One of our dear LDS friends, dating back to when we lived in Florida as newly weds, was a Trump supporter from the beginning of his campaign. I never challenged her, hoping his campaign would implode as a result of his absurd comments and offensive put-downs, and he would just go away. So when I received this broadcast email from her today, encouraging all her friends to see this video clip supposedly telling the “true story” behind Donald Trump, I simply wrote her back asking if Trumpet’s horrid  treatment of others, i.e. name calling, put-downs, etc. didn’t bother her.

As you can see below, supporters quickly dismiss Trump's antics as mere “attention getters,” and not indicators of his character. I personally don’t agree with her, but I thought you might also find interesting how some fellow LDS, conservatives can actually think Trump is America’s salvation. 

To this granddaughter Sydney asked "what's wrong with Trump?" and "what's wrong with Bernie Sanders' promise for free education"?

I’ll throw in my two cents on how to respond to Sydney’s questions, but hope others will chime in as well…

FREE EDUCATION: It’s important that we remember that WE the people are the government. It is reflects us. It only exists because of us. And, most importantly, it is supported by us through our taxes. With our money the government takes into itself the collective power of the people, including the power to have guns (police, military, FBI, etc.) which can be used to force its own people to obey the laws. So making laws becomes VERY important and our wise forefathers created a wonderful checks-and-balances system made up of three branches of government —legislative (Congress), executive (President) and judicial (Supreme Court)—so this massive power is spread out three ways in order to prevent government from enslaving its own people through a dictatorship, monarchy, oligarchy, etc.

So the underlying question of every government action: is this a good law for the people?...recognizing each law gives the government the power to force its citizens to obey it.

There is a litmus test each citizen can use (and sadly Congress and everyone else in government never uses) to answer that question. Simply apply the law to yourself and your neighbor.

For instance, we have all accepted that the government, in order to function, must tax its citizens. The litmus test: are you willing to go to your neighbor and, with a policeman standing beside you or even holding a gun in your own hand, ask your neighbor to pay their fair share of taxes? I think most of us recognize that it would be acceptable; not very nice, but acceptable because we all recognize that the duty of citizens is to pay our taxes to support the government to bring order and security in our society, among other benefits.

So, what about free education?

Use the litmus test: would Sydney feel OK going to each of your neighbors and, with a policeman by her side, demand or at least tell her neighbors that she expects them to pay for her education. That’s what Bernie Sanders is championing...that we use the police power, given to the government by its citizens, to force everyone to pay additional taxes so college now becomes free for Sydney and anyone else.

It’s a nice platitude or campaign pitch, but it’s totally unrealistic because of the undue burden it would place on taxpayers and eliminate any incentive for colleges to find ways to reduce costs (like BYU-Idaho) and for students to value their education by working and studying harder.

I’m certain those in academia, including those in our family, will have some strong feelings on this subject and hope they’ll jump in.

VOTE FOR TRUMP? This is going to be one of the toughest questions of all. It will be interesting to see how we all feel in six months. Will Trump’s campaign style change and will he bring forth viable plans for fixing America that will make him more acceptable? Or will we be so disturbed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign promises that we’ll vote for Trump out of fear of Hillary?

Right now, the reason I don’t favor Trump is because I don’t see him as a man of principles. The “whatever it takes” approach to get elected smacks of the “end justifies the means,” which translates into it’s OK to lie, cheat, demean others, offend, falsely accuse, etc. That was Richard Nixon’s downfall in the 1970s. He had convinced himself it was OK to lie and cheat as long as it was for the “good of the country.” That’s what I see in Trump, another Richard Nixon, but even more opportunistic and bombastic.

The Lord’s litmus test for candidates is found in a number of scriptures, including…

D&C 98:10 - “Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.”

D&C 12:8 - "And no one can assist in this work except he shall be humble and full of love, having faith, hope, and charity, being temperate in all things, whatsoever shall beentrusted to his care.” Granted, this is in reference to the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church, but America, as the cradle of the Restoration is, in my opinion, part of God’s work, and as a choice land, above all other lands, we must be a righteous and principled people, a people who must “serve God or (we) shall be swept off.” (Ether 2:10)

In my opinion, Donald Trump is neither a righteous or principled man. And, while he won’t bring down the wrath of God if elected, he (and Hillary, for that matter) will move our nation away from being a Godly people, which is the greatest protection we can provide for America…better than stealth bombers and intercontinental missiles.

I hope this is helpful. I don’t pretend to be the expert or final say on the matter. This is just my opinion.

We love you and are so grateful you want to study these things out and seek guidance from the Lord on these matters, especially at a time where we’re watching foundational freedoms, including religion, attacked from many sides.

Son Dallin then responded:

I can't speak much on higher education economics anymore than a doctor could speak to healthcare economics. I'm inclined to agree with Dad that universal higher education is neither realistic nor a good idea on its own merits. But I do think that public higher education is a cause with supporting, and yes, with tax dollars. As someone who came from a background where college was a given, I agree that asking others to pay for my higher ed isn't justifiable, but there are many I've seen in my teaching for whom college is a real stretch--it's not part of their heritage, they're not familiar with it, they're not plugged in to a legacy system. And debt is not something they are familiar with either, and without viable alternatives, they can easily be taken advantage of (for-profit schools, e.g.). So I do wish states would invest in their colleges more than they are doing. I think part of the reason we've gone away from that is that our political thinking has become much shorter--we think in short election cycles, not in the long term, and it's easy to overlook the economic benefit of subsidizing education early to improve human capital and improve a state's tax base in the very long run.

Ironically, there is one large university who is still committed to this model of public higher ed--where they subsidize the cost of tuition to attract quality students with the expectation that those students will develop their human capital and payback that subsidy tenfold down the road. That's of course BYU.

On Trump, I'd like to hear more from Dad and others on the question of judging a candidate's character. While I'm also sympathetic to the model in D&C 98, in practice such judgments seem very difficult. I think Dad's friend is an example of how easy it is to filter information so that we see a candidate we're already inclined to agree with as more righteous than others. And how do we really know who the virtuous and honest are? Ben Carson, for example, appeared to be the model candidate of moral character--then he endorses Trump and admits he did so for purely political reasons. His campaign kept chugging along long after his chances were nil because, it seems, he kept raking in donations. Then there are really effective, great leaders who are not models of rectitude. Let's be honest: Brigham Young is one of the great leaders of the church who managed the Saints transition to Deseret incredibly--but he was coarse, prone to violent rhetoric, hard on his wives, and just not the kind of guy we'd be inclined to vote for if he was on the ticket today. MLK is another example of a great leader whose private morality was lacking.

In fact, if the model is principles and morals, the candidate we should be supporting here is not Clinton or Trump or Cruz (who is always seeking opportunities to leverage his principles for political gain)...it's Bernie Sanders! Disagree with him as I do on policy, there's no question that he is the most honest, consistent, upstanding candidate in this race.

So I guess my questions are: can we really trust our judgment of a political figure's character? And at what point does our judgment in moral character override our policy preferences? (I'm not a BernieBro, just for the record)

Here's my response:

Thanks to Dallin’s good comments. Let me add what I should have shared in the original email…

Dallin is right that Bernie Sanders may be the candidate among those still standing (or standing within the last two weeks) who lives by principles in his personal life, though I suspect Kasich was equally principled in his life. I really don’t know. 

But integrity, humility and respect for God is only half the equation, when we’re trying to choose good leaders. We must also judge candidates by their understanding of, respect for and alignment with the Constitution. That will be a subjective judgment that can only be made properly when each one of us conducts or our own study of the Constitution. In fact, God holds us accountable to know and understand the Constitution…and to judge righteously, which means we must be living a principled life ourselves (based on God’s laws) and studying the Constitution.

D&C 134:1 - "We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society."

D&C 98:4-9 - 

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

 6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

 7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

 8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

 9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

So while Bernie Sanders may be a man of principle in his personal conduct, in my opinion he is campaigning to ignore the Constitution. I doubt you’ll hear him quote the Constitution very often, if ever. There are many areas that, in my opinion, he undermines the Constitution, but the most significant one is that the Constitution was established to keep government reigned in because our Founding Fathers knew that its easy for government to get out of control and enslave its own people (i.e. burden with taxes, restrict rights, meddle in personal lives, etc.) all in the name of what’s “good for the country.”

D&C 121:39 comes to mind. Governments are made up of people. If people have a nature and disposition to exercise unrighteous dominion when they get “a little authority,” then we should not be surprised when governments act the same way. Governments are naturally inclined to do that. 

In my opinion, one of the litmus tests of candidates is do they want to limit or expand government? Just about all candidates today, regardless of party, want to expand government. Sanders is the biggest offender of all.