Comments on the News

Church Responds to Questions on HBO's Big Love
Various media outlets, 6 March 2006
Over the past few weeks, Church Public Affairs has received numerous calls from newspaper, magazine and TV entertainment writers about a new television series called Big Love. In the series, set in a modern suburb of Salt Lake City, the main character keeps up a deceptive life in a fringe world of polygamy with his three wives and households. Journalists want to know what the Church thinks of the program, the subject matter and HBO’s decision to promote it.

In responding, Church spokesmen have made three major points:

1. Concern for abuse victims
The Church has long been concerned about the illegal practice of polygamy in some communities, and in particular about persistent reports of emotional and physical child and wife abuse emanating from them. It will be regrettable if this program, by making polygamy the subject of entertainment, minimizes the seriousness of that problem and adds to the suffering of abuse victims.

2. Confusion over the continued practice of polygamy
The central characters of Big Love are not “Mormons,” or, more properly termed, Latter-day Saints. HBO has said the script makes it clear that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints don’t practice polygamy. Still, placing the series in Salt Lake City, the international headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is enough to blur the line between the modern Church and the program’s subject matter and to reinforce old and long-outdated stereotypes.

Polygamy was officially discontinued by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1890. Any Church member adopting the practice today is excommunicated. Groups that continue the practice in Utah and elsewhere have no association whatsoever with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most of their practitioners have never been among its members.

Unfortunately, this distinction is often lost on members of the public and even on some senior journalists. When ABC network’s Prime Time recently aired a program focused on the secretive polygamous community of Colorado City, the reporter repeatedly referred to members of the community as “Mormon polygamists.” In response, the Church points to the Associated Press style guide for journalists which states: "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after (Joseph) Smith's death." In other words, polygamous communities should never be referred to as "Mormon" polygamists or “Mormon” fundamentalists.

3. Concern over the moral standards of television entertainment
Despite its popularity with some, much of today’s television entertainment shows an unhealthy preoccupation with sex, coarse humor and foul language. Big Love, like so much other television programming, is essentially lazy and indulgent entertainment that does nothing for our society and will never nourish great minds. Parents who are casual about their viewing habits ought not to be surprised if teaching moral choices and civic values to their children becomes harder as a result.

For that reason and others, Church leaders have consistently cautioned against such entertainment, joining with other religious, education and government leaders in inviting individuals and families to follow a higher road of decency, self-discipline and integrity.

Voice of the Church

"In Search of Atticus Finch"

Elder Lance B. Wickman

Of the Quorum of the Seventy

Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law Society Devotional

10 February 2006


The journey that brought me to the profession of the law was more odyssey than freeway. From the time that I was a young boy, my mother wanted me to be a lawyer, which was interesting because we had no other family members on any branch of the family tree who were lawyers. Unlike some others here present, I had no father or uncle who took me to his law office as a child. I don't recall ever hefting a law book until my first day as a 1L. There were no Socratic discussions at the dinner table of my youth. All I can recall is my mother's counsel: Go into law.


For one thing, having come of age in the Great Depression, she saw an occupational independence in the legal profession. "You can always hang out your shingle as a lawyer," she would say. But there was much more than that behind her admiration for the profession. She saw the law, and those who follow its profession, as a force for good. In her mind there was a nobility associated with it. She saw it as a worthy calling and thought she saw in me the "right stuff" for such a calling.


But I was unpersuaded. As an undergraduate I flirted somewhat with the possibility of going to law school after graduation. But in that season of life, I was drawn more to the prospect of becoming a soldier. So when a commission in the regular army was offered upon graduation, I accepted it. Thus began a turbulent five years. One tour of duty in Vietnam followed another. And somewhere in the midst of the turbulence the idea of becoming a lawyer re-emerged in my mind. My mother's counsel of years before began to resonate. I decided that when the war was past I wanted to become a lawyer. But swept along as I was by the overpowering currents of the Vietnam War, I felt like a man caught in a riptide. The goal seemed far off, unreachable. I felt like events were sweeping me farther and farther away. There were times when I wondered if I would ever return, if this newly realized dream would ever happen.


But at last it did happen. I still remember vividly purchasing my case books at the Stanford bookstore before the first day of class. I was so grateful to be there! Really, it felt like Christmas! For many of my classmates, starting law school was just another year of school. But for me it was a time of gratitude, of answered prayers. I can honestly say that I enjoyed law school. Oh, sure, by my third year I was anxious to move on from school to actual law practice, but I thoroughly enjoyed the law school experience. I enjoyed my years of law practice with a very fine law firm. And for more than a decade now, I have felt privileged to serve as the general counsel of the Church.


But in all of my years of affiliation with the profession of the law, I have had many occasions to ponder wherein lies the nobility that my mother thought she saw in it so many years ago. Wherein lies the deep but often elusive satisfaction that can and ought to come to those who are associated with the profession? With cascading reports of disenchantment, or burnout, as it is now called, within the ranks of those who have come to the bar, it would seem that finding that nobility — and the accompanying satisfaction — is anything but a unique or simple quest.


And so I should like to say something this evening about that quest. I should like to say something tonight about finding the "profession" in the profession of the law. To that end, I have entitled my remarks "In Search of Atticus Finch."


After preparing these remarks, I learned quite by chance that my selection of title is not new! In fact, I have discovered that there is an excellent book of the same title on the subject of lawyer ethics by Mike Papantonio.1 So much for originality! However, I can assure you that the ideas expressed in these remarks are all mine, and I alone am responsible for them.


Tom Robinson was guilty. That was the popular verdict in Maycomb County, Alabama, even before he went on trial. There wasn't really any question about it. Miss Mayella Ewell had been assaulted. And her father, Bob Ewell, claimed to have returned home just in time to see Tom disappearing out the door of their cabin with Mayella screaming. Perhaps more to the point, Tom Robinson was black. Mayella Ewell was white. And in Maycomb in 1932 that color scheme added up to guilt — an open-and-shut case. Some even wondered why it was necessary to have a trial at all. Just string Tom Robinson up from the water tower and be done with it.


Enter Atticus Finch. Having descended from the founding fathers of Maycomb County, Atticus' birthright made him one of the county's leading citizens. He had read law in Montgomery, obtained his law license, married, saw two children born — a boy and a girl — and, while they were yet small, lost his wife to a heart attack. Atticus Finch hung out his shingle in a tiny office at the Maycomb County courthouse. His first two clients, the Haverford boys, were hanged for murdering the local blacksmith in the presence of witnesses in a dispute over a horse. Atticus had urged them to accept the county's offer of a plea to second-degree murder and a prison sentence. But the Haverfords, who were never accused of having the sense Providence had bestowed upon a goose, refused, insisting instead on placing their fate in the "he had it coming" defense. So Atticus' only meaningful service in that case had turned out to be attendance at the hanging ceremony.


The whole experience had left him with a strong distaste for criminal law. Atticus preferred helping common people resolve the common problems of life, often taking payment of his fee in kind, such as a bag of hickory nuts or some such. He was not wealthy by any means, but he provided a roof and meals and other necessities for his family. He was satisfied.


So when the trial judge approached him and asked him to defend Tom Robinson as a public service, Atticus was not enthusiastic. But Atticus Finch was above all else a man of principle. He believed that the law exists to serve the interests of the people, who created it in the first place. As an officer of the court, he believed that a lawyer's first duty is to assist in the administration of justice. He believed that in a real sense the rights of the Tom Robinsons of the world are the rights of everyman. If Tom could not be assured a vigorous defense, no one else could either. So Atticus Finch, lawyer, took the case.


By now many of you will have recognized this recitation as a creature of fiction. In one sense, Atticus Finch and Tom Robinson live only in the pages of Harper Lee's Pulitzer Prize–winning masterpiece, To Kill a Mockingbird, and in the classic motion picture by the same title, starring the late, great Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch. But in another, more important sense Atticus Finch lives! He must live! Should the day ever come that he ceases to exist, the profession of the law also would cease to exist, because Atticus Finch is the embodiment of what it means to be a professional in the law.


How so? What is a "professional" anyway? In our 21st-century vernacular, the word is seen as synonymous with competence. In one dimension it means possessing a particularized set of skills beyond those found commonly in the general populace. Often it means advanced education, qualifying examinations and certification. "Know how." "Board certified." "Admitted to the bar." "MD." "CPA." "NFL." "NBA." "The National Academy." These are all words, initials and phrases commonly found in the context of any reference to a professional.


But in the law especially there is another dimension. Being a professional is more, much more, than possessing a set of skills, a license or the initials "JD." Being a lawyer means more than being a skilled advocate, more than a legal technician, more than an architect of business transactions. The lawyer has taken an oath — a solemn oath, administered by a judicial officer — to uphold the Constitution and the principles, rights and privileges enshrined in the laws of his state and nation. He is, above all else, an officer of the court — a servant and preserver of the law. No less than the judge who sits upon the bench, the lawyer who stands at bar has pledged his talents, his knowledge, his experience, his very life to advance and defend the cause of "justice for all." If he is also able to provide a living for his family, all the better. This is the ideal embodied in Atticus Finch.


One can only wonder what Atticus would think if, like Rip Van Winkle, he should awaken from a long nap and find himself not in the Maycomb County of 1932, but in the courtrooms, boardrooms and law-office suites of the 21st century. "Billed hours," "bottom lines," "originations and proliferations," "partner tracks" and other law business buzz-words and -phrases doubtless would be mystifying to a man who was happy to take his modest fee in a sack of hickory nuts. More mystifying still would be the "Go ahead, make my day" lawsuit craze and the overzealous and "take no prisoners" litigation strategies that infect and threaten to overwhelm our courthouses. In an age when the phrase "officer of the court" has become quaint and lawyers are too often known more for their extravagant lifestyles than their service to the people and the cause of justice, Atticus Finch would indeed stand bewildered.


Some years ago, I served on the Stanford Law School Board of Visitors. We met annually at the law school for two or three days of meetings with faculty and students. One year, the Friday evening event was a dinner of the board with the first-year law school class. The guest of honor was Justice Stephen Breyer of the United States Supreme Court. He was of course the featured speaker at the dinner. Justice Breyer gave a marvelous address — seemingly off the cuff, although I am quite sure it had been carefully prepared — on the subject of a lawyer's professional obligation to serve the best interests of the people. His theme was that there must be much more to law practice than billing hours and collecting fees. There must be time to give back to the community in professional service. He asked the rhetorical question as to why public esteem for lawyers is low (and why the public esteem for Congress is even lower!). He noted that, by contrast, public regard for the army is quite high.


He said: "I asked Derek Bok [who was the president of Harvard University] why this was the case. He didn't know either, but expressed the view that the army is seen as not being in it for itself." What he meant was that those who serve in the armed forces — professionals — are devoted in their service to their country. There is no evident greed or self-promotion as they perform their duties. This is a thought-provoking idea!


Certainly it is true that professional soldiers are not in it for themselves, and yet even they may not be highly regarded or even considered much in the public square until the war trumpet sounds. This phenomenon was captured lyrically in Rudyard Kipling's immortal poem "Tommy," which was a tribute to the selfless service of the British soldier of the 19th century. Here are just two stanzas that capture the flavor of the sentiment:



I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play—
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play.

***

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll—
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.2




We in the United States have witnessed this same phenomenon in recent years, as young men and women in uniform — professionals as well as citizen-soldiers — have found themselves in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Often unappreciated in peacetime, their devotion to a higher duty than themselves in wartime has earned them the overwhelming appreciation of the nation.


But even the army struggles to maintain its tradition of selfless professionalism in this egocentric society of the 21st century. In an insightful and thought-provoking essay entitled "Army Professionalism, the Military Ethic, and Officership in the 21st Century," published in 2000, two professors at West Point express their views about what they contend is an ascendancy within the army of a so-called "force protection" ethic — an academic euphemism for an inclination on the part of soldiers to exalt the preservation of their own lives over the army's traditional "mission first" ethic. A number of factors explaining this alleged phenomenon are addressed in the essay. But of some relevance to us in the legal profession is this observation about our contemporary postmodern society:



What many call "post modernism" is best thought of as a complex collection of beliefs and theories that, in essence, reject the idea that there is any such thing as objective truth, ethical or otherwise. Without an objective standard, "truth" is then left to the individual or group to decide and thus becomes relative to their desires and beliefs. This has undermined the earlier consensus among Americans that any particular belief can actually be wrong.


Of course, not all Americans embrace such relativism, but often what arises in its place is an unreflective egoism, which is best characterized as the belief that what is morally good is "what is best for me." Rather than the relative standard that post modernism offers, egoism is an objective standard against which to measure conduct. Its basic premise is everyone should do those things, and only those things, that they perceive are good for them.3


Whatever pertinence that observation about postmodernism and egoism may have in the profession of arms, it seems to me that it is profoundly applicable in the legal profession. Lawyers too can empathize with the Tommy of Kipling's poetry. We too endure the so-called lawyer jokes and snide comments — sometimes good natured, sometimes not. But well might we ask how far the parallel to "Tommy" extends. In the public's mind, after the humor is there ever an occasion for gratitude, even redemption, for those following the profession of the law? Do we ever have our "thin red line of 'eroes"? If not, why not? Could there be, if we in the profession devoted ourselves more to actually being professional? President James E. Faust — himself a very distinguished lawyer during an earlier season of his life — once humorously remarked to me in a private moment, "Lance, you and I can't laugh at the lawyer jokes because we know that most of them are true!"


True or not, is not this humor based to some degree in those same postmodern and egoistic trends within the legal profession that may be infecting other social institutions, like the army? Is there not a justifiable public perception, as Justice Breyer noted, that lawyers are seen as "in it" for themselves? Is it not true that too many of our brothers and sisters in the law — and perhaps even we ourselves — measure our sworn duty as officers of the court against the "What is best for me?" standard? Where, indeed, is Atticus Finch in the 21st century?


My own view is that Atticus lives! We — each of us — just need to coax him out of the shadows. As Justice Breyer put it to us in his remarks at Stanford, "Why not five days of billings and one for service?" I look into the faces of those assembled here in the Conference Center. I try to imagine those of you gathered at other locations, participating by satellite. And I see some of the very finest people ever to walk the earth. The crème de la crème! The best of the best! Here is a gathering of men and women at law with spouses and friends who, as Latter-day Saints, are already committed to the principle of service after the manner of the Savior. In the priesthood quorums, auxiliaries, stakes, wards and branches of the Church, those here assembled represent hundreds of thousands of hours of service in the kingdom of God. Do we not also have within us a few hours to give as officers of the court, as true professionals in the profession of the law?


Opportunities abound. For one thing, there are genuine pro bono service opportunities just waiting to be filled. I have been gratified to learn that a growing number of chapters of the J. Reuben Clark Law Society are seeking out such opportunities. To you I say, bravo! Additionally, many law firms have developed programs allowing their members and associates to devote professional time in public service. Bravo! again.


But I think there are other opportunities for true professional service that go beyond such organized efforts to render legal services to the poor and the indigent. I refer to what could be called, in the spirit of Atticus Finch, "sack of hickory nuts" service — that is, providing some services for those who can pay something, but not the stratospheric fees that are becoming the norm rather than the exception in the law business. There is a large segment of our society, neither rich nor poor, which often goes unrepresented (or at least underrepresented) at bar. These are the proverbial "just plain folks" who work hard, struggle on modest means to raise their children and provide for their own old age. These are they who simply do not have a waiting financial reserve when the unexpected encounter with the legal system occurs, but neither do they stand destitute at the doorway of the courthouse and thus eligible for free services. They also need the services of a professional, a lawyer. What about them?

In my experience, at least, the biggest challenge to the spirit of public service that in the Atticus Finch tradition is the very essence of the legal profession is the egoistic "What's in it for me?" attitude that often stalks the hallways and conference rooms of profits-mesmerized law offices and firms. Billing rates continue to rise to match the sense of financial entitlement held by too many lawyers — and their families! And — can I say this without using an overly broad tar brush? — some law firm pro bono programs may be motivated as much by a desire to be "seen of men" as by a genuine desire to render "alms" in the form of legal services. Those who practice law solely for the money or the acclaim, in the words of the Master, "have their reward."4

So without in any way condemning any selfless professional service rendered to anyone in need, may I just point out that there are some real opportunities for "sack of hickory nuts" service among the ranks of the great middle classes of society. And I speak to those of you in the great, institutional law firms, as well as those in smaller firms and sole proprietorships. A will expertly drawn for an elderly widow who has not much money, but who can bake the best apple pie on the planet! Accepting a hundred dollars as full payment from an anguished father and mother whose teenage son has gotten on the wrong side of the law in some adolescent miscreance. Receiving a modest line of credit as payment from a struggling tradesman or small merchant for helping him solve a commercial dispute. Such charity from a legal professional is in the highest tradition of what it means to be an officer of the court. It is service that would resonate with Atticus Finch.


But there is yet another, even more fundamental dimension to lawyer professionalism. I have struggled to encapsulate it in a single phrase with only limited success. The best I can do without circumscribing too narrowly what I am referring to is simply this: standing for goodness. Doing the right thing — not because it is profitable, not because it looks good, not even because the bar association has included it in a code of conduct or set of ethical standards — but doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing! On my office desk is a framed quotation attributable to President Harry S. Truman. It states simply, "When in doubt, do what's right." That, I believe, is the spirit of Atticus Finch.


Standing for goodness — doing the right thing — is a personal philosophy that covers a multitude of virtues. It begins at the everyday level with just common courtesy and pleasantness. Recently I read a number of codes of professionalism promulgated by various states. Universally they include something like this: "Lawyers should exhibit courtesy, candor and cooperation in dealing with the public and participating in the legal system." Or: "Lawyers should avoid hostile, demeaning or humiliating words in written and oral communications with adversaries." I shook my head sadly, not at these declarations, which are commendable in sentiment, but at the notion that a "sandbox" or Sunday School lesson like treating others decently needs any mention at all in a professional code of those sworn to serve the public interest. For you and me — for men and women at law who weekly covenant to take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ, to keep His commandments and to always remember Him — such codes should be unnecessary. Standing for goodness is something that should just be part of who we are. Like Atticus Finch.


This matter of standing for goodness as reflected in one's civility towards others is not mere idealism. It is also practical and, in my experience at least, one of the very first evidences of a true professional. A number of years ago while practicing law in San Diego I was invited to participate in a bar association committee that was drafting one of these codes of conduct. The association also decided that it wanted to establish an annual award for the lawyer whose skill and integrity best exemplified the maxim "His word is his bond." The first such award was given to a very good friend of mine, who I regarded as perhaps the finest civil trial lawyer in San Diego.


I attended the bar association dinner in his honor where the award was to be presented. Numerous fine tributes were paid to this able and good man by lawyers who were his partners and by those who had been his opponents. Finally, it was his turn for a response. He said this: "When I was a new lawyer, just starting out, I went to Judge Louis Welch [who had been one of the deans of the superior court bench] and asked for his advice. He answered with five words: 'The decided are always gentle.' " What a lesson! The decided are always gentle! Gentility, cordiality, understatement, honesty — these are all evidences of a gentle-man or -woman. They are the marks of integrity in one committed to standing for goodness. And, in my experience at least, they are invariably the marks of an opponent to be reckoned with! They are the very first signs of a true professional in the law.


And sometimes, standing for goodness is not easy, as Atticus Finch knew. Sometimes it means standing up for justice, for doing the right thing, even when it is difficult.


The news in July 1942 was bleak on every hand. Only six months earlier, air and naval forces of the Empire of Japan had left the U.S. Pacific Fleet a smoking ruin at Pearl Harbor. A seemingly invincible Japanese juggernaut had advanced the boundaries of the Japanese empire throughout Asia and the islands of the Pacific and was literally knocking at Australia's door. In Europe, the invincible Nazi war machine had advanced hundreds of miles into the Russian heartland, seizing Stalingrad on the Volga River. Except for a brilliant naval victory at Midway in June, the United States had hardly gotten into the game. And in New York City, Anthony Cramer, a former German national, was charged with high treason for allegedly aiding a group of Nazi saboteurs. Public sentiment cried out for Cramer's prompt conviction.


Into that grim situation stepped Harold R. Medina, one of New York's best-known trial lawyers. A federal judge asked Medina to represent Cramer. As Medina later recalled: "He told me that Cramer was wholly without means to hire any lawyer, that it was important to demonstrate to the American people and to the world that, under our system of American Justice, the poor man is just as much entitled to the advice of competent counsel as is a man with plenty of money. He explained that he wanted me to defend the accused as a patriotic duty."5 Without hesitation Medina accepted the unpaid assignment.


It was a delicate and courageous endeavor. Many in the public, even some friends, thought he was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Others thought he was just in it for the money. But burning deeply in Harold Medina's heart was the principle embodied in the Sixth Amendment that assures every accused the able assistance of legal counsel. So devoted was Harold Medina to this (and all other) provisions of the Constitution that he refused to say or do anything to betray doubt in his client's cause, even refusing to acknowledge that he was a court-appointed attorney. Years later he said: "I had made up my mind from the beginning that not one word should come from my lips to give the jury the impression that I was anything other than a lawyer retained by Cramer to defend him. He was entitled to the best defense we could give him. He was entitled to the full advantage of everything which went with the fact that I was standing by his side as his lawyer. Nor did I want the jury to think for even one moment that perhaps I thought Cramer was guilty but was defending him only because I had been assigned by the court to do it."6 On May 15, 1947, President Truman nominated Harold R. Medina as a federal district judge. Four years later he presided at the marathon trial of 11 top-ranking American Communists accused of advocating the violent overthrow of that same Constitution. Eventually he succeeded the eminent Judge Learned Hand as a judge of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.


The cover of Time magazine for October 24, 1949, carried the picture of Judge Harold Medina. The caption read, "A certain calm and peace of mind." Truly — the decided are always gentle.


Atticus Finch's decision to defend Tom Robinson was anything but popular. Some accused him, in less elegant tones than these, of being a "lover" of the black race. There was even an attempt on the lives of his two children. But Atticus Finch was a true professional. His love of the law was more than a mere flirtation, more than an occasional dalliance, certainly more than a marriage of convenience. His was a deep and profound devotion to the idea of justice and to the bedrock principle underlying it of charity and the worth of each soul. Tom Robinson was a man. As such, in his earnest protestations of innocence he deserved to be taken seriously. As was the right of any man — rich or poor, white or black or brown, honored or despised — Tom Robinson was entitled to the full requirement of the law that the government's case against him be established beyond a reasonable doubt.


And there was plenty of doubt. Evidence at the trial revealed that Tom Robinson had a withered arm, making it highly unlikely, if not altogether impossible, that he could have committed the alleged crime. And Tom's own compelling testimony was that he had been lured into the Ewell cabin by a seductive Mayella on the pretense of performing a small chore for her — a seduction, like that of Joseph in Egypt, that he had firmly resisted.


Atticus' closing argument was even more compelling — marshaling the facts convincingly; showing that Mayella was likely under the abusive influence of Bob Ewell (who turned out to be the real aggressor); and ultimately dragging into the sunlight the racism that lurked in the shadows of Maycomb County. It was magnificent.


But in Maycomb in 1932, it was not enough. Tom Robinson was convicted. Unable to face the prospect of a lifetime in jail, Tom fled while being transported to jail and was shot dead in the attempt. What possible good was served by Atticus Finch's taking that case? In the end Tom Robinson was dead anyway. Atticus' own relationship with some in the white community was strained. His children barely escaped the attempt on their lives. And Atticus certainly was not any richer: he had represented Tom Robinson for free as a public service. For those who measure value according to the egoistic "What's in it for me?" standard, nothing good came from that ill-fated representation.


But there is another standard of valuation — a nobler, deeper, richer, infinitely more satisfying standard; a standard that only the true professional, the genuine officer of the court, can appreciate. It is profoundly portrayed in the film version of the story about Atticus Finch and Tom Robinson. During the trial, the black community of Maycomb had been present, not on the main floor of the courtroom but in the steaming balcony and outside at the windows. Now picture this: The verdict has been announced, the defendant led away. The judge, the lawyers for the county and the white audience have all departed. Only Atticus Finch remains in the courtroom proper, slowly putting papers into his briefcase. But in the balcony the black audience remains, silent and still. Atticus' two children are with them. As Atticus Finch rises and slowly walks from the courtroom, the entire black population, as though on signal from an unseen hand, arises to its feet in quiet reverence and gratitude — gratitude to a great and good man, an ordinary man perhaps, but a great one. A professional.


Says the black preacher to the two Finch children at his side: "Stand up, children. Your father is passing."

Family Responsibilities

Bonnie D. Parkin
Relief Society General President
If I could have one thing happen for parents and leaders of this Church, it would be that they feel the love of the Lord in their lives each day as they care for Heavenly Father’s children. It may not be something that I say that touches your heart, but what the Spirit whispers to you. Follow those sweet promptings.

I distinctly remember when the proclamation on the family was given: September 23, 1995. I was seated in the Tabernacle at the general Relief Society meeting. President Hinckley was the concluding speaker. He presented “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” Stillness was in the congregation but also a sense of excitement, a reaction of “Yes—we need help with our families!”

I remember feeling it was so right. Tears ran down my cheeks. As I looked at the sisters seated near me, they seemed to be experiencing similar feelings. There was so much in the proclamation that I couldn’t wait to get a copy and study it. The proclamation affirms the dignity of women. And to think that it was first given to the women of the Church at the general Relief Society meeting—I know President Hinckley values women.

We are all here as Church leaders. We’re busy. But I have to remember—just like you do—that our first responsibility is to our own family. Remember, they are one of the few blessings we get to take with us to the eternities!1 Newel K. Whitney was a bishop in the early Church in Kirtland. Like you bishops today, he must have been pretty busy doing lots of good things. But he was chastened by the Lord and commanded to “set in order his family” (D&C 93:50; italics added). Sisters and brothers, this counsel applies to all of us.

Many of you are parents or grandparents, or someday you may be. But married or not, we are all members of families. Take a minute and think about your own family. What do you love about them? One thing I love about mine is I rejoice that my four sons love to be together.

What doctrine on the family does the proclamation teach? I’d like to focus on one paragraph: “By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.”2

I love the words “by divine design.” Parenting is part of our Heavenly Father’s divine design for His children. As parents, we have divine responsibility to provide, protect, and nurture our families.

How can these guidelines—to provide, protect, and nurture—help us to rear righteous children?

Provide
The proclamation says parents provide “the necessities of life.” But what are those necessities? Yes, they are a roof overhead, and they are food on the table. But because of the gospel plan, we know there is more than that. They include skills—the things that build character. Let’s look at just a few.

We provide for our children as we teach them how to work. Let me tell you about my grandson Jacob. He did not want to go to school. His mother had tried so many things. Finally she sat him down and said, “Daddy’s job is to go to work and earn money. My job is to stay home and take care of you and your brothers and sister. And your job, Jacob, is to go to school.” When Jacob understood the principle, he accepted it and went to school.

We also teach our children to work by expecting them to do chores and, when appropriate, to work outside the home. We help our children provide for their lifetimes by teaching them the value of work. Start early! My husband says the greatest gift his father gave him was independence—because he taught him to work.

Managing our finances also helps us to be good providers. As parents, plan together to live on a budget. Teach your children the difference between wants and needs. Don’t place unreasonable financial demands on your spouse. When President Hinckley counseled us to get out of debt, a father I know sat down with his married children and asked them about their finances. He was surprised to find that two had serious debt. He then asked them if he could help them make a plan.

Education and training enable parents to provide. Encourage your children to get all the education they can. In some countries, young people cannot qualify for Perpetual Education Fund loans because they have not completed secondary schooling. In today’s world, it is so important that parents continue to learn.

Protect
The second guideline I would like to talk about is protect. Protection from what? From harm—both physical and spiritual. We protect when we teach our children that they have divine worth, when we go to church as a family, when we have family home evening, when we have family prayer, when we study the scriptures together. That’s all pretty simple stuff, but I testify to you that it provides powerful protection.

The proclamation teaches that parents have a sacred duty to protect their children. Abuse can be emotional, such as talking down to a spouse or a child, treating them as worthless, or withholding love and affection. Fathers do not protect their families when they beat or strike their wives or children. A West African sister said that before joining the Church, her father beat her mother and the children. “Now,” she said, “he treats us with respect and tenderness because he understands we are children of God.”

Parents protect their children by knowing their choice of friends. One teenage girl was angry when her father questioned her about her evening’s activities. The father explained that the proclamation said he should be a protector of his family and that he loved his daughter, and that was why he wanted to be sure she was safe.

We must also protect our children from the influences of the media. Know what your children are watching on the television, in the theaters, and in their friends’ homes. If you have a computer in your home, make sure it is a tool for those things that are “virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy” (Articles of Faith 1:13).

We are protected as we follow the living prophet. How have you been protected as a family by following President Hinckley’s counsel to read the Book of Mormon? I recently received a note from a sister in England. She wrote:

“My family has struggled in the last year with a father who has chosen not to attend church any longer. He has been active all his life and has been in bishoprics. My heart has cried to the Lord about what I can do to not feel resentment and bitterness. I have family home evening and prayer on my own with the children. While in the temple I felt prompted, because of the challenge to read the Book of Mormon, to not have scripture time alone with the children but take the children and the scriptures to my husband, wherever he may be in the house. So off we march, every night at 9:00, to find him. He reads with us—not at first, but now he does. He is coming to church, meeting with us in family home evening, and leading gospel discussions. My children were the Lord’s feet and carried the words of redeeming love to my husband. This has been a great blessing to my family.”

Nurture
The third and the last guideline is nurture. What does nurturing look like? What does it feel like? What does it sound like? Nurturing looks like, feels like, and sounds like this scripture: “By persuasion, by long- suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness” (D&C 121:41–42). Let me share just a few examples.

I think nurturing looks like disciplining with love. One young mother stops her child when he doesn’t obey. She cups her hands around his face, looking him in the eyes, and says, “Listen to my words.” We must teach our children to make wise choices, but we can’t remove the consequences of their actions. Remember, the basis of our Heavenly Father’s plan is agency.

What does nurturing feel like? Much of the teaching and relationship building in families takes place in those brief, unplanned moments during our daily routine. The dinner table is a place to connect with each other, share our daily activities, listen to and encourage each other, and even laugh together. I know laughter lightens the load. Dear mothers and fathers, make a regular mealtime for the people you love.

Are you done parenting when your children are all grown and on their own? No, the deal is that you’re never done. But we’re in this great business of creating eternal families. While my husband and I were serving a mission in England, one of our sons and his family came to visit. I remember him saying, “We came because we needed to be nurtured.” Once a parent, always a parent. Isn’t that the best? As I finished reading the Book of Mormon in December, I was struck with the realization that even Mormon counseled his adult son Moroni: “My son, be faithful in Christ; . . . may Christ lift thee up . . . and his mercy and long-suffering, and the hope of his glory and eternal life, rest in your mind forever” (Moroni 9:25).

What does nurturing sound like? Sometimes it’s hard to get more than one-word answers from a teenager. Here’s a question that I’ve found to be extremely helpful in changing that: “What is the biggest challenge or struggle you have right now?” This question opens the door for youth to share. And when they do, just listen! Don’t judge or counsel or anything else. Just listen. You’ll be amazed at the connections and bonds that will be formed. Bishops and counselors, this very same question can be powerful as you interview the youth in your wards.

Nurturing sounds like family prayer. One of my most lasting memories of my father is kneeling with my brothers and sister by my parents’ bed in their small room and hearing my father plead with Heavenly Father to bless our mother, who was in the hospital. Hearing my father pour out his heart helped me know that there was a God in heaven who listens. Pray for your children about their schoolwork and for their protection during the day. Our children know of our love and expectations when they hear us pray for them.

Strengthening Families
As a leader, how do you strengthen and support the families of those you serve? You can use those same guidelines—provide, protect, and nurture—to strengthen your ward families.

Leaders support parents by honoring them, not by stepping in front to take over a child. You can be a mentor, you can share like interests, but defer to how the parents would like to have things done. One mother shared: “It has often seemed to me that the last people my teenage sons wanted to listen to were my husband and me. At times, my sons, yielding to peer pressures, have turned the parent volume down. I’m thankful for wise Church leaders who have counseled our sons. They never took over our role as parents. They listened but gave support to our guidance and redirected them back to us.”

As families, we all have needs. Just a few heartfelt words about mothers who parent alone: Let me share with you the story of a mother of five whose husband was deployed overseas. She relates:

“When my husband left in early February, we had reliable vehicles. However, by November, they had broken down, and we were not able to repair them. During this same time, my 17-year-old son let me know that he wasn’t planning to serve a mission because he wasn’t sure if the gospel was true. If ever there was a time in my life that I needed the blessings of the priesthood, it was then. I don’t remember all the details or when and where, but I distinctly remember receiving more than one blessing from caring priesthood holders during that time. I always knew that I could call on my home teachers and they would be there. Neither one could fix my van, but they could give me much-needed priesthood blessings, and they found someone who could fix the car.”

Devoted home teachers made a difference for this family, and they can make a difference for all single-parent families as they come to know them, gain their trust, and provide priesthood blessings. Bishops, high priests group leaders, and elders quorum presidents, these mothers need the blessings of the priesthood in their home, as do our remarkable single sisters.

President Hinckley warned about the “slow stain of the world” 10 years ago when the proclamation was issued. This prophetic declaration reaffirms the Lord’s “standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family.”3 In contrast, the world tries to dictate the roles of women and motherhood. Women today are told they need a thriving career, organizations to belong to, and, if they have resources, children. The honored role of mother is increasingly out of fashion. Let me make it clear: we must not allow the world to compromise what we know is given to us by divine design.

Sisters, let me speak directly to you for just a few minutes. As members of the Relief Society of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is our blessing and our responsibility to nurture and sustain the family unit. Everyone belongs to a family, and every family needs to be strengthened and protected.

My greatest help in becoming a homemaker came first from my own mother and grandmother and next from the Relief Society sisters in the different wards where we have lived. I learned skills; I saw modeled the joys that come from creating a home where others want to be. Effective January 2006, there were new guidelines for home, family, and personal enrichment meetings and activities. They provide increased flexibility in order for all sisters to participate in Relief Society. Now, Relief Society leaders, make sure that the meetings and the activities you plan will strengthen the homes of all your sisters.

Visiting teaching is another vehicle to support the family. I hope all of you have opportunity to be visiting teachers. Visiting teachers not only strengthen a sister spiritually but are also in a unique position to nurture and to assess needs. Relief Society leaders, be proactive in your welfare committee meetings, and report on spiritual and temporal needs identified by your visiting teachers.

The Pure Love of Christ
For those of you who are married, think back. What made you fall in love with your spouse? Remembering this can give you a forgiving heart. Express your love to each other. A wife can make a difference in her husband’s life as she builds his self-confidence. A husband can brighten even the darkest day with three simple words: “I love you.” One of the greatest gifts parents can give their children is to show them they love each other.

Our role as parents in rearing righteous children is to provide, protect, and nurture, and we do that as equal partners. We do the same as leaders. Being a leader is hard work. Being a parent is hard work. We get discouraged, but we just keep going. I think we learn so much about the pure love of Christ in our families and through Church service.

As parents and leaders, we need to give to our children the love our Heavenly Father extends to us. In Moroni 8:17 we read, “I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love.” Add to this the Lord’s words: “Clothe yourselves with the bond of charity, as with a mantle, which is the bond of perfectness and peace” (D&C 88:125). I invite you, in all of your dealings, to put on the mantle of charity, to envelop your family in the pure love of Christ.

As families and leaders, may the Lord bless you to encircle those you love with the mantle of charity, that all of us may return to the presence of our Father in Heaven and live with Him together forever. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

A Solemn Responsibility to Love and Care for Each Other

The subject I have been assigned is the following sentence from the proclamation on the family: “Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children.”1 I want to approach this subject in a very different manner than you might be familiar with in other training meetings. I will not quote much from handbooks; instead, I want to talk to you heart to heart about your service in our Father in Heaven’s kingdom. The purpose will be to see if together we can better understand how to balance our responsibilities to love and care for our families with the other special callings our Father in Heaven has given to us.

As the Church was being organized on April 6, 1830, the Prophet Joseph Smith received a revelation that is now recorded in the 21st section of the Doctrine and Covenants. A portion of the revelation reads:

“Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ,

“Being inspired of the Holy Ghost to lay the foundation thereof, and to build it up unto the most holy faith. . . .

“Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

“For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith” (D&C 21:1–2, 4–5).

Among the first instructions given to this newly organized Church was to follow the inspiration and revelation that comes from the Lord, through His prophet, in fulfilling our responsibilities to build His kingdom. He has promised to direct us in the course that should be ours to carry on this great work.

The Prophet’s Counsel
I think President Gordon B. Hinckley, our prophet today, gave us the key to balance our responsibilities in an earlier worldwide leadership training meeting, held on June 21, 2003. In that broadcast he stated:

“Yours . . . is the privilege of standing in the shadow of the Redeemer of the world as we carry forward this work. Yours is the opportunity to speak of the beauty of the atoning blood of the Lord Jesus Christ in behalf of His sons and daughters. Could there be a greater privilege than this?

“Rejoice in the privilege which is yours. Your opportunity will not last forever. Too soon there will be only the memory of the great experience you are now having.

“None of us will accomplish all we might wish to. But let us do the best we can. I am satisfied that the Redeemer will then say, ‘Well done, thou good and faithful servant’ (Matthew 25:21).”2

As you remember, in that broadcast he explained our fourfold responsibility. The first applies to the subject we are addressing in this broadcast. He stated:

“First, it is imperative that you not neglect your families. Nothing you have is more precious. Your wives and your children are deserving of the attention of their husbands and fathers. When all is said and done, it is this family relationship which we will take with us into the life beyond. To paraphrase the words of scripture, ‘What shall it profit a man though he serve the Church faithfully and lose his own family?’ (see Mark 8:36).”3

This has been a continuing message from our prophets since the early days of the organization of the Church. The most important place for gospel teaching and leadership is in the family and in the home. If we follow these instructions, we will give assignments and plan programs, activities, and classes which will complement and support our families.

Establishing Proper Priorities
How we use our time and keep our lives in balance is fundamental to how we will perform our family duties and our Church service. Discipline yourself to follow the prophet’s counsel on how you prioritize the use of your time.

Your Eternal Companion

Begin by discussing with your eternal companion how much time you need together to strengthen your marriage, to demonstrate the love you have for each other. That is your first priority.

The Church is to help individuals and families come unto Christ and obtain eternal life. Eternal life is God’s greatest gift to His children, and it is obtained only through a family relationship. This relationship must start with the union between husband and wife, which is sacred to the Lord and is something not to be trifled with. The marriage covenant is essential for the Lord’s plan and is the purpose for which He created the heavens and the earth. In all periods of history, He has given His divine law to safeguard and protect the holy union between husband and wife.

Your Children

Second, consider the spiritual needs of your children. How much time is necessary to be certain you are being close to them? It is your responsibility as fathers and mothers to provide adequate time to teach them, for the most important instruction children will ever receive should come from their parents. We need to be familiar with what the Church is teaching our children so that we can be in harmony with that teaching in our instructions to each child. For example, the pamphlet For the Strength of Youth, quoting the proclamation on the family, gives young people this counsel about families:

“Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.”4

The pamphlet continues:

“Being part of a family is a great blessing. Your family can provide you with companionship and happiness, help you learn correct principles in a loving atmosphere, and help you prepare for eternal life. Not all families are the same, but each is important in Heavenly Father’s plan.

“Do your part to build a happy home. Be cheerful, helpful, and considerate of others. Many problems in the home are created because family members speak and act selfishly or unkindly. Concern yourself with the needs of other family members. Seek to be a peacemaker rather than to tease, fight, and quarrel. Remember that the family is the most sacred unit of the Church.”5

Providing for Your Family

Our third priority is to provide for our family units. Again from the proclamation on the family:

“By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.”6

We need to maintain good skills to be gainfully employed. In a changing world, we must keep up-to-date, or our skills will become obsolete. Even though we are busy in Church assignments, we should not pass up opportunities to increase our development and improve the welfare of our families. This requires that we invest adequate time and thought to preparing for the future.

This counsel applies to the sisters as well as the brethren. Although the responsibility to provide for the family belongs primarily to fathers, the proclamation indicates that “disability, death, or other circumstances”7 may also require you sisters to use and develop your skills to provide for your families.

Church Service

Fourth in our priority is our commitment to the time we spend in Church activities. Active Latter-day Saint families value their Church time and make choices in their family life to make room for it.

Leaders need to be especially sensitive to different family situations when they extend calls and create expectations. Families with young children where both parents have demanding calls that take them out of the home are the most likely to feel that Church activities interfere with their family life. Church leaders can help by acknowledging and validating members’ efforts to balance Church service with their family responsibilities.

Involving Family Members
There are ways to increase our association with our families while we serve in our Church callings by involving our families, when appropriate, in our Church service. Let me give you one personal example.

My father served as my bishop during the early years of my life. He was a busy man with a demanding legal practice. He was also active in civic affairs and in demand as a public speaker. And, of course, he was the father of six children. I was always grateful that my father had his priorities right. Mother was always his first priority. It was evident by the way he treated her. This was followed by a real dedication to each of his children.

When I was about six years old, I received a red wagon as a Christmas gift. It was exactly like this one in miniature. The little red wagon provided a real bond between my father and me. In his busy life, he had to find ways of involving his family in activities without diminishing his own productivity.

Much of his service as a bishop occurred during the Great Depression in the 1930s. Many of our ward members were in desperate need. As the bishop, he had the responsibility of supplying the means to sustain their lives. This seemed to be a good activity for a bishop, his son, and the little red wagon.

I would come home from school and find stacks on the side of the garage—flour, sugar, wheat, and other commodities. I knew that that evening my father and I would have the opportunity of being together.

When he would arrive home, the little red wagon was loaded with supplies to take to a family. The two of us, walking and talking together, would complete our welfare assignment by delivering the commodities to those in need.

I was able to witness firsthand the love and care a good priesthood leader had for his ward members. More important, I had an opportunity of spending precious time with my father.

Focusing on Basic Priorities
Let me encourage you to do what we taught you in the first worldwide leadership training meeting. We remind you that all units of the Church are at different stages of development, and all units have different needs. When we are planning our Church programs, the families must be taken into consideration.

Again, we caution you not to burden your membership with more than one Church calling, plus home teaching and visiting teaching. Discipline yourself to stick to the basic priorities, and you will be surprised how the inspiration of the Lord will direct you as you carry on your responsibilities to be a servant in His kingdom.

The ultimate focus of the restored Church is to facilitate and bring about opportunities for us to assist the Lord in His work to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. We do this primarily by strengthening families. In an age of moral decline, political uncertainty, international unrest, and economic instability, our focus on strengthening and stabilizing families must be enhanced and magnified. The very purpose of the Church is to assist families in obtaining salvation and exaltation in the eternal kingdom of heaven.

The Family Guidebook
Several years ago we published a special Family Guidebook. It was for the use of members, especially those who are new converts or have limited Church experience. We encourage you to use it. It begins with a statement:

“The family is the basic unit of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the most important social unit in time and eternity. God has established families to bring happiness to His children, allow them to learn correct principles in a loving atmosphere, and prepare them for eternal life.

“The home is the best place to teach, learn, and apply gospel principles.”8

Again, we encourage you to refer to this booklet’s helpful teachings.

The Savior’s Example
Our Lord and Savior ministered personally to the people, lifting the downtrodden, giving hope to the discouraged, and seeking out the lost. By His words and actions, He showed the people that He loved and understood and appreciated them. He recognized the divine nature and eternal worth of each individual. Even when calling people to repentance, He condemned the sin without condemning the sinner.

Like our Savior, as Church leaders we should love the people we serve, showing care and concern for each one individually. May the Lord bless us in the sacred responsibility He has given us is my prayer, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.