At the beginning of the semester, I decided that I wanted a pocket copy of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. When I went into the BYU Bookstore and asked where I could find a copy of these two important documents, i was given the uncertain response that they might be at the end of the current events/politics aisle. After a few minutes of searching, I was heartbroken to find a small booklet containing these two founding documents almost hidden behind other books. It is sad when the documents containing the purpose for the founding of our great country are stashed away to the side of books giving the most "popular" beliefs on current national issues.
Unfortunately, this small event in a single bookstore represents the state of the entire Nation. All to often, the traditional principles that are the foundation of our country are set aside for the rise of new principles of "tolerance" and "common good." I find it Ironic that the Declaration of Independence, which contains many solutions to current issues, is one of the most ignored documents in today's society.
Within the first few paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence we find two truths that many today do not understand. The first is the most basic principle of government - the Social Contract. Originating from John Locke, this idea explains the fundamental relationship between the government and the governed. It begins by stating that people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In order to ensure these rights, however, people need to collectively relinquish their right to complete freedom to the government. This is common sense, for in order for everyone to maintain these three rights, they must not be allowed to infringe on the three unalienable rights of others.
While many people (especially liberals) are familiar with the first part of the Social Contract, few are familiar with the second which states that the role of government is ONLY to protect these rights. That means that the sole purpose of government is to prevent Joe from harming Fred's life, liberty, or ability to pursue happiness. The Declaration of Independence states that once the government exceeds its intended role and becomes destructive to the rights of it's governed, the governed have the right and obligation to intervene. This brings out the problem with our current Health Care debate. On the positive side, it is prudent for the government to regulate the Health Care industry, for many companies are infringing on the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to some Americans. The government is wrong, however, in it's attempt to force every American to get insured. Americans will no longer have the liberty to chose to live without health care, a decision which has no effect on the rights of others. We see there that the government is trying to overstep it's bounds, and it is now the responsibility of the people to step forward and prevent this injustice from being done. I'm sorry if that sound too "conservative," but, well, the Declaration IS a conservative document.
The second truth in the Declaration is that God is very much a part of our country. The declaration states that universal rights are endowed by a "Creator." Many Atheists today are offended by this idea, and try to soften this blow to their ego, so to speak, by citing quotes by the founding fathers which seem in opposition to religion. The truth is, however, that even if some of the founding fathers did not like religion, there still is a God who inspired them to found the most powerful nation on Earth. In the D&C, the lord states that he "established the Constitution of this land by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose."
Furthermore, it should be understood that the lord is our only hope for a bright future. The lord promises us in the Book of Mormon that we will be blessed with freedom only if we (as the United States of America) serve him. This was the premise of the Constitution and our Republic. Both we founded, as the Declaration states, "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence."
To further support this idea, it can be understood that the Book of Mormon did indeed take place upon the continent of North America, specifically what is now the United States. All scientific theories aside, when the lord visited the Nephites, he stated that “This Land” would be free from kings and would be a choice land above all other lands. Notice he did not say “That land up north,” but “This land.”
My friends, “This Land” is now the United States. The promises in the Book of Mormon are ours. We will prosper as a nation only if we adhere to the commandments of Jesus Christ. It doesn’t really matter if that is “politically correct,” or if some people chose not to believe it - it is the truth. If we reject Christ and turn away from his Constitution, we will not only lose our freedoms, we will lose our identity as a nation.
I have much more in response to the Declaration of Independence, but i’m sure one and a half pages typed will translate into a blog post stretching from 0 to infinity. Let me leave you with the famous quote by Plato: “The price of apathy is to be ruled by evil men,”
P.S. If I don’t get some liberal response calling me an uninformed, radical, racist, fear mongering, hating, right wing extremist, I am going to be very surprised. You will have let the liberal community down. :)
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Aaron's Response to "Wealth and Poverty"
“Wealth And Poverty,” an essay written by BYU professor Richard E. Johnson, explores the social economic status of America. Although many people consider the rise of a “drugs, sex, and rock & roll” lifestyle to forecast the Second Coming, Johnson proposes that materialism, consumerism, social inequality, and world vanity are even greater predictors than traditional sin.
“Sinners are clearly self-indulgent, satisfying their whims and appetites for comfort or pleasure through sexual, chemical, or violent means. And innocent others clearly suffer because of their self-indulgence,” states Johnson.
It’s not difficult to see how this description applies to both “traditional sinners (thieves, addicts and prostitutes)” and an American people focused on supplying every one of their material desires – whether it be a larger house, top-of-the-line clothing, or frivolous vacations.
The United States typifies the saying, “The poor get poorer and the rich get richer.” The references for Johnson’s essay provide numerous examples and statistics about how the spread is widening between the rich and poor. Citing the Census Bureau, “the richest one-fifth of Americans households received almost twelve times the income of the same number of the poorest household in 1990.” That ratio increased by 12.5% since 1980, and most likely hasn’t improved during since.
Quoting another report by Coleman and Cressey, “the average real income (adjusted for inflation) of the bottom fifth of workers declined 10 percent from 1980 to 1990, while the real income of the top one percent jumped 122 percent during the same period.” I didn’t fully understand what Johnson was trying to emphasize when I read this statistic the first time. Billions, if not trillions of dollars, were transferred from 20% of the poorest population into the possession of a mere half-percent of the American people who already have their financial needs met.
Keep in mind that these statistics are discussing the average income of the American people. It’s scary to think that the gap is even wider, when you consider that the poor people in American are living off that income on a paycheck-to-paycheck basis, while the rich continue to stockpile that extra income into savings and other assets. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer.
So what does the author suggest we do to solve this problem? Johnson recognizes that it would be wrong to push any political agenda. In facts, he suggests that by truly practicing Christianity, there would be no need for government intervention: “All would be taken care of through private acts of sincere charity.” Knowing that it would be possible to expect this, Johnson proposes a balance of both public and private efforts.
Johnson’s essay delivers an alarming description of the reality around us. Johnson notices that he doesn’t have an answer that would satisfy everybody. Political partisanship and philosophies about economics will stand as an obstacle to finding a public solution we can all agree on. This reinforces the necessity for each individual to demonstrate charity. The answer may be to give, serve, and love others, and to “wash the feet of the poor,” even as Christ himself.
“Sinners are clearly self-indulgent, satisfying their whims and appetites for comfort or pleasure through sexual, chemical, or violent means. And innocent others clearly suffer because of their self-indulgence,” states Johnson.
It’s not difficult to see how this description applies to both “traditional sinners (thieves, addicts and prostitutes)” and an American people focused on supplying every one of their material desires – whether it be a larger house, top-of-the-line clothing, or frivolous vacations.
The United States typifies the saying, “The poor get poorer and the rich get richer.” The references for Johnson’s essay provide numerous examples and statistics about how the spread is widening between the rich and poor. Citing the Census Bureau, “the richest one-fifth of Americans households received almost twelve times the income of the same number of the poorest household in 1990.” That ratio increased by 12.5% since 1980, and most likely hasn’t improved during since.
Quoting another report by Coleman and Cressey, “the average real income (adjusted for inflation) of the bottom fifth of workers declined 10 percent from 1980 to 1990, while the real income of the top one percent jumped 122 percent during the same period.” I didn’t fully understand what Johnson was trying to emphasize when I read this statistic the first time. Billions, if not trillions of dollars, were transferred from 20% of the poorest population into the possession of a mere half-percent of the American people who already have their financial needs met.
Keep in mind that these statistics are discussing the average income of the American people. It’s scary to think that the gap is even wider, when you consider that the poor people in American are living off that income on a paycheck-to-paycheck basis, while the rich continue to stockpile that extra income into savings and other assets. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer.
So what does the author suggest we do to solve this problem? Johnson recognizes that it would be wrong to push any political agenda. In facts, he suggests that by truly practicing Christianity, there would be no need for government intervention: “All would be taken care of through private acts of sincere charity.” Knowing that it would be possible to expect this, Johnson proposes a balance of both public and private efforts.
Johnson’s essay delivers an alarming description of the reality around us. Johnson notices that he doesn’t have an answer that would satisfy everybody. Political partisanship and philosophies about economics will stand as an obstacle to finding a public solution we can all agree on. This reinforces the necessity for each individual to demonstrate charity. The answer may be to give, serve, and love others, and to “wash the feet of the poor,” even as Christ himself.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Jarrett's Resposne to "Lifeboat Ethics"
If the world is like a spaceship then there are limited resources. We should all share and try not to trash the place. Garrett Hardin, author of this article, argues against these people who naively hold this belief. He says that instead of the world being a spaceship, it is actually more like a lifeboat. The rich are inside the boat and the poor are trying to get in it. He continues his analogy. If a lifeboat already holds 50 people, but there are 100 people in the water, what should we do?
We could let them all in, but then the boat would break and everyone would drown instead. “Complete justice, complete catastrophe.” Could we just choose a few more people to get in the boat? How should we choose each person? Could we just drive the boat away before people get on it? What could we do “adrift in a moral sea”?
I recently saw the film 2012 and it reminds me too much of this article. In the movie, the world is coming to an end. Governments across the world know that the end is near. However, they chose not to tell the public in fear of causing panic. Ships are built to withstand the earth’s destruction but there are only limited spaces for people. Only a select few can purchase tickets at a steep price. There are those who sneak on the boat. Ultimately a decision is made to let people onto the ship.
These are the kind of situations this article addresses. The idea of lifeboat ethics is applied to the “tragedy of the commons”, immigration policy, overpopulation and world hunger and poverty.
To keep this blog short, I will address only a few of these. The World Food Bank is an organization that gives food to poor countries. Garrett Hardin argues that this is not necessarily a good thing. If you look into the past, there have been similar organizations that have tried to do this same thing. These organizations have profited immensely while pretending to be “humanitarian”. It seems like these sorts of organizations are selfish, not selfless. This is not the only dilemma. If organizations like these keep providing food to poor countries they will never learn. Let me explain. Overpopulation will become a bigger problem. Because people are not educated, they have more kids. These countries will not learn to feed their own people, but instead become reliant on organizations that are trying to help them. In the long run, it only hurts them.
This is the idea of lifeboat ethics. It may not alleviate immediate pain and suffering but its ultimate goal is the same. They seem to be cruel and harsh but it makes sense.
We could let them all in, but then the boat would break and everyone would drown instead. “Complete justice, complete catastrophe.” Could we just choose a few more people to get in the boat? How should we choose each person? Could we just drive the boat away before people get on it? What could we do “adrift in a moral sea”?
I recently saw the film 2012 and it reminds me too much of this article. In the movie, the world is coming to an end. Governments across the world know that the end is near. However, they chose not to tell the public in fear of causing panic. Ships are built to withstand the earth’s destruction but there are only limited spaces for people. Only a select few can purchase tickets at a steep price. There are those who sneak on the boat. Ultimately a decision is made to let people onto the ship.
These are the kind of situations this article addresses. The idea of lifeboat ethics is applied to the “tragedy of the commons”, immigration policy, overpopulation and world hunger and poverty.
To keep this blog short, I will address only a few of these. The World Food Bank is an organization that gives food to poor countries. Garrett Hardin argues that this is not necessarily a good thing. If you look into the past, there have been similar organizations that have tried to do this same thing. These organizations have profited immensely while pretending to be “humanitarian”. It seems like these sorts of organizations are selfish, not selfless. This is not the only dilemma. If organizations like these keep providing food to poor countries they will never learn. Let me explain. Overpopulation will become a bigger problem. Because people are not educated, they have more kids. These countries will not learn to feed their own people, but instead become reliant on organizations that are trying to help them. In the long run, it only hurts them.
This is the idea of lifeboat ethics. It may not alleviate immediate pain and suffering but its ultimate goal is the same. They seem to be cruel and harsh but it makes sense.
Isaac's response to "A Crime of Compassion"
I greatly enjoyed this essay because of the controversy it addresses. Over time, the question of euthanasia has been heatedly debated without any conclusions made. On this subject, I myself am not concretely decisive because of the variance in individual situations. I do, however, have my own thoughts.
In “A Crime of Compassion,” Barbara Huttmann gives her point of view that it should be acceptable for medical providers to give in to temptation by the patient to allow death. Unfortunately, however, there is a problem. Many people who are ill have a way for survival, though they may be in pain during treatment.
On this subject, I believe the decision could be ethical whether it allowed or denied euthanasia, depending on the situation.
Pretend you are a nurse and you have a patient much like Mac who is chronically ill and is wasting away into nothingness on a hospital bed. Say there is no chance for survival, and his prolonged life is merely causing emotional stress on all who loved Mac. Mac pleas for death, a way to escape the pain, and find his way back to dwell with his maker. Moreover, his family cries because of his pain, and wants him to die so that he will no longer suffer. It seems that everyone wants Mac to go but your overseeing ‘doctor boss’. Mac looks into your eyes as his entire body is going through necrosis, and his flesh is rotting. Every slight movement shifts pressure to a new sore on his body, making Mac reminisce about the ‘good old days’ when he could move as he desired. Now he can’t even move without unbearable pain. His entire body convulses as he coughs, and he has a tear in his eye. “Please, just let me die,” he asks, but you don’t know what to do. You are torn inside; you love Mac and don’t want to disappoint. You feel that, though others claim you are trying to play God by being the one to let him die, you could also be attacked for playing God because you are the one to sustain the life inside this dying body. You want his happiness, but hate to think he’ll die at your hands.
What do you do?! Is it right to let Mac go? I would be torn in this case, unable to make a decision on the spot. I know I would at least question the thought of letting Mac go, but it would definitely be a matter of prayer and fasting to me.
On the other hand, again you are a nurse. You have a patient, Jill, who is clinically insane. Three times in the last year she has unsuccessfully committed suicide, and is in the hospital because of a self-inflicted deep cut on her wrist. Again, Jill looks into your eyes, tormented by mental and physical pain. She too simply wants a way out of this pain, and a way to her maker. She asks you to let her just die, but what do you do?
In this situation, I personally would give no thought to the option of death. I would only believe it to be an assisted suicide because Jill had a way of straightening out her life.
In conclusion, I believe that this subject is very situation based, and that, depending on the situation, it could be ethical to allow or refuse death. I would not be so bold as to try to play God without first praying about it, and I hope I never come to that decision.
In “A Crime of Compassion,” Barbara Huttmann gives her point of view that it should be acceptable for medical providers to give in to temptation by the patient to allow death. Unfortunately, however, there is a problem. Many people who are ill have a way for survival, though they may be in pain during treatment.
On this subject, I believe the decision could be ethical whether it allowed or denied euthanasia, depending on the situation.
Pretend you are a nurse and you have a patient much like Mac who is chronically ill and is wasting away into nothingness on a hospital bed. Say there is no chance for survival, and his prolonged life is merely causing emotional stress on all who loved Mac. Mac pleas for death, a way to escape the pain, and find his way back to dwell with his maker. Moreover, his family cries because of his pain, and wants him to die so that he will no longer suffer. It seems that everyone wants Mac to go but your overseeing ‘doctor boss’. Mac looks into your eyes as his entire body is going through necrosis, and his flesh is rotting. Every slight movement shifts pressure to a new sore on his body, making Mac reminisce about the ‘good old days’ when he could move as he desired. Now he can’t even move without unbearable pain. His entire body convulses as he coughs, and he has a tear in his eye. “Please, just let me die,” he asks, but you don’t know what to do. You are torn inside; you love Mac and don’t want to disappoint. You feel that, though others claim you are trying to play God by being the one to let him die, you could also be attacked for playing God because you are the one to sustain the life inside this dying body. You want his happiness, but hate to think he’ll die at your hands.
What do you do?! Is it right to let Mac go? I would be torn in this case, unable to make a decision on the spot. I know I would at least question the thought of letting Mac go, but it would definitely be a matter of prayer and fasting to me.
On the other hand, again you are a nurse. You have a patient, Jill, who is clinically insane. Three times in the last year she has unsuccessfully committed suicide, and is in the hospital because of a self-inflicted deep cut on her wrist. Again, Jill looks into your eyes, tormented by mental and physical pain. She too simply wants a way out of this pain, and a way to her maker. She asks you to let her just die, but what do you do?
In this situation, I personally would give no thought to the option of death. I would only believe it to be an assisted suicide because Jill had a way of straightening out her life.
In conclusion, I believe that this subject is very situation based, and that, depending on the situation, it could be ethical to allow or refuse death. I would not be so bold as to try to play God without first praying about it, and I hope I never come to that decision.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Ariel's Response to "I stand here Ironing"
Everyone, at some point in time, looks back on their life and wonders what they could have done differently. “If I had studied more could I have gotten that elusive A?” “Was it worth it to stay up until 3 am to finish all my homework?” We all have regrets some are more serious than others.
In “I Stand Here Ironing” the narrator reflects on the way she raised her daughter Emily, her firstborn child. When I first read this story I found it rather depressing. The narrator is full of self-doubt and uneasiness. Throughout the story she feels guilt and tries to justify her actions.
The back and forth motion of her ironing reflects her thoughts. The narrator is going back over her life, trying to smooth out the “wrinkles”, or come to terms with what she had to do as a young mother.
I think it is important to accept past decisions and move on. We all make mistakes and need to learn from them. Isn’t that why we’re here on Earth in the first place? If we had no regrets, there would be nothing for us to learn and we could all go back and live in heaven. Wouldn’t that be nice? Sadly, we aren’t perfect and need to live our lives the best we can.
I really liked the last line of “I Stand Here Ironing.” “Only help her to know - help make it so there is cause for her to know - that she is more than this dress on the ironing board, helpless before the iron.” The narrator wants her daughter to continue to grow as an individual but be uninfluenced by others and society. The narrator wants Emily to understand how important she is.
I was thinking about this and drew the parallel of how we need to live in the World but not of it. We all have different personalities but we share the same values. We have developed who we are and, hopefully, we are happy with the result. We should remember what we stand for and move past our mistakes.
In “I Stand Here Ironing” the narrator reflects on the way she raised her daughter Emily, her firstborn child. When I first read this story I found it rather depressing. The narrator is full of self-doubt and uneasiness. Throughout the story she feels guilt and tries to justify her actions.
The back and forth motion of her ironing reflects her thoughts. The narrator is going back over her life, trying to smooth out the “wrinkles”, or come to terms with what she had to do as a young mother.
I think it is important to accept past decisions and move on. We all make mistakes and need to learn from them. Isn’t that why we’re here on Earth in the first place? If we had no regrets, there would be nothing for us to learn and we could all go back and live in heaven. Wouldn’t that be nice? Sadly, we aren’t perfect and need to live our lives the best we can.
I really liked the last line of “I Stand Here Ironing.” “Only help her to know - help make it so there is cause for her to know - that she is more than this dress on the ironing board, helpless before the iron.” The narrator wants her daughter to continue to grow as an individual but be uninfluenced by others and society. The narrator wants Emily to understand how important she is.
I was thinking about this and drew the parallel of how we need to live in the World but not of it. We all have different personalities but we share the same values. We have developed who we are and, hopefully, we are happy with the result. We should remember what we stand for and move past our mistakes.
Virginia's Response to "The War Prayer"
“For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of-except he pause and think…. God’s servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two-one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this-keep it in mind. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor’s crop which may not need rain and can be injured.”
In Mark Twain’s writings of, “The War Prayer” he tells the story of a town praying for the victory and safety for the men of their village that have been sent off to fight in the war. The whole settlement is in the church praying for these things when a strange man comes into the church, takes over the pulpit, and explains to the good God-fearing townspeople what exactly they are praying for- the spoken prayer and the unspoken prayer.
“O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with hurricanes of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen”
How often do we fall prey to this? When we pray to help ease someone’s burden tomorrow- are we not also praying for that person to have some sort of burden that is so heavy for them that they would need our help? As we pray for ope, are we not also praying for a hopeless situation to test our hope in order to strengthen it? A song by Collin Ray, “What I need” goes hand in hand with the words of Mark Twain. “'Cause I prayed for strength and I got pain that made me strong. I prayed for courage and got fear to overcome. When I prayed for faith my empty heart brought me to my knees. I don’t always get what I want, I get what I need.”
In Mark Twain’s writings of, “The War Prayer” he tells the story of a town praying for the victory and safety for the men of their village that have been sent off to fight in the war. The whole settlement is in the church praying for these things when a strange man comes into the church, takes over the pulpit, and explains to the good God-fearing townspeople what exactly they are praying for- the spoken prayer and the unspoken prayer.
“O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with hurricanes of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen”
How often do we fall prey to this? When we pray to help ease someone’s burden tomorrow- are we not also praying for that person to have some sort of burden that is so heavy for them that they would need our help? As we pray for ope, are we not also praying for a hopeless situation to test our hope in order to strengthen it? A song by Collin Ray, “What I need” goes hand in hand with the words of Mark Twain. “'Cause I prayed for strength and I got pain that made me strong. I prayed for courage and got fear to overcome. When I prayed for faith my empty heart brought me to my knees. I don’t always get what I want, I get what I need.”
Zach's response to "What Christians Believe"
In the opening paragraphs C.S. Lewis poses a question that I have often pondered and that sets the tone for the rest of the passage. He writes, “If God created the world then why has it gone wrong?” The more I think about my life and about the challenges that I have faced the more I have realized what the answer for me may be.
It was a cold February night; my Mom would be leaving the next day for a buying show. For that reason we decided to celebrate Valentines early by going out for Spaghetti. It was a night much like any other. We were seated quickly; we walked past the old fashioned trolley and were seated near the bar. We placed our orders with quick confidence. We had been there hundreds of times and didn’t even need menus except to pass the time. I had a major English assignment due the next day, we began to discuss it.
“I have to write three letters like the letter between Caesar and Brutus, like in Shakespeare’s play.”
Our salads arrived and we began to eat. Then out of nowhere we began to hear loud pops, like balloons. We all listened intently; although it was not uncommon to have parties at the restaurant these sounds had a different character to them. One, two, three, “Call 9-1-1 he’s go a gun.”
A frenzy of movement, we all dove under the table and sat there like a twisted mess, each grabbing their own phones and placing the desperate calls for help. Another round of pops ensued, followed by a flurry of pops, then silence. Where was the gunman? Was he on the move? Was he coming for me and my family? Thousands of questions raced through my mind. What seemed like hours passed. We sat there, an uncomfortable mess of bodies.
Finally S.W.A.T arrived. Our liberators were finally here. We marched single file hands above our heads, escorted by men with guns. We finally reached safety across the street; it was now ok to breathe. My mom began to cry, as she held my little brother. It was over, it was finally over.
I share this story because I think that it helps illustrate C.S. Lewis’s point. A shooting and killing of innocent people are about as bad as the world can be. But I learned something very valuable from the ordeal. Weeks later, I was driving with my mother and brother, when my little brother of six said something profound.
“Mom,” he began, “You know when we were hiding under the table at Trolley Square? I was praying that Heavenly Father would protect us.”
Wow I thought. I didn’t think to pray, but my little brother who is half my age did. I learned something very important about the power of prayer and about God’s knowledge of each and every one of us. He knows us very personally and is always watching over us.
To answer C.S. Lewis’s question I would say, the world hasn’t gone wrong, rather we face challenges and obstacles, to grow and come closer to God.
It was a cold February night; my Mom would be leaving the next day for a buying show. For that reason we decided to celebrate Valentines early by going out for Spaghetti. It was a night much like any other. We were seated quickly; we walked past the old fashioned trolley and were seated near the bar. We placed our orders with quick confidence. We had been there hundreds of times and didn’t even need menus except to pass the time. I had a major English assignment due the next day, we began to discuss it.
“I have to write three letters like the letter between Caesar and Brutus, like in Shakespeare’s play.”
Our salads arrived and we began to eat. Then out of nowhere we began to hear loud pops, like balloons. We all listened intently; although it was not uncommon to have parties at the restaurant these sounds had a different character to them. One, two, three, “Call 9-1-1 he’s go a gun.”
A frenzy of movement, we all dove under the table and sat there like a twisted mess, each grabbing their own phones and placing the desperate calls for help. Another round of pops ensued, followed by a flurry of pops, then silence. Where was the gunman? Was he on the move? Was he coming for me and my family? Thousands of questions raced through my mind. What seemed like hours passed. We sat there, an uncomfortable mess of bodies.
Finally S.W.A.T arrived. Our liberators were finally here. We marched single file hands above our heads, escorted by men with guns. We finally reached safety across the street; it was now ok to breathe. My mom began to cry, as she held my little brother. It was over, it was finally over.
I share this story because I think that it helps illustrate C.S. Lewis’s point. A shooting and killing of innocent people are about as bad as the world can be. But I learned something very valuable from the ordeal. Weeks later, I was driving with my mother and brother, when my little brother of six said something profound.
“Mom,” he began, “You know when we were hiding under the table at Trolley Square? I was praying that Heavenly Father would protect us.”
Wow I thought. I didn’t think to pray, but my little brother who is half my age did. I learned something very important about the power of prayer and about God’s knowledge of each and every one of us. He knows us very personally and is always watching over us.
To answer C.S. Lewis’s question I would say, the world hasn’t gone wrong, rather we face challenges and obstacles, to grow and come closer to God.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Ami's response to "Nice Ain't So Nice"
I am quietly sitting in a cubicle on the fifth floor of the library. While I am trying to study for my Book of Mormon exam, three guys congregate around the cubicle behind me and begin whispering louder and louder. I can’t believe that I forgot my headphones today! As the whispering increases, I ponder how I can politely ask the guys to be quiet, or preferably leave the building. Soon, I hear a YouTube video playing and stifled giggling coming from the cubicle behind me. Now I’m really annoyed. Trying to imagine what Jesus would do, I finish my studying and leave. As soon as I come home, I begin complaining to my roommates and anyone else who would listen about the ‘jerks’ that sat behind me in the library. What have I done? I have allowed myself to be ‘nice.’ In other words, I have allowed my self to be victimized by ‘niceness.’
The thirteenth Article of Faith states, “We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men…If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.” As members of Christ’s church, we often interpret this as simply being nice. We forget that nowhere in the scriptures or in any doctrine issued by the Church does it say we believe in being nice. Why? Because nice is the superficial blanket of conformity that obscures reality and distorts good. Elouise Bell states, “I believe it is niceness which can corrupt all the other virtues. Niceness edits the truth, dilutes loyalty, makes a caricature of patriotism. It hobbles justice, shortcircuits honor, and counterfeits Mercy, Compassion and Love” (171). We profess that we try to follow the example of Christ, but is Christ ever described as just being nice?
Are we sincere or simply ‘nice’? The greatest quality I look for in a friend is their sincerity. But do I allow myself to be sincere? I still have the insecurity that if I show my true sincere self, that I will be mocked and ridiculed for it. Bell mirrored my feelings in this statement, “Niceness threatens by saying there is no True Self, or that the True Self is synonymous with the Natural Man (and thus an enemy to God), or that the False Self is what we ought to seek” (173). Niceness only leads to the level of introversion that every teenager experiences and must eventually shed. If we continue to delay developing our authentic self by prolonging niceness, we are denying ourselves of true happiness. Sometimes I worry that we are so concerned with being ‘nice’ that we forget about being good? But does our society and even our ‘Mormon’ culture encourage ‘niceness’ over integrity? Do we have the courage to exemplify the cornerstone of our religion—Christ—and live earnestly? Indeed, this our daily battle that we must strive to win.
“Nice, in short, aint so nice. (174)”
The thirteenth Article of Faith states, “We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men…If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.” As members of Christ’s church, we often interpret this as simply being nice. We forget that nowhere in the scriptures or in any doctrine issued by the Church does it say we believe in being nice. Why? Because nice is the superficial blanket of conformity that obscures reality and distorts good. Elouise Bell states, “I believe it is niceness which can corrupt all the other virtues. Niceness edits the truth, dilutes loyalty, makes a caricature of patriotism. It hobbles justice, shortcircuits honor, and counterfeits Mercy, Compassion and Love” (171). We profess that we try to follow the example of Christ, but is Christ ever described as just being nice?
Are we sincere or simply ‘nice’? The greatest quality I look for in a friend is their sincerity. But do I allow myself to be sincere? I still have the insecurity that if I show my true sincere self, that I will be mocked and ridiculed for it. Bell mirrored my feelings in this statement, “Niceness threatens by saying there is no True Self, or that the True Self is synonymous with the Natural Man (and thus an enemy to God), or that the False Self is what we ought to seek” (173). Niceness only leads to the level of introversion that every teenager experiences and must eventually shed. If we continue to delay developing our authentic self by prolonging niceness, we are denying ourselves of true happiness. Sometimes I worry that we are so concerned with being ‘nice’ that we forget about being good? But does our society and even our ‘Mormon’ culture encourage ‘niceness’ over integrity? Do we have the courage to exemplify the cornerstone of our religion—Christ—and live earnestly? Indeed, this our daily battle that we must strive to win.
“Nice, in short, aint so nice. (174)”
Jessica's Response to "It Was a Dark and Stormy Night"
If I knew what I know now about the phrase “it was a dark and stormy night”, I would have never chosen this reading to write a response to! The phrase is known to represent a style of writing that Wikipedia says is “characterized by a self-serious attempt at dramatic flair, the imitation of formulaic styles, an extravagantly florid style, redundancies, confusing syntax, and sentences…that are exceedingly lengthy.” Sound fun to read and analyze? Didn’t think so. The first time I read it, I couldn’t get through the whole thing. I glazed over the words, skimming the document and just getting frustrated at the repetitive sentences. I’ve never read anything like this and so I initially thought it was a story, within a story, within a story, within a story etc. You get the picture. I decided to revisit the paper. I’m still not exactly sure what the message is here. So I will just tell you what I got out of it and am interested in what everyone else thinks of this reading.
The theme seems to be something of defining what the beginning, middle, and end are and their purposes. It starts out saying that Brigham Young and Brigham Old sat around a campfire and this is the story old told: Brigham Young and Brigham Old sat around the campfire and this is story he told: Brigham Young and Pierre Menard….etc. Then it goes on to talk about an old lady and a typewriter and smashed tomato. And the rain through the window writes a story about a man telling a story about an aunt telling a story about the beginning. Then the story starts talking about a hoop snake that must travel by taking its tail in its mouth and rolling along. This is bad though because sometimes some hoop snakes are venomous so when they bite their own tail in order to progress, they die of snakebite. Maybe this is saying that we are all just stuck in the middle, poisoned by our own desire to make progress. She then relates a story that is all ‘middle’. Then the aspect of leaving your mark on the world and leaving your story is discussed. The most interesting line I think was “we will all come to the end together, and even to the beginning, living as we do, in the middle.” Life is all one continuous round and the only way will survive is by making the end and the beginning meet. As you can tell, I’m really not sure what to think of this reading.
The theme seems to be something of defining what the beginning, middle, and end are and their purposes. It starts out saying that Brigham Young and Brigham Old sat around a campfire and this is the story old told: Brigham Young and Brigham Old sat around the campfire and this is story he told: Brigham Young and Pierre Menard….etc. Then it goes on to talk about an old lady and a typewriter and smashed tomato. And the rain through the window writes a story about a man telling a story about an aunt telling a story about the beginning. Then the story starts talking about a hoop snake that must travel by taking its tail in its mouth and rolling along. This is bad though because sometimes some hoop snakes are venomous so when they bite their own tail in order to progress, they die of snakebite. Maybe this is saying that we are all just stuck in the middle, poisoned by our own desire to make progress. She then relates a story that is all ‘middle’. Then the aspect of leaving your mark on the world and leaving your story is discussed. The most interesting line I think was “we will all come to the end together, and even to the beginning, living as we do, in the middle.” Life is all one continuous round and the only way will survive is by making the end and the beginning meet. As you can tell, I’m really not sure what to think of this reading.
Ashley's Response to "Toward Becoming an Authentic Reader"
Chewed and Digested: “ Towards Becoming an Authentic Reader”
Literature is food for my soul – I am never so happy as when I am curled up with a good book (Shakespeare, Keats, Fitzgerald, one of the Brontes, etc.) for hours. There was no doubt or question in my mind that I was destined to become an English major coming into the university. When one starts to read literary criticism for fun, that’s when one starts to get an idea of where one’s life is headed.
But let me say that my rather voracious appetite for reading never really kicked in until my freshman year of high school. Let me restate that: my appetite for intelligent reading didn’t kick in until high school. I read…things…but not the kind of things that required many brain cells. But, I had stumbled across Les Miserables by Victor Hugo in the eighth grade, and discovered a love for literary classics. So, in freshman year, I decided to become ambitious, and picked up Shakespeare’s Macbeth.
Of course upon reading it, the heavens opened and all became clear as I understood every line Shakespeare penned, never needing to aid of footnotes for clarification since I was speaking in the Elizabethan dialect fluently already. Alas, such was not the case. I understood almost none of what occurred in Macbeth, let alone what the characters were saying or the general meaning of the work. But I was intrigued – there was something to this Shakespeare character that was inscrutable but fascinating; I wanted to understand.
And so, I picked up some others of his: Romeo and Juliet, King Lear, and finally Hamlet. It was when I read Hamlet that I finally came to understand some piece of Shakespeare, and I loved what I came to see. I saw that there was a depth, a level of contemplation as well as fast-paced action that was absolutely gripping. It’s now my favorite play of his.
The rest is history. The next few years of high school I couldn’t get enough, I was constantly at the library, my teachers’ classrooms, the book store, my friends’ bookcases, assessing what there was that I felt must come to know, and I ran through as many things as I could get my hands on.
What Richard Cracroft (with his wonderful witty-phrases-with-dashes) says is so true – there are few things so important as reading, and I have come to know this. In my own life, becoming an “authentic reader” of literature parallels my becoming an “authentic reader” of the scriptures. Becoming better at reading the one vastly improved my capacity to understand the other. Reading literature I consider to be among the most important things I do. And my goal has always been this: to reconcile the things of man with the things of God, and use learning (through reading) as a means to draw closer to the Divine. There are books that are not worth reading. There are also books that are, but will contain some material that one wouldn’t find necessarily appropriate in the Celestial realm of heaven. That’s when the reader’s job becomes tricky – one must sift through the book’s contents to pull out the gems without carrying around the muck. It’s ridiculous to think that one can and should read only books appropriate to carry into the temple – literature is meant to be a thing of imperfection, for it is the ultimate representation of man himself. Let’s face it: man is imperfect, and always will be. It’s simply a fact of life. The best we can do is to “aim Celestially” as Cracroft puts it, for “we’ll get much further than if we had aimed low and comfortably.” Translation: try your best. That’s all that really matters, isn’t it?
Literature is food for my soul – I am never so happy as when I am curled up with a good book (Shakespeare, Keats, Fitzgerald, one of the Brontes, etc.) for hours. There was no doubt or question in my mind that I was destined to become an English major coming into the university. When one starts to read literary criticism for fun, that’s when one starts to get an idea of where one’s life is headed.
But let me say that my rather voracious appetite for reading never really kicked in until my freshman year of high school. Let me restate that: my appetite for intelligent reading didn’t kick in until high school. I read…things…but not the kind of things that required many brain cells. But, I had stumbled across Les Miserables by Victor Hugo in the eighth grade, and discovered a love for literary classics. So, in freshman year, I decided to become ambitious, and picked up Shakespeare’s Macbeth.
Of course upon reading it, the heavens opened and all became clear as I understood every line Shakespeare penned, never needing to aid of footnotes for clarification since I was speaking in the Elizabethan dialect fluently already. Alas, such was not the case. I understood almost none of what occurred in Macbeth, let alone what the characters were saying or the general meaning of the work. But I was intrigued – there was something to this Shakespeare character that was inscrutable but fascinating; I wanted to understand.
And so, I picked up some others of his: Romeo and Juliet, King Lear, and finally Hamlet. It was when I read Hamlet that I finally came to understand some piece of Shakespeare, and I loved what I came to see. I saw that there was a depth, a level of contemplation as well as fast-paced action that was absolutely gripping. It’s now my favorite play of his.
The rest is history. The next few years of high school I couldn’t get enough, I was constantly at the library, my teachers’ classrooms, the book store, my friends’ bookcases, assessing what there was that I felt must come to know, and I ran through as many things as I could get my hands on.
What Richard Cracroft (with his wonderful witty-phrases-with-dashes) says is so true – there are few things so important as reading, and I have come to know this. In my own life, becoming an “authentic reader” of literature parallels my becoming an “authentic reader” of the scriptures. Becoming better at reading the one vastly improved my capacity to understand the other. Reading literature I consider to be among the most important things I do. And my goal has always been this: to reconcile the things of man with the things of God, and use learning (through reading) as a means to draw closer to the Divine. There are books that are not worth reading. There are also books that are, but will contain some material that one wouldn’t find necessarily appropriate in the Celestial realm of heaven. That’s when the reader’s job becomes tricky – one must sift through the book’s contents to pull out the gems without carrying around the muck. It’s ridiculous to think that one can and should read only books appropriate to carry into the temple – literature is meant to be a thing of imperfection, for it is the ultimate representation of man himself. Let’s face it: man is imperfect, and always will be. It’s simply a fact of life. The best we can do is to “aim Celestially” as Cracroft puts it, for “we’ll get much further than if we had aimed low and comfortably.” Translation: try your best. That’s all that really matters, isn’t it?
Sarah's response to "When Nice Ain't So Nice"
When I first read the title of this article, I had no idea what it would contain. As I read the first line, however, Elouise Bell made it very clear what this article is all about. It is all about people being fake and the problems it causes.
Her main point in the article was that sometimes people don’t want to be rude, so they will twist the truth somewhat. When the truth is twisted, nothing good can ever come from it. Lies don’t promote trusting relationships, and this is where all of the world’s problems come in. She also emphasizes how many people try to hide their feelings because they don’t want to seem bad or angry, and then they will go about secretly hurting that person.
Elouise mentions how some of the very worst people in the world tricked and manipulated people in to doing things they wanted. They all seemed like the nicest person in town or in the neighborhood, when in reality they were living a secret life that was evil and sadistic.
As I read this article, it really made me contemplate my life and the relationships that I build with others. I began wondering if I always try my hardest to be honest in everything I do; even if it is brutally honest. I realized that sometimes I may twist the truth without even really thinking about it.
A good example of this is when someone asks you if their outfit matches or is cute. The “nice” response would be to say, “Yes, you look great” even if the outfit really doesn’t look that awesome. Just because they are a great person doesn’t mean they always look great. Then they could go all day at school walking around like a freak causing many bad thoughts about them to be thought that day. This may seem harmless, but who cares? What is wrong with being completely honest?
In that same situation, you could be completely honest, and still be kind about it. You could say something along the lines of, “Generally plaid and stripes don’t look the best together. Maybe you could try your green shirt you wore last week.” That wasn’t so painful was it? They may claim to have their feelings hurt, but they will learn that they really are grateful for your advice. Not only that, but they will learn from the situation and probably never make the same problem again. They could walk around on campus all day, and people may in fact turn their heads wondering who the hottie is.
I loved this article. Elouise Bell has so many great points about how being “nice” can in the end be worse than saying something rude from the beginning. I believe however, that nothing has to be said in a rude way. I feel like there are many opportunities where when something blunt must be said, there is always a way to say it directly, honestly, and kindly. It may not be as nice as a little white lie would be, but those never did any good for anyone.
Her main point in the article was that sometimes people don’t want to be rude, so they will twist the truth somewhat. When the truth is twisted, nothing good can ever come from it. Lies don’t promote trusting relationships, and this is where all of the world’s problems come in. She also emphasizes how many people try to hide their feelings because they don’t want to seem bad or angry, and then they will go about secretly hurting that person.
Elouise mentions how some of the very worst people in the world tricked and manipulated people in to doing things they wanted. They all seemed like the nicest person in town or in the neighborhood, when in reality they were living a secret life that was evil and sadistic.
As I read this article, it really made me contemplate my life and the relationships that I build with others. I began wondering if I always try my hardest to be honest in everything I do; even if it is brutally honest. I realized that sometimes I may twist the truth without even really thinking about it.
A good example of this is when someone asks you if their outfit matches or is cute. The “nice” response would be to say, “Yes, you look great” even if the outfit really doesn’t look that awesome. Just because they are a great person doesn’t mean they always look great. Then they could go all day at school walking around like a freak causing many bad thoughts about them to be thought that day. This may seem harmless, but who cares? What is wrong with being completely honest?
In that same situation, you could be completely honest, and still be kind about it. You could say something along the lines of, “Generally plaid and stripes don’t look the best together. Maybe you could try your green shirt you wore last week.” That wasn’t so painful was it? They may claim to have their feelings hurt, but they will learn that they really are grateful for your advice. Not only that, but they will learn from the situation and probably never make the same problem again. They could walk around on campus all day, and people may in fact turn their heads wondering who the hottie is.
I loved this article. Elouise Bell has so many great points about how being “nice” can in the end be worse than saying something rude from the beginning. I believe however, that nothing has to be said in a rude way. I feel like there are many opportunities where when something blunt must be said, there is always a way to say it directly, honestly, and kindly. It may not be as nice as a little white lie would be, but those never did any good for anyone.
Erin's Response to "Story of An Hour"
The first time I read this short story, I laughed out loud. Literally. And also took a minute to actually work out what actually happened. Chopin packs in such a punch in the last line and when Mrs. Mallard is surprised about her new found freedom, the reader is too.
The use of description further deepens the surprise that the reader experiences. Josephine and Richards make sure they break the news “gently,” with “veiled hints,” suggesting that because Mrs. Mallard is so fragile and dependent upon her husband that the news of his death might cause heart trouble. The fact that Richards checks twice to make sure Mr. Mallard is really dead leaves no room for doubt that Mr. Mallard might be alive. Mrs. Mallard experiences, as any other wife would, a “storm of grief” and weeps with “wild abandonment.” She even sobs by herself in her room, her eyes filled with a “dull stare.” The reader would not suspect that she was anything other than appropriately upset about her husband’s death. And even Mrs. Mallard does not expect that anything is amiss, until she fearfully begins to “recognize this thing” and strives to beat it back. Up until this point, it seems as if Mrs. Mallard might be beating back the depression, the sadness that might accompany her reaction to discovering that she is a widow. But then she realizes it and embraces the happiness and excitement that accompanies it, her eyes “keen and bright,” her pulse beating fast, and her body warmed by the “coursing blood.”
Details about the spring outside suggest the upcoming happiness and joy that Mrs. Mallard might be able to experience, but because of combination of the alternative details, the social convention, and the lack of detail of her relationship with her husband, the reader does not suspect that she, instead of sad at the loss of her husband, is actually relieved. Chopin allows the reader to discover along with Mrs. Mallard for the first time what she actually feels in response to his death.
I was really surprised at the ending, as I mentioned. But I think it’s important to realize the setting that Kate Chopin was writing from. Very much the feminist, she wanted her audience to realize that females did not have to be married to be “fulfilled” or happy and even more importantly, women were not always happy in their marriage and often wanted to be independent. She refers to the protagonist of her short story as “Mrs. Mallard” in the beginning. Only after her revelation concerning her new found freedom does the audience learn her first name, “Louise.” In today’s time and social context, I feel that readers can understand this desire, to be free of any restraints that might tie women down, or at least seem to. Women today are delaying marriage and, even more often, delaying having children. Women insist that going to college and getting a successful occupation is more important than being married and having a family. I believe that it does not have to be one or the other, but that it is possible to do both. It is possible to be both the college graduate and have a family, possible to both have a family and be a successful working mother. But I personally feel that having a family is more important. Eventually one does have to prioritize and for me, being a mother is more important than making a six-digit income.
I really like Kate Chopin’s The Story of an Hour. I like the way that she completely surprises me and makes me kind of sit back for a minute, working out what actually happened. I like the intense descriptions that perfectly set the scene. I like the message that it is alright for females to be independent, to stand on their own, and it also emphasizes many of the feelings that women have, I think, concerning marriage. But I don’t like how Chopin completely dismisses the contribution of love in a marriage and portrays the selfishness of Louise. Selfishness cannot exist in marriage and for marriage to be successful, love must be there. I feel that Chopin questions all of us, whether or not we are free, free to pursue any of our desires, or are we enslaved by a social norm or institution of today’s world.
The use of description further deepens the surprise that the reader experiences. Josephine and Richards make sure they break the news “gently,” with “veiled hints,” suggesting that because Mrs. Mallard is so fragile and dependent upon her husband that the news of his death might cause heart trouble. The fact that Richards checks twice to make sure Mr. Mallard is really dead leaves no room for doubt that Mr. Mallard might be alive. Mrs. Mallard experiences, as any other wife would, a “storm of grief” and weeps with “wild abandonment.” She even sobs by herself in her room, her eyes filled with a “dull stare.” The reader would not suspect that she was anything other than appropriately upset about her husband’s death. And even Mrs. Mallard does not expect that anything is amiss, until she fearfully begins to “recognize this thing” and strives to beat it back. Up until this point, it seems as if Mrs. Mallard might be beating back the depression, the sadness that might accompany her reaction to discovering that she is a widow. But then she realizes it and embraces the happiness and excitement that accompanies it, her eyes “keen and bright,” her pulse beating fast, and her body warmed by the “coursing blood.”
Details about the spring outside suggest the upcoming happiness and joy that Mrs. Mallard might be able to experience, but because of combination of the alternative details, the social convention, and the lack of detail of her relationship with her husband, the reader does not suspect that she, instead of sad at the loss of her husband, is actually relieved. Chopin allows the reader to discover along with Mrs. Mallard for the first time what she actually feels in response to his death.
I was really surprised at the ending, as I mentioned. But I think it’s important to realize the setting that Kate Chopin was writing from. Very much the feminist, she wanted her audience to realize that females did not have to be married to be “fulfilled” or happy and even more importantly, women were not always happy in their marriage and often wanted to be independent. She refers to the protagonist of her short story as “Mrs. Mallard” in the beginning. Only after her revelation concerning her new found freedom does the audience learn her first name, “Louise.” In today’s time and social context, I feel that readers can understand this desire, to be free of any restraints that might tie women down, or at least seem to. Women today are delaying marriage and, even more often, delaying having children. Women insist that going to college and getting a successful occupation is more important than being married and having a family. I believe that it does not have to be one or the other, but that it is possible to do both. It is possible to be both the college graduate and have a family, possible to both have a family and be a successful working mother. But I personally feel that having a family is more important. Eventually one does have to prioritize and for me, being a mother is more important than making a six-digit income.
I really like Kate Chopin’s The Story of an Hour. I like the way that she completely surprises me and makes me kind of sit back for a minute, working out what actually happened. I like the intense descriptions that perfectly set the scene. I like the message that it is alright for females to be independent, to stand on their own, and it also emphasizes many of the feelings that women have, I think, concerning marriage. But I don’t like how Chopin completely dismisses the contribution of love in a marriage and portrays the selfishness of Louise. Selfishness cannot exist in marriage and for marriage to be successful, love must be there. I feel that Chopin questions all of us, whether or not we are free, free to pursue any of our desires, or are we enslaved by a social norm or institution of today’s world.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Rachel's response to "Consecration and Learning"
Since I started school this year, I have had several questions. In particular, how do I find time to develop all my talents? I know I should seek God's guidance in major decisions, but what if I already know what I want to do? What is wrong with postponing my scripture study if I have homework to finish? How do I know when I should thank God for a good event and when it was just chance? Jardine's essay answered these questions.
Ever since my junior year of high school I have had to make difficult decisions concerning how to allot my time between various talents. Since I came to BYU, the problem has taken on the additional dimension of deciding on a major. I can list more than five subjects I would be happy to major in. Obviously, I can't major in all of them, but it is hard to let go of any. And besides the choice of a major, I have to make less important decisions daily about what area of my life to improve. I can practice music, or I can make a new kind of dinner, or I can volunteer at the MTC, or I can go to a dance, or I can study beyond the textbook for my favorite classes. Despite my best efforts, I can't fit everything in my schedule. Jardine offered some advice on this dilemma that surprised me: “You will have to decide which of your talents should be nurtured” (61). It is true – I do not have time to do every good thing. I need to make choices about what is important and recognize that the rest isn't going to happen.
Some of my first real experience with praying about important decisions came when I was preparing to come to BYU. I needed to decide whether or not to do honors. I liked the idea because of the Great Works experiences and enriched core classes, but I was not happy about the English requirement. I don't like writing. When I prayed about it, I could not get away from the fact that the honors program seemed like a really good idea. Fortunately I was able to humble myself, and so here I am. But I still struggle with the idea of asking God's advice in matters of education. I tend to like my own ideas too well. Jardine says that consecration means being dedicated to what you need to do, even if you don't like it. He says we must consecrate ourselves “to God's purposes and not our preferences” (68). He promises that making sacrifices for God will increase our love for Him. These comments answered my question about following the Spirit in making major decisions by reminding me that I need to be humble and have faith.
Jardine also offers a caution about consecrating our efforts to the wrong purposes. Just as serving God will increase our love for him, sacrificing too much for learning can cause us to love learning for its own sake, instead of for the ends it produces. Jardine suggests that our priorities reveal who or what we are really serving. For me, this answers the question about postponing scripture study. I need to plan my time carefully enough that can read my scriptures in the morning, because not doing so shows that my priorities are with school. One experience showed me the consequences of the latter. I stayed up late one night studying, but I didn't finish chemistry. So the next morning I studied chemistry instead of the Book of Mormon. It was a poor substitute. The whole day I felt unhappy, and nothing was good. I realized that I was starting to put schoolwork before gospel living, and so I made a commitment to always get my chemistry reading done before bed. I have kept that commitment thus far.
Sometime last year, I had a phase when I worked hard to be more grateful, especially to Heavenly Father. I wondered, though, just what I ought to thank Heavenly Father for, since He probably is not responsible for every good thing that happens to me. For instance, I am quite grateful whenever I find an easy parking spot in a parking garage, but that is most likely coincidence. I have also wondered, if I study really hard for a test and then I do well on it, should I thank God? Jardine replies that we should “[acknowledge] God's 'hand in all things,' including our intellectual and academic successes” (68). This idea makes sense to me now because God gave me my brain and my reasoning power, even if he didn't give me the specific answer to every problem on the test. When small things go right and make me happy, I can still thank God for them, if only because he created me to enjoy them.
I liked Jardine's essay the first time I read it, but I really enjoyed it when I studied it again later and found the answers to so many of my questions. I learned that I truly don't have time to do everything, that I need to focus more on God's plan than my personal ideas, that I need to watch my priorities so I don't put schoolwork ahead of the gospel, and that I should give thanks to God for everything. Jardine's words challenge me to be a little better.
Ever since my junior year of high school I have had to make difficult decisions concerning how to allot my time between various talents. Since I came to BYU, the problem has taken on the additional dimension of deciding on a major. I can list more than five subjects I would be happy to major in. Obviously, I can't major in all of them, but it is hard to let go of any. And besides the choice of a major, I have to make less important decisions daily about what area of my life to improve. I can practice music, or I can make a new kind of dinner, or I can volunteer at the MTC, or I can go to a dance, or I can study beyond the textbook for my favorite classes. Despite my best efforts, I can't fit everything in my schedule. Jardine offered some advice on this dilemma that surprised me: “You will have to decide which of your talents should be nurtured” (61). It is true – I do not have time to do every good thing. I need to make choices about what is important and recognize that the rest isn't going to happen.
Some of my first real experience with praying about important decisions came when I was preparing to come to BYU. I needed to decide whether or not to do honors. I liked the idea because of the Great Works experiences and enriched core classes, but I was not happy about the English requirement. I don't like writing. When I prayed about it, I could not get away from the fact that the honors program seemed like a really good idea. Fortunately I was able to humble myself, and so here I am. But I still struggle with the idea of asking God's advice in matters of education. I tend to like my own ideas too well. Jardine says that consecration means being dedicated to what you need to do, even if you don't like it. He says we must consecrate ourselves “to God's purposes and not our preferences” (68). He promises that making sacrifices for God will increase our love for Him. These comments answered my question about following the Spirit in making major decisions by reminding me that I need to be humble and have faith.
Jardine also offers a caution about consecrating our efforts to the wrong purposes. Just as serving God will increase our love for him, sacrificing too much for learning can cause us to love learning for its own sake, instead of for the ends it produces. Jardine suggests that our priorities reveal who or what we are really serving. For me, this answers the question about postponing scripture study. I need to plan my time carefully enough that can read my scriptures in the morning, because not doing so shows that my priorities are with school. One experience showed me the consequences of the latter. I stayed up late one night studying, but I didn't finish chemistry. So the next morning I studied chemistry instead of the Book of Mormon. It was a poor substitute. The whole day I felt unhappy, and nothing was good. I realized that I was starting to put schoolwork before gospel living, and so I made a commitment to always get my chemistry reading done before bed. I have kept that commitment thus far.
Sometime last year, I had a phase when I worked hard to be more grateful, especially to Heavenly Father. I wondered, though, just what I ought to thank Heavenly Father for, since He probably is not responsible for every good thing that happens to me. For instance, I am quite grateful whenever I find an easy parking spot in a parking garage, but that is most likely coincidence. I have also wondered, if I study really hard for a test and then I do well on it, should I thank God? Jardine replies that we should “[acknowledge] God's 'hand in all things,' including our intellectual and academic successes” (68). This idea makes sense to me now because God gave me my brain and my reasoning power, even if he didn't give me the specific answer to every problem on the test. When small things go right and make me happy, I can still thank God for them, if only because he created me to enjoy them.
I liked Jardine's essay the first time I read it, but I really enjoyed it when I studied it again later and found the answers to so many of my questions. I learned that I truly don't have time to do everything, that I need to focus more on God's plan than my personal ideas, that I need to watch my priorities so I don't put schoolwork ahead of the gospel, and that I should give thanks to God for everything. Jardine's words challenge me to be a little better.
Victoria's Response to "On Receiving"
The article "On Receiving" by George S. Tate discusses what the verb "to receive" means. Tate asserts that "receiving" or "to receive" is often a very ambiguous verb that has a very large spectrum of activity or passivity. One can be very active in their receiving or very passive. For example, Tate describes how Laman and Lemuel in the Book of Mormon are very passive in the way they receive answers. They ask God superficial questions, therefore they in turn receive shallow answers that did not fully explain the doctrine of the gospel and many of its profound truths. On the other hand, Nephi is extremely active in the way that he receives information from God. Nephi asks God to show unto him what God showed his father Lehi. Instead of Nephi asking all the questions, the angels and visions that visit him ask him the questions and he receives a testimony and a knowledge of profound principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ through answering these questions for himself. Thus, we can be active in receiving a testimony and a full understanding of God's wonders.
Tate goes on further to say that there is a distinct difference between the verbs "to receive" and "to be given." An example of this is a book that you were given for your birthday as a gift from your aunt. You were quite indifferent to the book because it did not look interesting to you. Thus, you let its pages waste away in a crammed drawer in your bedroom until finally you sell it for a couple of dollars at a garage sale. You "were given" the book, but you did not "receive" it. To "receive" something typically requires more work/activity on the part of the receiver. For example, if you are given a pair of tap shoes and then you began tap lessons and then tap dancing becomes a huge passion in your life, then you have truly received that gift.
The most active we have to be in receiving a gift is receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost as Tate illustrates in his writing. When a priesthood holder blesses someone after baptism they always say, "receive the Holy Ghost," rather than "I bless you with the Holy Ghost." Tate explains that this is because God works through the priesthood holder to indirectly bestow this beautiful gift upon his child. Priesthood holders do not have the power to give someone this gift, only God does. Thus, since the gift of the Holy Ghost is an actual gift of God it must be "received" in its entirety. This can take a whole lifetime however. We need a welcoming heart and a desire for an increasing testimony in order to receive all the blessings of the gift of the Holy Ghost, little by little.
Our quest to fully "receive" the Holy Ghost and the spiritual promptings it ensues coincides with our quest for a BYU education. If we truly try to gain a full education of God's many wonders, we will attain confirmations through the spirit and thus better "receive" the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Tate goes on further to say that there is a distinct difference between the verbs "to receive" and "to be given." An example of this is a book that you were given for your birthday as a gift from your aunt. You were quite indifferent to the book because it did not look interesting to you. Thus, you let its pages waste away in a crammed drawer in your bedroom until finally you sell it for a couple of dollars at a garage sale. You "were given" the book, but you did not "receive" it. To "receive" something typically requires more work/activity on the part of the receiver. For example, if you are given a pair of tap shoes and then you began tap lessons and then tap dancing becomes a huge passion in your life, then you have truly received that gift.
The most active we have to be in receiving a gift is receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost as Tate illustrates in his writing. When a priesthood holder blesses someone after baptism they always say, "receive the Holy Ghost," rather than "I bless you with the Holy Ghost." Tate explains that this is because God works through the priesthood holder to indirectly bestow this beautiful gift upon his child. Priesthood holders do not have the power to give someone this gift, only God does. Thus, since the gift of the Holy Ghost is an actual gift of God it must be "received" in its entirety. This can take a whole lifetime however. We need a welcoming heart and a desire for an increasing testimony in order to receive all the blessings of the gift of the Holy Ghost, little by little.
Our quest to fully "receive" the Holy Ghost and the spiritual promptings it ensues coincides with our quest for a BYU education. If we truly try to gain a full education of God's many wonders, we will attain confirmations through the spirit and thus better "receive" the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Jonathan's Response to An Excerpt from "Night"
DavÃd and I walk on each side of Mom, down the covered concrete path through the recreational area of the compound, heading toward the Olympic size swimming pool. Even the evening weather is scorching on this August day. It is Saudi Arabia, after all.
“Have fun, and, please, get along,” Mom solemnly hints. “This will probably be the last time we go swimming here, or even walk through here.” She looks around—towards the gymnasium door, then across to the movie rental and game room, and finally rounding her view ahead of us towards the barbershop—taking in the sights.
DavÃd and I join her. Soon, we reach the commissary and then round the corner past the restaurant adjacent to the swimming area. What a beautiful place, I think. This is our home with such wonderful memories and so many places yet to explore. How can we leave it?
A brawny man walks our direction.
“I know! Because we leave on DavÃd’s birthday,” I finally respond, loudly, to Mom’s previous statement.
Mom’s eyes grow wild, as she looks at me and frantically whispers, “Shhh! Jonathan, be quiet!” She straightens, smiling and nodding at the man.
He returns the greeting.
“But, Mom,” I continue, “No one knows when DavÃd’s birthday is.”
DavÃd laughs at this recognition. “Yeah, no one really knows that,” he says.
Mom sighs, “Yeah, I guess so. But, please, Jonathan—and DavÃd—don’t let anyone know. It must be secret.”
I look across Mom towards DavÃd, beaming from the ecstasy of my perceivably clever statement. I know it will be a sad day, but it will also coincide with the day that will recommit the three years seniority my brother has over me, since I turned eight in June.
We spend the next few days finishing our packing and deciding what we are to take, since there is a weight limit of five hundred pounds. I want to take the piano but am informed that it would take up the entire limit.
One night, as DavÃd and I are tucked into our beds, we ask why we are being evacuated. Mom explains that a terrorist group has been threatening to bomb the American school buses in Riyadh, so the families of all active duty military members are being evacuated. It is not really affecting us in Khamis Mushayt, but our government wants to be safe.
On August 14, Mom wakes DavÃd and me. I look at the clock: 10:08 p.m.
She softly commands, “Come on. It’s time to go.”
She remains mindful of our drowsy bodies and gently hustles us to the entryway of our villa. We assume our positions next to our carry-on bags.
Dad stares out the front window in the nearby living room. “They’re here!” he announces. He opens the front door and carries our luggage to a tiny bus outside our villa.
Mom leads DavÃd and me to the bus with our bags. Other passengers watch us in silence as we board. Children sit with their parents, but I do not recognize any of them from school, because they are younger than me. As we settle in our seats, we watch Dad close the door to our villa one last time. This is the last I will see of our happy refuge, I remind myself. I lean my tired body against my mother for comfort. She suggests I try to sleep, but I refuse.
The bus picks up one last family before leaving the compound—before leaving our home. The bus drives the windy road to Khamis Mushayt. I love this road. I loved bounding across the backseat of our Suburban with DavÃd when we drove this road times before. This is the last drive, and we are bound for a military base.
The bus is completely hushed. No one speaks. I questioningly whisper this observation to Mom.
“We must be quiet from now until we are in the air,” she whispers back. “We must be kept secret.”
“Why?” I wonder.
“Because we don’t want to hurt the Saudis’ feelings,” she answers. “They will feel bad that we are leaving. They will feel like we don’t trust them in their own country.” She pauses a moment. “We also don’t want anyone to hurt us. Someone may try to stop us from going or try to harm us with a bomb or some way. If you see anything suspicious, let me know. Since you don’t want to sleep, be watchful.”
This frightens me. Would someone really try to kill us? I decide to be watchful and observe everything that happens around us. When we arrive at the air base, two C-130’s await our arrival. Mom informs me that we only need one plane, but the extra is used as a precautionary in case the one we fly is somehow damaged. The extra one will also be used as a decoy, as the two planes will fly in opposite directions but will both land in Jeddah. The bus stops, and the door opens, welcoming our departure and boarding of the large C-130.
Never will I forget this moment—never this stress or adrenaline—never these sights or fears—never this loss of security and innocence. Never.
“Have fun, and, please, get along,” Mom solemnly hints. “This will probably be the last time we go swimming here, or even walk through here.” She looks around—towards the gymnasium door, then across to the movie rental and game room, and finally rounding her view ahead of us towards the barbershop—taking in the sights.
DavÃd and I join her. Soon, we reach the commissary and then round the corner past the restaurant adjacent to the swimming area. What a beautiful place, I think. This is our home with such wonderful memories and so many places yet to explore. How can we leave it?
A brawny man walks our direction.
“I know! Because we leave on DavÃd’s birthday,” I finally respond, loudly, to Mom’s previous statement.
Mom’s eyes grow wild, as she looks at me and frantically whispers, “Shhh! Jonathan, be quiet!” She straightens, smiling and nodding at the man.
He returns the greeting.
“But, Mom,” I continue, “No one knows when DavÃd’s birthday is.”
DavÃd laughs at this recognition. “Yeah, no one really knows that,” he says.
Mom sighs, “Yeah, I guess so. But, please, Jonathan—and DavÃd—don’t let anyone know. It must be secret.”
I look across Mom towards DavÃd, beaming from the ecstasy of my perceivably clever statement. I know it will be a sad day, but it will also coincide with the day that will recommit the three years seniority my brother has over me, since I turned eight in June.
We spend the next few days finishing our packing and deciding what we are to take, since there is a weight limit of five hundred pounds. I want to take the piano but am informed that it would take up the entire limit.
One night, as DavÃd and I are tucked into our beds, we ask why we are being evacuated. Mom explains that a terrorist group has been threatening to bomb the American school buses in Riyadh, so the families of all active duty military members are being evacuated. It is not really affecting us in Khamis Mushayt, but our government wants to be safe.
On August 14, Mom wakes DavÃd and me. I look at the clock: 10:08 p.m.
She softly commands, “Come on. It’s time to go.”
She remains mindful of our drowsy bodies and gently hustles us to the entryway of our villa. We assume our positions next to our carry-on bags.
Dad stares out the front window in the nearby living room. “They’re here!” he announces. He opens the front door and carries our luggage to a tiny bus outside our villa.
Mom leads DavÃd and me to the bus with our bags. Other passengers watch us in silence as we board. Children sit with their parents, but I do not recognize any of them from school, because they are younger than me. As we settle in our seats, we watch Dad close the door to our villa one last time. This is the last I will see of our happy refuge, I remind myself. I lean my tired body against my mother for comfort. She suggests I try to sleep, but I refuse.
The bus picks up one last family before leaving the compound—before leaving our home. The bus drives the windy road to Khamis Mushayt. I love this road. I loved bounding across the backseat of our Suburban with DavÃd when we drove this road times before. This is the last drive, and we are bound for a military base.
The bus is completely hushed. No one speaks. I questioningly whisper this observation to Mom.
“We must be quiet from now until we are in the air,” she whispers back. “We must be kept secret.”
“Why?” I wonder.
“Because we don’t want to hurt the Saudis’ feelings,” she answers. “They will feel bad that we are leaving. They will feel like we don’t trust them in their own country.” She pauses a moment. “We also don’t want anyone to hurt us. Someone may try to stop us from going or try to harm us with a bomb or some way. If you see anything suspicious, let me know. Since you don’t want to sleep, be watchful.”
This frightens me. Would someone really try to kill us? I decide to be watchful and observe everything that happens around us. When we arrive at the air base, two C-130’s await our arrival. Mom informs me that we only need one plane, but the extra is used as a precautionary in case the one we fly is somehow damaged. The extra one will also be used as a decoy, as the two planes will fly in opposite directions but will both land in Jeddah. The bus stops, and the door opens, welcoming our departure and boarding of the large C-130.
Never will I forget this moment—never this stress or adrenaline—never these sights or fears—never this loss of security and innocence. Never.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Jill's Response to "The Wall and the Books"
I have never really thought about the origins of the Great Wall of China. I’ve taken its existence for granted, somehow assuming it’s been there since the beginning of the world. I never consciously realized that it had to have been built by man and that someone was behind its creation. This article gives us a glimpse into the baffling mind of that someone, Shih Huang Ti. He is baffling because his actions conflict. This man who brought forth one of the most influential architectural masterpieces of all time also facilitated the destruction of three thousand years of printed history. Jorge Luis Borges explores the possible reasons and resulting consequences of this odd duality.
One idea Borges speculates on is perhaps Shih Huang Ti was trying to hide his own weakness. He knew he was not the emperors of old and could never be. According to the author, Ti’s enemies used the books and records against him by comparing him to his predecessors. As an emperor, Ti wanted complete devotion. Going along with Borges idea, it seems like Ti burned the books to blind his people and leave them no choice but to accept him as emperor, and perhaps, even as a god. He knew that he could never get honest, intelligent devotion because he honestly couldn’t live up to those who came before him, so he forced blind devotion.
Additionally, Borges presents the speculation that Ti simply went a little overboard in trying to destroy one event, and to prevent future repeats of that event. The event was his mother’s rebellion. According to the article, his mother was a “libertine”. We don’t get any more detail than that but we can assume she opposed his restricting of freedoms. The author suggest that he hated his mother (or her actions) so much that he destroyed everything potentially related to such rebellions. Borges compares this action to the king of Judah’s extermination of all male babies to kill just one.
Another possible reason behind the destruction and construction on this massive scale is Ti’s belief in the supernatural. The emperor took steps, by the hand of sorcerers and through decrees to his people, to ensure his immortality. Borges suggests that “the wall in space and fire in time” were designed as magic barriers to cheat death.
I was intrigued reading about this man. How could someone so seemingly progressive disregard the past so completely? It’s like he was climbing a gigantic ladder and then lopped off the bottom rungs. There’s a reason we study history: it provides a foundation for the future. Learning from our predecessors is a commandment. I’m not saying that the writings of early Chinese history are scripture, but centuries of invaluable knowledge could have been passed on from them. Shih Huang Ti robbed himself (and all of China for that matter) of his foundation and foolishly thought he could succeed.
Perhaps the most important idea Borges presents in his essay is the significance of not understanding or missing something. There are many times in life when we feel like we’ve missed something significant. We feel like some event or occurrence is trying to tell us something but we just can’t grasp it. Borges suggests that “this imminence of a revelation which does not occur is, perhaps, the aesthetic phenomenon”. There are some things we simply will not understand in this life. In this we are humbled and driven to search further and deeper for our answers.
One idea Borges speculates on is perhaps Shih Huang Ti was trying to hide his own weakness. He knew he was not the emperors of old and could never be. According to the author, Ti’s enemies used the books and records against him by comparing him to his predecessors. As an emperor, Ti wanted complete devotion. Going along with Borges idea, it seems like Ti burned the books to blind his people and leave them no choice but to accept him as emperor, and perhaps, even as a god. He knew that he could never get honest, intelligent devotion because he honestly couldn’t live up to those who came before him, so he forced blind devotion.
Additionally, Borges presents the speculation that Ti simply went a little overboard in trying to destroy one event, and to prevent future repeats of that event. The event was his mother’s rebellion. According to the article, his mother was a “libertine”. We don’t get any more detail than that but we can assume she opposed his restricting of freedoms. The author suggest that he hated his mother (or her actions) so much that he destroyed everything potentially related to such rebellions. Borges compares this action to the king of Judah’s extermination of all male babies to kill just one.
Another possible reason behind the destruction and construction on this massive scale is Ti’s belief in the supernatural. The emperor took steps, by the hand of sorcerers and through decrees to his people, to ensure his immortality. Borges suggests that “the wall in space and fire in time” were designed as magic barriers to cheat death.
I was intrigued reading about this man. How could someone so seemingly progressive disregard the past so completely? It’s like he was climbing a gigantic ladder and then lopped off the bottom rungs. There’s a reason we study history: it provides a foundation for the future. Learning from our predecessors is a commandment. I’m not saying that the writings of early Chinese history are scripture, but centuries of invaluable knowledge could have been passed on from them. Shih Huang Ti robbed himself (and all of China for that matter) of his foundation and foolishly thought he could succeed.
Perhaps the most important idea Borges presents in his essay is the significance of not understanding or missing something. There are many times in life when we feel like we’ve missed something significant. We feel like some event or occurrence is trying to tell us something but we just can’t grasp it. Borges suggests that “this imminence of a revelation which does not occur is, perhaps, the aesthetic phenomenon”. There are some things we simply will not understand in this life. In this we are humbled and driven to search further and deeper for our answers.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Michael's Response to "When Life Begins"
Given our knowledge about the Plan of Salvation as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day-saints, I think we have a different perspective on this matter than most. I was told in my Book of Mormon class that no other Christian faith believes in a premortal life. With that piece of key doctrine missing from their logic, I’ve heard arguments that in those first stages after conception nothing exists except a clump of cells, and therefore its loss, whether by abortion or natural means, is of no consequence. Since we know that we existed as spirits before this mortal life and that we will continue to exist afterwards, I feel that while it may be a clump of cells, it is the potential that matters and it is the beginnings of a body that belongs to someone waiting for their turn on earth. This reading is discussing the implications of life beginning at conception and what that means as far as miscarriages and such.
I’ve had some discussions on the topic of abortion with non-member friends who possess contrasting views. After we each express our opinions, none of us convincing the other in the slightest, I point out that it cannot really be proven scientifically when exactly life begins, and I ask them if they are willing to be wrong, because supporting the position they do has consequences if they are.
What made this reading significant to me and separated it from everything else I’ve heard about the beginnings of life is that it took the stance that most members of our Church have on the issue and pointed out what it really implies about life being more fraught with death than some may realize and how at the same time it preaches the value of human life, it lowers the conceptual value. It implies that death really isn’t that big of a deal because it’s happening right and left. The part about really dead people deserving mowed grass just as much as newly dead people really hit me and I thought that while the implications of life beginning at conception are hard to think about, focusing on celebrating lives well lived is a much better use of our time and someday we will be able to ask Heavenly Father what was up and it will all make sense.
I’ve had some discussions on the topic of abortion with non-member friends who possess contrasting views. After we each express our opinions, none of us convincing the other in the slightest, I point out that it cannot really be proven scientifically when exactly life begins, and I ask them if they are willing to be wrong, because supporting the position they do has consequences if they are.
What made this reading significant to me and separated it from everything else I’ve heard about the beginnings of life is that it took the stance that most members of our Church have on the issue and pointed out what it really implies about life being more fraught with death than some may realize and how at the same time it preaches the value of human life, it lowers the conceptual value. It implies that death really isn’t that big of a deal because it’s happening right and left. The part about really dead people deserving mowed grass just as much as newly dead people really hit me and I thought that while the implications of life beginning at conception are hard to think about, focusing on celebrating lives well lived is a much better use of our time and someday we will be able to ask Heavenly Father what was up and it will all make sense.
Ariel's Response to "On Being an LDS Writer"
“You’re…you’re a God-person.”
The statement of Eric Shumway’s identity by the pudgy, inquisitive ringleader of a gang of unabashedly curious schoolboys brought to mind something I was told not too long ago:
“He says he doesn’t like you because you’re too good of a Mormon.”
At my cousin’s revelation of what a certain guy at our high school thought of me, my first instinct was to laugh. What kind of an insult was that?
“Please tell him thank you for me,” I replied. “That’s one of the nicest things anyone has said about me.”
Now, I am by no means perfect, but I would hope that to have someone say such a thing means I am on my way to becoming a “God-person”—what Shumway encourages every LDS writer to be.
Shumway relates, “It’s a matter of ultimate identity as we presume to create, melding truth and beauty, pleasure and instruction, discrimination and judgment, into works of art and records of fact.” Our choice of words and the way we say things tell much about who we are; “God-persons” find the truths in the workings of human existence and share their findings through the written word. Shumway cites many examples in classic literature of this recognition of truth. I discovered one such example about a year ago.
Now, I am not one to get overly emotional over movies and books; I’ve teared up a couple times during a film, and while reading tears come few and far between. Yet there I sat in my living room chair one night, honest-to-goodness crying, makeup everywhere, over the last few pages of Charles Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities. Why? The final, tragic sacrifice of Sidney Carton, dying in the place of Charles Darnay, resonated in my heart with the true story of another Man who paid so dear a price to save those he loved. Shumway refers to these instances as “moments of transforming power” which “open the eyes of our understanding.” Closing that book with tear-stained cheeks that evening, my understanding had truly been expanded; I understood better the depth and personal nature of the suffering our Savior endured for us.
As members of the Church, we are under personal commandment to write, and these “moments of transforming power” Shumway speaks of are not restricted to great works of literature, but can also abound in the personal histories we are admonished to create. Reading this article, I don’t know that my journal contains very many of these. However, hidden amongst lamentations concerning mountainous homework, vignettes relating utterly insensible doings with friends, and agonizings over the doings of current crushes are small insights and bits of wisdom born of experience which I hope will be of use to myself and my future posterity.
In all our writings, both public and personal, one of the most important things we must consider is our audience, and the most important member of that audience is the Lord. We will be held responsible for “every idle thought,” and even more so for our premeditated ones, as Shumway points out. “May we remember for whom we write and to whom we will account,” he writes. To that I say, amen.
The statement of Eric Shumway’s identity by the pudgy, inquisitive ringleader of a gang of unabashedly curious schoolboys brought to mind something I was told not too long ago:
“He says he doesn’t like you because you’re too good of a Mormon.”
At my cousin’s revelation of what a certain guy at our high school thought of me, my first instinct was to laugh. What kind of an insult was that?
“Please tell him thank you for me,” I replied. “That’s one of the nicest things anyone has said about me.”
Now, I am by no means perfect, but I would hope that to have someone say such a thing means I am on my way to becoming a “God-person”—what Shumway encourages every LDS writer to be.
Shumway relates, “It’s a matter of ultimate identity as we presume to create, melding truth and beauty, pleasure and instruction, discrimination and judgment, into works of art and records of fact.” Our choice of words and the way we say things tell much about who we are; “God-persons” find the truths in the workings of human existence and share their findings through the written word. Shumway cites many examples in classic literature of this recognition of truth. I discovered one such example about a year ago.
Now, I am not one to get overly emotional over movies and books; I’ve teared up a couple times during a film, and while reading tears come few and far between. Yet there I sat in my living room chair one night, honest-to-goodness crying, makeup everywhere, over the last few pages of Charles Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities. Why? The final, tragic sacrifice of Sidney Carton, dying in the place of Charles Darnay, resonated in my heart with the true story of another Man who paid so dear a price to save those he loved. Shumway refers to these instances as “moments of transforming power” which “open the eyes of our understanding.” Closing that book with tear-stained cheeks that evening, my understanding had truly been expanded; I understood better the depth and personal nature of the suffering our Savior endured for us.
As members of the Church, we are under personal commandment to write, and these “moments of transforming power” Shumway speaks of are not restricted to great works of literature, but can also abound in the personal histories we are admonished to create. Reading this article, I don’t know that my journal contains very many of these. However, hidden amongst lamentations concerning mountainous homework, vignettes relating utterly insensible doings with friends, and agonizings over the doings of current crushes are small insights and bits of wisdom born of experience which I hope will be of use to myself and my future posterity.
In all our writings, both public and personal, one of the most important things we must consider is our audience, and the most important member of that audience is the Lord. We will be held responsible for “every idle thought,” and even more so for our premeditated ones, as Shumway points out. “May we remember for whom we write and to whom we will account,” he writes. To that I say, amen.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Philip's Response to "Salvation"
It seems like any story that doesn’t have a happy ending is deemed “unfortunate” or “depressing.” I’ve got to admit, after reading Salvation, I just sat there on my bed thinking, “What a disheartening anecdote. Poor little Langston having to undergo such an experience at such a young age. It seems pretty messed up that he based his entire belief in God based on one experience in his life.”
But the more I think about it, I can’t help but think about how truly lost people really are without the fullness of the Gospel. I was fascinated at the idea that some Christian denominations believe Jesus comes into their lives at one certain time – specifically after everyone “sees Jesus” and has the Holy Ghost come into their lives. From the perspective of someone who has grown up in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, compelling children to have a “sacred” experience at such a young age seems ridiculous. Of course, people may say the same thing about us baptizing children at the age of accountability when they turn 8 years old. Yet, we don’t necessarily force them to do so and linger on such a decision. Of course we want every child to get baptized, but I really don’t think we isolate them and wait on each of their baptisms.
I have no idea if Langston Hughes would have ever joined our Church or not, nor will I ever find out in this life. And I really don’t think it matters to each of our individual salvation. But the principle of his situation evokes an interesting point to consider: how do conformity and different beliefs of other Christian denominations affect people differently than our church? After all, we’re all children of God who are all given the Light of Christ that we may know good from evil and seek out His truth in this world. In Hughes’s case, conformity shaped his entire perception of religion and God himself. Claiming that he “wanted to see [Jesus] … but nothing came” (114), he became ashamed of himself and decided to “lie” that he too saw Jesus Christ and was saved from his sins. Even though he truly believed and desired to have some manifestation of the Holy Ghost that night, Hughes – not to his fault – appeared to be more focused on what the congregation consisting of his family, friends, and neighbors would think. Expecting to literally see Jesus, he waited and waited until he could no longer bear the pressure of the supposed “99 sheep” waiting on the “lost” one.
But perhaps the worst, yet most intriguing, part of his whole experience is that the overwhelming guilt and pressure to “see Jesus” – which ultimately made him conform and be “saved” – destroyed his belief in Jesus Christ. Given his denomination’s skewed beliefs toward the Savior and salvation, the Lord never came to him, which caused him to lose all faith in someone who never came to help him.
If only he knew what we know to be the truth. If only he never had to be pressured into religious conformity. Would he have turned out differently? Would he have ever gained a testimony of Christ? We may never know the answers to such questions. As unfortunate as Langston Hughes’s situation was, the only thing we can do is be grateful that we know the truth and teach the Gospel to others so that they may have the opportunity to accept the truth and happiness that we all have.
But the more I think about it, I can’t help but think about how truly lost people really are without the fullness of the Gospel. I was fascinated at the idea that some Christian denominations believe Jesus comes into their lives at one certain time – specifically after everyone “sees Jesus” and has the Holy Ghost come into their lives. From the perspective of someone who has grown up in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, compelling children to have a “sacred” experience at such a young age seems ridiculous. Of course, people may say the same thing about us baptizing children at the age of accountability when they turn 8 years old. Yet, we don’t necessarily force them to do so and linger on such a decision. Of course we want every child to get baptized, but I really don’t think we isolate them and wait on each of their baptisms.
I have no idea if Langston Hughes would have ever joined our Church or not, nor will I ever find out in this life. And I really don’t think it matters to each of our individual salvation. But the principle of his situation evokes an interesting point to consider: how do conformity and different beliefs of other Christian denominations affect people differently than our church? After all, we’re all children of God who are all given the Light of Christ that we may know good from evil and seek out His truth in this world. In Hughes’s case, conformity shaped his entire perception of religion and God himself. Claiming that he “wanted to see [Jesus] … but nothing came” (114), he became ashamed of himself and decided to “lie” that he too saw Jesus Christ and was saved from his sins. Even though he truly believed and desired to have some manifestation of the Holy Ghost that night, Hughes – not to his fault – appeared to be more focused on what the congregation consisting of his family, friends, and neighbors would think. Expecting to literally see Jesus, he waited and waited until he could no longer bear the pressure of the supposed “99 sheep” waiting on the “lost” one.
But perhaps the worst, yet most intriguing, part of his whole experience is that the overwhelming guilt and pressure to “see Jesus” – which ultimately made him conform and be “saved” – destroyed his belief in Jesus Christ. Given his denomination’s skewed beliefs toward the Savior and salvation, the Lord never came to him, which caused him to lose all faith in someone who never came to help him.
If only he knew what we know to be the truth. If only he never had to be pressured into religious conformity. Would he have turned out differently? Would he have ever gained a testimony of Christ? We may never know the answers to such questions. As unfortunate as Langston Hughes’s situation was, the only thing we can do is be grateful that we know the truth and teach the Gospel to others so that they may have the opportunity to accept the truth and happiness that we all have.
Ethan's Response to "The Iguana"
I know we’ve all heard that curiosity killed the cat, but did you know that envy killed the iguana? Now I’m not saying that the iguana was envious, but the guy with the gun was, so there you have it: if you’re envious you’ll start killing animals, which just so happens to be the first sign that you might be a serial killer. Who knew that envy caused mass homicide? Next time little old Betsy sees you and wishes aloud that she were young again, you had better check her knitting basket for an AK, she might be out to get you.
All lame jokes aside, The Iguana is a pretty good read, and not only because it’s so short, but because it has several good messages, including:
• Live and let live.
• You can’t come out of life with everything, and you shouldn’t try to.
• Some things are only meant to be appreciated or admired.
You shouldn’t try to capture everything pretty that you see; live and let live. Beauty is seasonal, in most every case. The young get old, the flowers wilt, the spring runs dry, and your hamster dies. It’s inevitable, and you can’t change it. Also, zombification isn’t the answer. I know you want your boyfriend back, but he will literally love you more for your brains than for your looks. That’s a bad thing in zombie-land. So let beauty last, and enjoy it while you can.
You can’t come out of life with everything, and you shouldn’t try to. Envy causes envy; you’ll never be satisfied with just one butterfly, you’ll have to have them all, and that would only cause frustration for yourself and for the rest of the world, especially since they would experience hurricane-force winds almost incessantly (if a butterfly flaps its wings…). People get so caught up in the world, that they forget the most important parts of life, yes there’s God, family, and the gospel, but they forget that life results in death, and you can’t bring a suitcase to the judgment bar.
Some things are only meant to be appreciated or admired. We all have our talents, whether it be something musical, artistic, or the fact that our skin gives off a rainbow-like luminescence, we all have something special that is ours. None of us have every talent, and none of us are talentless. What joy would life contain if we had every admirable thing to ourselves? There would be no joy. If everything around us was beautiful, would beauty even be? No, it wouldn’t. You see, joy and beauty are subject to our ability to share.
As Dinesen put it, “take measures to find out whether things will be keeping their value when dead.” From the worldly perspective, this means when “things” are dead, but it if we interpret it to mean when we are dead, the meaning is much more profound. If you won’t enjoy it in the world to come, why care about it? I know it’s an awesome iPod and I know it’s a cute dress, but there are more important things in life, and a more important Rock to build on.
All lame jokes aside, The Iguana is a pretty good read, and not only because it’s so short, but because it has several good messages, including:
• Live and let live.
• You can’t come out of life with everything, and you shouldn’t try to.
• Some things are only meant to be appreciated or admired.
You shouldn’t try to capture everything pretty that you see; live and let live. Beauty is seasonal, in most every case. The young get old, the flowers wilt, the spring runs dry, and your hamster dies. It’s inevitable, and you can’t change it. Also, zombification isn’t the answer. I know you want your boyfriend back, but he will literally love you more for your brains than for your looks. That’s a bad thing in zombie-land. So let beauty last, and enjoy it while you can.
You can’t come out of life with everything, and you shouldn’t try to. Envy causes envy; you’ll never be satisfied with just one butterfly, you’ll have to have them all, and that would only cause frustration for yourself and for the rest of the world, especially since they would experience hurricane-force winds almost incessantly (if a butterfly flaps its wings…). People get so caught up in the world, that they forget the most important parts of life, yes there’s God, family, and the gospel, but they forget that life results in death, and you can’t bring a suitcase to the judgment bar.
Some things are only meant to be appreciated or admired. We all have our talents, whether it be something musical, artistic, or the fact that our skin gives off a rainbow-like luminescence, we all have something special that is ours. None of us have every talent, and none of us are talentless. What joy would life contain if we had every admirable thing to ourselves? There would be no joy. If everything around us was beautiful, would beauty even be? No, it wouldn’t. You see, joy and beauty are subject to our ability to share.
As Dinesen put it, “take measures to find out whether things will be keeping their value when dead.” From the worldly perspective, this means when “things” are dead, but it if we interpret it to mean when we are dead, the meaning is much more profound. If you won’t enjoy it in the world to come, why care about it? I know it’s an awesome iPod and I know it’s a cute dress, but there are more important things in life, and a more important Rock to build on.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Hannah's Response to "On a rose for Emily"
I have read “A Rose for Emily” by William Faulkner many times, but I never could figure out exactly what the story was supposed to mean. It was just some creepy story. Being an English major, I tried to look for a deeper meaning to this story. But it never came to me. I remained some creepy story about a lady who killed the man she loved and kept his body in her house. I found this very disturbing.
This article finally helped me to understand this story a little bit better. It helped me to realize that this story was not just trying to make the South look like a place full of people with disturbing minds and creepy ways of doing things; it actually had the purpose of showing the awful effects of pride. And this is the moral of this short story. It’s the moral that I’ve been searching for since I first read the story in the first semester of my junior year of high school.
This article does a really good job of telling what you’re actually supposed to get out of this story. It gives some really good questions to ask when you’re reading “A Rose for Emily”. The article made me really want to go back and reread the story again, keeping these questions in mind so I can get something out of it this time. The article points out things to pay attention to as you read, which can be very helpful in reading this story. Faulkner is kind of difficult to understand, as he has a tendency to use strange characters who do really bizarre things to illustrate his point, whatever his point may be, so any kind of suggestions of what to focus on is very useful in reading his work. Of course, you’ll still have to work to understand it. But any advice is useful.
I think it’s kind of interesting that the article refers to the acts of Miss Emily as being both heroic and disturbing. I’m a very stubborn person, so stubborn acts of rebellion against the norm do strike me as heroic. At the same time, I am very anti-murder and I think that she handled the situation badly. She did a horrible thing, but at the same time, she was refusing to allow the man that she loved to leave her and thus go against her will. The article helped me to understand this, and thus to understand what Faulkner was trying to say in this short story. Miss Emily allowed pride to dominate her whole character. She let it get far enough that she was willing to commit murder to defend it. Pride is actually quite a big problem in society. It can cause people to do very strange things. In the Book of Mormon, it causes the destruction of entire nations.
There really is a good message in this short story, and this article finally helped me to see that message. Until I read this article, “A Rose for Emily” was just a really creepy short story that sent chills down my spine every time I read it. I always focused my energy on figuring out how anyone could have come up with the idea for this story. What kind of sick, twisted mind could possibly invent a character that would behave in the way that Miss Emily behaves? After reading this article, I realized that I wasn’t looking deeply enough to get any meaning out of the story. Reading this article was kind of a reminder to me to not be a lazy reader and actually look more deeply for the real meaning of a literary work. You have to look for the answer or it won’t come to you.
This article finally helped me to understand this story a little bit better. It helped me to realize that this story was not just trying to make the South look like a place full of people with disturbing minds and creepy ways of doing things; it actually had the purpose of showing the awful effects of pride. And this is the moral of this short story. It’s the moral that I’ve been searching for since I first read the story in the first semester of my junior year of high school.
This article does a really good job of telling what you’re actually supposed to get out of this story. It gives some really good questions to ask when you’re reading “A Rose for Emily”. The article made me really want to go back and reread the story again, keeping these questions in mind so I can get something out of it this time. The article points out things to pay attention to as you read, which can be very helpful in reading this story. Faulkner is kind of difficult to understand, as he has a tendency to use strange characters who do really bizarre things to illustrate his point, whatever his point may be, so any kind of suggestions of what to focus on is very useful in reading his work. Of course, you’ll still have to work to understand it. But any advice is useful.
I think it’s kind of interesting that the article refers to the acts of Miss Emily as being both heroic and disturbing. I’m a very stubborn person, so stubborn acts of rebellion against the norm do strike me as heroic. At the same time, I am very anti-murder and I think that she handled the situation badly. She did a horrible thing, but at the same time, she was refusing to allow the man that she loved to leave her and thus go against her will. The article helped me to understand this, and thus to understand what Faulkner was trying to say in this short story. Miss Emily allowed pride to dominate her whole character. She let it get far enough that she was willing to commit murder to defend it. Pride is actually quite a big problem in society. It can cause people to do very strange things. In the Book of Mormon, it causes the destruction of entire nations.
There really is a good message in this short story, and this article finally helped me to see that message. Until I read this article, “A Rose for Emily” was just a really creepy short story that sent chills down my spine every time I read it. I always focused my energy on figuring out how anyone could have come up with the idea for this story. What kind of sick, twisted mind could possibly invent a character that would behave in the way that Miss Emily behaves? After reading this article, I realized that I wasn’t looking deeply enough to get any meaning out of the story. Reading this article was kind of a reminder to me to not be a lazy reader and actually look more deeply for the real meaning of a literary work. You have to look for the answer or it won’t come to you.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Stephanie's Response to "Why the church is as true as the gospel"
I chose this article because I didn’t quite understand the title. “Why the Church is as True as the Gospel”… I have always thought of the Church and the Gospel as one in the same so to hear it separated out like that caught my attention. How could the church be different than the Gospel? Doesn’t the Church revolve around the Gospel of Christ? England presents the idea that the Church is the physical part of the gospel, that part that you go to every Sunday. He says the Gospel is the actual knowledge of Christ that we have been given by the Book of Mormon and the correctly translated information from the Bible. He presents many ideas of his philosophy some of which are, opposition is key in the truth of the Church, the Church is “the school of love”, the Church involves its members actively with other members’ weakness and allows us to see our own weakness.
Opposition being a key to salvation is a big part of this paper. This was very interesting to me because I had just written a paper on opposition for my Book of Mormon class. I had talked about how opposition was a huge part of music and art, England goes further to talk about the opposition in the members. For example, the intelligent listening to the misinformed and biased and the impatient finding they have to be patient. I have thought about this because I can relate to it. I see it and I know that I am not the most informed person either. I worry about my papers, my talks and my lessons because I know that I do not know much. This year is my first year at college and I was terrified that I would be called as a Sunday school teacher, called to teach the returned missionaries that knew much more about what I was teaching than I did. But as England says, that is part of the Church, learning to deal with that, both on the hand of the teacher, and of the listener.
He goes on to say how the Church is true because it is a “school of love”. I thought this was interesting because often, people of my age (including me) think that a family is a bi-product of love for one another. I will love my family, of course… but I have never really thought that I will continue to learn to love. England says that a family, as well as the Church, is the school of love. How love does not come right off, that a school of love will teach you how to love unconditionally, something that we can all use a bit more of.
The rest of his essay is based on weakness and the strength that comes from it. The Church is as true as the gospel because it “involves us directly in proving contraries, working constructively with the oppositions within ourselves and especially between people, struggling at an experiential level with paradoxes and polarities that can help to redeem us.” He also talks about how sometimes we are hurt by our leader’s weakness. I think we all have, at some time, been hurt by our leaders. Most of the time that hurt is unintentional, but that is part of what makes our Church true. As England says, the weakness of others helps make us stronger. He even talks of the “less honorable” gifts (from 1 Corinthians 12) like ignorance, social pride, and prejudice. He talks about how those are just as important to the truth of the Church as the “honorable” gifts because they make other stronger, and help them to grow by coming to accept them. He says that it is very hard for the rich and intelligent to accept the weakness of the Church. It is hard for them because they want to see the Church as a perfect thing because the gospel is perfect. The Church is obviously imperfect, but the imperfections are what make it perfect.
He mentions several of his experiences in how the Church has made people grow. I liked these stories because I think that it is hard to see the changes wrought in people because they come gradually, it must be amazing to be able to see that change. Bishops really are chosen of God, and the power given to them really helps people out and his examples are another testimony of that.
This essay is an excellent one and eye-opening to me. His opinion on the Church and the gospel, being separate things, with the oppositions we see in the Church, the Church being the “school of love”, and his views on the saving experiences we get from the imperfections of others, definitely make this article a good read. I hope we can all take something from this and even learn from this article to be more patient.
Opposition being a key to salvation is a big part of this paper. This was very interesting to me because I had just written a paper on opposition for my Book of Mormon class. I had talked about how opposition was a huge part of music and art, England goes further to talk about the opposition in the members. For example, the intelligent listening to the misinformed and biased and the impatient finding they have to be patient. I have thought about this because I can relate to it. I see it and I know that I am not the most informed person either. I worry about my papers, my talks and my lessons because I know that I do not know much. This year is my first year at college and I was terrified that I would be called as a Sunday school teacher, called to teach the returned missionaries that knew much more about what I was teaching than I did. But as England says, that is part of the Church, learning to deal with that, both on the hand of the teacher, and of the listener.
He goes on to say how the Church is true because it is a “school of love”. I thought this was interesting because often, people of my age (including me) think that a family is a bi-product of love for one another. I will love my family, of course… but I have never really thought that I will continue to learn to love. England says that a family, as well as the Church, is the school of love. How love does not come right off, that a school of love will teach you how to love unconditionally, something that we can all use a bit more of.
The rest of his essay is based on weakness and the strength that comes from it. The Church is as true as the gospel because it “involves us directly in proving contraries, working constructively with the oppositions within ourselves and especially between people, struggling at an experiential level with paradoxes and polarities that can help to redeem us.” He also talks about how sometimes we are hurt by our leader’s weakness. I think we all have, at some time, been hurt by our leaders. Most of the time that hurt is unintentional, but that is part of what makes our Church true. As England says, the weakness of others helps make us stronger. He even talks of the “less honorable” gifts (from 1 Corinthians 12) like ignorance, social pride, and prejudice. He talks about how those are just as important to the truth of the Church as the “honorable” gifts because they make other stronger, and help them to grow by coming to accept them. He says that it is very hard for the rich and intelligent to accept the weakness of the Church. It is hard for them because they want to see the Church as a perfect thing because the gospel is perfect. The Church is obviously imperfect, but the imperfections are what make it perfect.
He mentions several of his experiences in how the Church has made people grow. I liked these stories because I think that it is hard to see the changes wrought in people because they come gradually, it must be amazing to be able to see that change. Bishops really are chosen of God, and the power given to them really helps people out and his examples are another testimony of that.
This essay is an excellent one and eye-opening to me. His opinion on the Church and the gospel, being separate things, with the oppositions we see in the Church, the Church being the “school of love”, and his views on the saving experiences we get from the imperfections of others, definitely make this article a good read. I hope we can all take something from this and even learn from this article to be more patient.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Matthew's response to "Thoughts of an Oriental Girl"
Can somebody who isn’t a “minority” really understand being politically correct? What is my basis for righting this article? It is true that I personally don’t have racial slurs directed my way on a constant basis or anything like that. However I am a human and there is one thing that humans do really well and that is sympathize. How else could a movie like Wall-E, a movie about robots, become a success? So here is my attempt to understand being politically correct.
I am a WASP. A White Anglo Saxon Protestant like Emily Tsao mentions in her article. What is the politically correct term for me? White? European-American? Caucasian? Man? Boy? Does it really matter?
Emily Tsao explains that a lot of the correct PC (politically correct) language out there seems “pointless”. Instead of saying minority it is PC to say people of color. Emily says that most Asians find the term “yellow” more offensive than Oriental, which isn’t PC. She also argues that isn’t white a color?
In closing her article she says that she doesn’t want start a new PC revolution because how does changing the way the world speaks make her any better. I think she is trying to say that instead of worrying about being PC that we should worry about improving ourselves and to not care how other people describe us.
Here in America calling somebody fat is very rude and I would even say not PC. In my Spanish class I learned that many Spanish speaking cultures saying “gordo” (fat) is just a way to describe people and is not offensive. If only the same principle could be applied to ethnic backgrounds. When describing somebody you know wouldn’t it be cool if you could say that they are white or any other ethnic background with out it sounding bad.
Maybe we could come up with new terms that have positive connotations to describe race. If you come up and ask me what color I am wouldn’t it be cool if I answered cloudy. When describing my friend from the Marshall Islands it would be cool to say that he is mahogany. Before this can happen though as a people we need to decide that race is a good thing. We need to worry about who other people are at their core instead of what they look like on the outside.
I am a WASP. A White Anglo Saxon Protestant like Emily Tsao mentions in her article. What is the politically correct term for me? White? European-American? Caucasian? Man? Boy? Does it really matter?
Emily Tsao explains that a lot of the correct PC (politically correct) language out there seems “pointless”. Instead of saying minority it is PC to say people of color. Emily says that most Asians find the term “yellow” more offensive than Oriental, which isn’t PC. She also argues that isn’t white a color?
In closing her article she says that she doesn’t want start a new PC revolution because how does changing the way the world speaks make her any better. I think she is trying to say that instead of worrying about being PC that we should worry about improving ourselves and to not care how other people describe us.
Here in America calling somebody fat is very rude and I would even say not PC. In my Spanish class I learned that many Spanish speaking cultures saying “gordo” (fat) is just a way to describe people and is not offensive. If only the same principle could be applied to ethnic backgrounds. When describing somebody you know wouldn’t it be cool if you could say that they are white or any other ethnic background with out it sounding bad.
Maybe we could come up with new terms that have positive connotations to describe race. If you come up and ask me what color I am wouldn’t it be cool if I answered cloudy. When describing my friend from the Marshall Islands it would be cool to say that he is mahogany. Before this can happen though as a people we need to decide that race is a good thing. We need to worry about who other people are at their core instead of what they look like on the outside.
Eileen's response to "Feed my Lambs"
“Once upon a time...and they lived happily ever after.” This is one of the most famous lines in the English language, and for good reason. Children are fed these stories as they grow up, learning from the mistakes of characters, dreaming about fantastic adventures, hoping to reach their own “happily ever after.” However, reality likes to change the script. Sometimes, the story takes a wrong turn just after “once upon a time,” and getting to “happily ever after” seems utterly impossible. This is the situation for the students in “Feed My Lambs.” Life is hard for them, and they are hardly lambs by the traditional sense of the word. Kenny, a drug user. Alexandra, a mother at 15. Couillous, carries a knife to school. Gary, silent, but listening. These are the students of Charlestown High School when Mrs. Asplund-Campbell begins her student teaching semester. Her quest is for the idea or story that can reach them, and the “why” behind all her work. Why even try?
Her “why” slowly emerged, after painful months of hitting walls and getting told no. She began to see her students in the light of their struggles and their needs. They weren’t conventional lambs, but they needed something nonetheless. She needed to feed the lambs.
This isn't the first time the request has been made, “Feed my lambs.” Christ first put it to His disciples, asking them to find the people who needed nourishment, to bring them back into His fold. These were the people who needed to know they were part of something greater. These were the people who needed to know they weren't alone, and that there was hope. According to this definition, Mrs. Asplund-Campbell's students fit the bill. But what could possible satisfy her students hunger? Her answer came in the form of a book. At first, “Night” by Elie Wiesel looked like a good choice. In Mrs. Asplund-Campbell's own words, “It's short, interesting, fits in with my theme. It has the requisite violence to captivate my students. And I have sixty copies.” In this way, the surface level hunger was taken care of. What she didn't expect, however, was for the pattern to continue, and a deeper realization for her students to occur.
The topic of discussion that day was Elie’s reactions to two different hangings. The first was a hanging for a rebel who was discovered by the Nazi forces. The second was a boy who was unfortunate enough to be connected to the rebel. The difference between the two was the level of fear and disgust that Elie felt. The first was just a hanging, normal for the Nazi concentration camps. After the second, however, “the soup…tasted like corpses.” Without warning, quiet Gary spoke up, and gave the reason for the differences. “I think that Elie saw himself dying on that rope.” There it was. Just as Elie saw himself in the shoes of the boy, Mrs. Asplund-Campbell's students could see themselves in the shoes of Elie. This was not some pleasant fairy tale, but it was proof that someone, somewhere knew the pain that those students knew, and this someone lived to tell about it. There was the confirmation the students needed.
Mrs. Asplund-Campbell left that year with a “Thank You” card in hand, given to her by the students who made her life miserable only months before. Just as there are unconventional lambs, there can also be unconventional “happily ever after”'s.
Her “why” slowly emerged, after painful months of hitting walls and getting told no. She began to see her students in the light of their struggles and their needs. They weren’t conventional lambs, but they needed something nonetheless. She needed to feed the lambs.
This isn't the first time the request has been made, “Feed my lambs.” Christ first put it to His disciples, asking them to find the people who needed nourishment, to bring them back into His fold. These were the people who needed to know they were part of something greater. These were the people who needed to know they weren't alone, and that there was hope. According to this definition, Mrs. Asplund-Campbell's students fit the bill. But what could possible satisfy her students hunger? Her answer came in the form of a book. At first, “Night” by Elie Wiesel looked like a good choice. In Mrs. Asplund-Campbell's own words, “It's short, interesting, fits in with my theme. It has the requisite violence to captivate my students. And I have sixty copies.” In this way, the surface level hunger was taken care of. What she didn't expect, however, was for the pattern to continue, and a deeper realization for her students to occur.
The topic of discussion that day was Elie’s reactions to two different hangings. The first was a hanging for a rebel who was discovered by the Nazi forces. The second was a boy who was unfortunate enough to be connected to the rebel. The difference between the two was the level of fear and disgust that Elie felt. The first was just a hanging, normal for the Nazi concentration camps. After the second, however, “the soup…tasted like corpses.” Without warning, quiet Gary spoke up, and gave the reason for the differences. “I think that Elie saw himself dying on that rope.” There it was. Just as Elie saw himself in the shoes of the boy, Mrs. Asplund-Campbell's students could see themselves in the shoes of Elie. This was not some pleasant fairy tale, but it was proof that someone, somewhere knew the pain that those students knew, and this someone lived to tell about it. There was the confirmation the students needed.
Mrs. Asplund-Campbell left that year with a “Thank You” card in hand, given to her by the students who made her life miserable only months before. Just as there are unconventional lambs, there can also be unconventional “happily ever after”'s.
Sarah's response to "The Solitude of Self"
The thing I loved most about this article was that it expressed strong beliefs about the unique individuality, worth, and potential that all people possess. In the introduction of the author, it says that Stanton played a leadership role in the women’s right movement for 50 years, and as I read this article I began to see why.
There seem to be two key topics that she used to back up her belief in equality:
1. Knowledge and learning: well rounded education as an individual is crucial so people aren’t dependant on others.
2. Potential of people: each person is so unique and has something different that they can offer this world.
We have been encouraged to gain an education by prophets and apostles. As members of the church, we know that the one thing that we can take with us when we die is the knowledge that we have gained in this life. In Doctrine & Covenants 130: 18-19, it states that a person who has gained more knowledge and intelligence in this life will have a huge advantage in the world to come. Because of this knowledge, I think that Stanton was right on track when she stated, “…life must be a march and a battle…each soldier must be equipped for his own protection.” She summed it all up by saying, “…the responsibilities of life rest equally on man and woman…their destiny is the same, they need the same preparation for time and eternity.”
My favorite analogy used in this article was the blades of grass. You will never find two identical blades of grass, just like you will never find two identical individuals. Stanton says, “No mortal ever has been, nor mortal ever will be like the soul just launched on the sea of life.” She explains that there will never be the same parental influences or environments surrounding a person ever again. Each person has their own special contribution that they can make to the world. Stanton seems to be conveying how sad it is that all people are not given the same chance to develop into the person they really can be and serve the world in their own way for the benefit of all people.
Maybe the main idea is that individual development in both crucial and beautiful. Stanton used this idea to prove the importance of equality, but I think it can mean something more for members of the church. We know that this life is part of the great plan of salvation. We aren’t just here by chance. Each of us has a divine nature and destiny, and we need to strive to become all that we can be.
There seem to be two key topics that she used to back up her belief in equality:
1. Knowledge and learning: well rounded education as an individual is crucial so people aren’t dependant on others.
2. Potential of people: each person is so unique and has something different that they can offer this world.
We have been encouraged to gain an education by prophets and apostles. As members of the church, we know that the one thing that we can take with us when we die is the knowledge that we have gained in this life. In Doctrine & Covenants 130: 18-19, it states that a person who has gained more knowledge and intelligence in this life will have a huge advantage in the world to come. Because of this knowledge, I think that Stanton was right on track when she stated, “…life must be a march and a battle…each soldier must be equipped for his own protection.” She summed it all up by saying, “…the responsibilities of life rest equally on man and woman…their destiny is the same, they need the same preparation for time and eternity.”
My favorite analogy used in this article was the blades of grass. You will never find two identical blades of grass, just like you will never find two identical individuals. Stanton says, “No mortal ever has been, nor mortal ever will be like the soul just launched on the sea of life.” She explains that there will never be the same parental influences or environments surrounding a person ever again. Each person has their own special contribution that they can make to the world. Stanton seems to be conveying how sad it is that all people are not given the same chance to develop into the person they really can be and serve the world in their own way for the benefit of all people.
Maybe the main idea is that individual development in both crucial and beautiful. Stanton used this idea to prove the importance of equality, but I think it can mean something more for members of the church. We know that this life is part of the great plan of salvation. We aren’t just here by chance. Each of us has a divine nature and destiny, and we need to strive to become all that we can be.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Catherine's response to "Family Work"
Every summer my family planted a garden. On the last day of school, we would go to the little garden shop on center street and emerge laden with brightly colored seed packets and hopeful looking seedlings. Our little “bit of earth” had grown wild over the winter, with last-years’ cork stalks protruding from the earth battle weary, but obstinately holding their positions. After tilling, the soil was soft and loose, and I sunk up to my ankles in dirt. It never really bothered me much. Dad and one of the boys would use two stakes and some old string to mark out neat, even rows. Next, one of my brothers would dig shallow holes. My mom poured a little water into the indentations, and supervised my younger sister as she sprinkled in fertilizer. My job was putting in the seeds and gently covering them up. When we had finished, everyone was covered in grime, (especially my brothers, who had tried to get as muddy as possible before they were stopped). It was work, but it was family work.
In the selection entitled “Family Work,” Kathleen Slaugh Bahr describes the nature and importance of working as a family. She notes that when Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, they were not given the need to labor as a curse, but as a blessing. It enables us to grow closer to each other and recognize and fill the needs of others. Because many of the chores require minimal concentration, our minds are able to focus on one another. Bahr states, “Family identity is built moment by moment amidst the talking and teasing, the singing and storytelling, and even the quarreling and anguish that may attend such work sessions.” The importance of working together has little to do with completion of a given task. Its power comes as it transforms lives and urges “hearts and minds toward a oneness known only in Zion.”
Household work gives us the opportunity to serve others. In filling the most basic, universal needs of mankind, we are able to recognize our vulnerability and realize our dependence upon our Heavenly Father. We become more Christ-like as we humble ourselves and serve the least of our brethren.
Although the pattern for success in family work cannot be summarized in a few simple steps, Bahr recommends several practices that may be helpful.
1)Tilling the soil. Many of our modern prophets have counseled us to grow a garden. As we work with our family in the earth, we are able to see the physical fruits of our labors while unconsciously gaining intangible rewards.
2)Parents should exemplify the attitudes about work that they want their children to have. Children are able to sense when their help is thought of as a hindrance. Often there is an attitude that work is something that is in the way. With the right attitude, even the most mundane tasks can become memorable.
3)Avoid technology that interferes with togetherness. Sometimes the technology that is designed to make life easier reduces time that could be spent learning, talking, and laughing together. Each family must decide which modern conveniences to incorporate into their lives.
4)Allow children to help. Even though sometimes it is much easier to do a task alone, encourage younger family members to become involved in some small way. Their tasks should include work for each other, and not just for themselves.
5)Avoid a business mentality at home. This includes over organizing and motivating children with rewards. A true sense of value for work must be developed internally, and cannot be based on tangible rewards.
6)Parents should work with their children. One-on-one time provides opportunities for children to talk to their parents about problems they may have in their lives, and grow closer to them.
I have seen the power of family work in my own life. It has brought my family closer together, and provided a network to go to in trials. These principles can be applied to create Zion wherever you go.
In the selection entitled “Family Work,” Kathleen Slaugh Bahr describes the nature and importance of working as a family. She notes that when Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, they were not given the need to labor as a curse, but as a blessing. It enables us to grow closer to each other and recognize and fill the needs of others. Because many of the chores require minimal concentration, our minds are able to focus on one another. Bahr states, “Family identity is built moment by moment amidst the talking and teasing, the singing and storytelling, and even the quarreling and anguish that may attend such work sessions.” The importance of working together has little to do with completion of a given task. Its power comes as it transforms lives and urges “hearts and minds toward a oneness known only in Zion.”
Household work gives us the opportunity to serve others. In filling the most basic, universal needs of mankind, we are able to recognize our vulnerability and realize our dependence upon our Heavenly Father. We become more Christ-like as we humble ourselves and serve the least of our brethren.
Although the pattern for success in family work cannot be summarized in a few simple steps, Bahr recommends several practices that may be helpful.
1)Tilling the soil. Many of our modern prophets have counseled us to grow a garden. As we work with our family in the earth, we are able to see the physical fruits of our labors while unconsciously gaining intangible rewards.
2)Parents should exemplify the attitudes about work that they want their children to have. Children are able to sense when their help is thought of as a hindrance. Often there is an attitude that work is something that is in the way. With the right attitude, even the most mundane tasks can become memorable.
3)Avoid technology that interferes with togetherness. Sometimes the technology that is designed to make life easier reduces time that could be spent learning, talking, and laughing together. Each family must decide which modern conveniences to incorporate into their lives.
4)Allow children to help. Even though sometimes it is much easier to do a task alone, encourage younger family members to become involved in some small way. Their tasks should include work for each other, and not just for themselves.
5)Avoid a business mentality at home. This includes over organizing and motivating children with rewards. A true sense of value for work must be developed internally, and cannot be based on tangible rewards.
6)Parents should work with their children. One-on-one time provides opportunities for children to talk to their parents about problems they may have in their lives, and grow closer to them.
I have seen the power of family work in my own life. It has brought my family closer together, and provided a network to go to in trials. These principles can be applied to create Zion wherever you go.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Alyssa's response to "Everything that Rises Must Converge"
Flannery O’Connor’s Everything That Rises Must Converge explores the themes of social equality, familial ties, holding on to the past, hypocrisy, and realizing too late what truly matters. I loved the symbolism, as well as the descriptive terms, that O’Connor employed.
Flannery O’Connor was able to effectively describe scenes and objects in a way that allows the reader to envision what she is writing about. I was able to picture Julian’s mother’s hat with the “purple velvet flap [that] came down on one side of it and stood up on the other; the rest of it was green and looked like a cushion with the stuffing out.” Her vivid imagery allows the reader to become more enthralled with the story.
One symbol used in Everything That Rises Must Converge is the purple and green hat Julian’s mother buys. In the beginning of the story, to Julian’s mother, the hat symbolizes her perceived “elevated” status in society. She sees the hat as an expensive and unnecessary purchase, questioning whether she should return it and use the money to pay the gas bill instead. When she decides to keep the hat and wear it to her “reducing class,” she feels herself above some of the other people riding the bus. However, when the African-American woman enters the bus, wearing a hat identical to Julian’s mother’s hat, the hat’s symbolism changes. While the hat remains a symbol of Julian’s mother’s social status, instead of her perceived social status, the hat becomes a symbol of her actual social status. When she sees the African-American women wearing the same hat, Julian’s mother realizes that she is just the same as everyone else on that bus, with no elevated social status.
One theme explored in Everything That Rises Must Converge is social equality. Throughout the story, Julian’s mother comes to the realization that in the society she is living in, everyone has the same rights and privileges, regardless of what has been true in the past. She suddenly sees that her son and others have accepted this way of life and there is no turning back.
Another theme O’Connor explores is familial ties. Julian thinks he holds no love towards his mother because of her beliefs about herself and her position in the world. He is frustrated by her lack of acceptance toward African-Americans, as well as misconstrued belief about her social status. However, Julian’s mother is openly affectionate towards her son, even without encouragement from him. She allows him to live with her and brags about his completion of college and his chance to perhaps eventually becoming a writer. She believes in her son and does all she can to help him towards his dreams.
O’Connor also explores the theme of clinging to the past. Julian’s mother longs for the days of plantations and slaves. She wants to have the elevated social status her great-grandparents had, instead of her status in a world where everyone is equal, regardless of race or wealth. She also does not realize that she no longer is the wealthy white family—her neighborhood is slowly and surely deteriorating. Her great-grandfather is no longer governor and her family no longer owns a large and luxurious plantation. She is just another woman attending a weight-loss class.
Everything That Rises Must Converge also addresses the theme of hypocrisy. Julian is frustrated that his mother is not tolerant of African-Americans, but he is not patient with or tolerant towards his mother and her outdated ideas. He does not realize until it is too late that he loved his mother and was grateful for all that she did for him.
I loved the wonderful insight that Flannery O’Connor’s story, Everything That Rises Must Converge, had and the universal themes in it.
Flannery O’Connor was able to effectively describe scenes and objects in a way that allows the reader to envision what she is writing about. I was able to picture Julian’s mother’s hat with the “purple velvet flap [that] came down on one side of it and stood up on the other; the rest of it was green and looked like a cushion with the stuffing out.” Her vivid imagery allows the reader to become more enthralled with the story.
One symbol used in Everything That Rises Must Converge is the purple and green hat Julian’s mother buys. In the beginning of the story, to Julian’s mother, the hat symbolizes her perceived “elevated” status in society. She sees the hat as an expensive and unnecessary purchase, questioning whether she should return it and use the money to pay the gas bill instead. When she decides to keep the hat and wear it to her “reducing class,” she feels herself above some of the other people riding the bus. However, when the African-American woman enters the bus, wearing a hat identical to Julian’s mother’s hat, the hat’s symbolism changes. While the hat remains a symbol of Julian’s mother’s social status, instead of her perceived social status, the hat becomes a symbol of her actual social status. When she sees the African-American women wearing the same hat, Julian’s mother realizes that she is just the same as everyone else on that bus, with no elevated social status.
One theme explored in Everything That Rises Must Converge is social equality. Throughout the story, Julian’s mother comes to the realization that in the society she is living in, everyone has the same rights and privileges, regardless of what has been true in the past. She suddenly sees that her son and others have accepted this way of life and there is no turning back.
Another theme O’Connor explores is familial ties. Julian thinks he holds no love towards his mother because of her beliefs about herself and her position in the world. He is frustrated by her lack of acceptance toward African-Americans, as well as misconstrued belief about her social status. However, Julian’s mother is openly affectionate towards her son, even without encouragement from him. She allows him to live with her and brags about his completion of college and his chance to perhaps eventually becoming a writer. She believes in her son and does all she can to help him towards his dreams.
O’Connor also explores the theme of clinging to the past. Julian’s mother longs for the days of plantations and slaves. She wants to have the elevated social status her great-grandparents had, instead of her status in a world where everyone is equal, regardless of race or wealth. She also does not realize that she no longer is the wealthy white family—her neighborhood is slowly and surely deteriorating. Her great-grandfather is no longer governor and her family no longer owns a large and luxurious plantation. She is just another woman attending a weight-loss class.
Everything That Rises Must Converge also addresses the theme of hypocrisy. Julian is frustrated that his mother is not tolerant of African-Americans, but he is not patient with or tolerant towards his mother and her outdated ideas. He does not realize until it is too late that he loved his mother and was grateful for all that she did for him.
I loved the wonderful insight that Flannery O’Connor’s story, Everything That Rises Must Converge, had and the universal themes in it.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Quano's response to "What I now Believe about a BYU education..."
When I began the college application process, BYU was far off my radar of where I wanted to attend college. My main goal was to go to San Diego State University and a few other California colleges. If all of those options had fallen through, I would have been just as content to go to the local junior college. As u can tell I did NOT want to be associated with BYU in any way shape or form. Until one day my oh so wonderful Bishop came up to me and said “I’m not accepting any college EXCEPT BYU.” Since the bishop of my ward is like a father to me, I knew it was BYU or bust. Next came my mom asking if I had filled out an application for BYU yet. Then came my aunt and a few other stragglers that I knew asking the same. So what did I do? I did what any teenager does when they are annoyed and want everyone off of their back. I went to www.BYU.edu and began the application process. Of course, I still had ZERO intent on going to BYU if I got accepted. I just did not want to do the “Mormon thing” and go to and LDS School. Especially attend a school that is in the Mormon capital of the world (no offense to any of you that live in Utah). As soon as I thought I was free from the attacks, my mom comes asking if I had applied for BYU scholarships and all that jazz that would help me get situated when I got to BYU. Long story short, I was talked into attending BYU, and I am very grateful for those pushed me in the right direction. I know this is the school that I needed to be attending.
A.LeGrand Richards reminds us that the curriculum for an education is in the scriptures. Doctrine and Covenants section 88 tells us that we need to understand all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God. We need to learn “of the things in heaven and in the earth…things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass…” (D&C 88:79) We need to learn these things to be prepared for when the Lord will send us our calling and our mission. Richards says that we need to focus on both our mission (family) and our careers. This is because in the end it’s not what our profession is that counts, it’s how we upheld our end of the bargain in raising a family. President David O.McKay said “The paramount ideal permeating all education in the grades, the high school, through college and the university, should be more spiritual than economic.” In fact, BYU’s mission is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life. I can guarantee you guys that SDSU’s mission statement is non-comparable to that of BYU’s. Especially since SDSU is one of the top party school in the nation. (yes I do enjoy partying SAFELY!) Richards states that we should “…learn to grow where you are planted. In fact, learn to look for places where you can make a difference.”
I believe that BYU is the right place for ANY student to gain an education. Here at BYU, what we students can do for the college is not nearly as important as what we can do for our fellow brothers and sisters. The environment here at BYU is just uplifting. Many people walk around with smiles on their face and you can easily bet that they share the same beliefs. It just makes the transition into the “real world” that much easier. Since I have been here at BYU (wooohooo a whopping four weeks!) I have built a better base for me to stand upon. Back home I was constantly surrounded by drugs, sex, alcohol, and immorality. I still found a way to have a strong base, but it has been a much easier task here at the Y. I suggest that we all need to take full advantage of being at this wonderful establishment and make the best of it. Not only make it happen for ourselves but also for those around us. I know I am going to strive to be the best child of God that I can be. President McKay reminds us that “no success in life can compensate for failure in the home.”
My fellow cougars and cougarettes, let us “roll in the dough.” We hit the jackpot of all educations.
GO COUGARS!
A.LeGrand Richards reminds us that the curriculum for an education is in the scriptures. Doctrine and Covenants section 88 tells us that we need to understand all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God. We need to learn “of the things in heaven and in the earth…things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass…” (D&C 88:79) We need to learn these things to be prepared for when the Lord will send us our calling and our mission. Richards says that we need to focus on both our mission (family) and our careers. This is because in the end it’s not what our profession is that counts, it’s how we upheld our end of the bargain in raising a family. President David O.McKay said “The paramount ideal permeating all education in the grades, the high school, through college and the university, should be more spiritual than economic.” In fact, BYU’s mission is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life. I can guarantee you guys that SDSU’s mission statement is non-comparable to that of BYU’s. Especially since SDSU is one of the top party school in the nation. (yes I do enjoy partying SAFELY!) Richards states that we should “…learn to grow where you are planted. In fact, learn to look for places where you can make a difference.”
I believe that BYU is the right place for ANY student to gain an education. Here at BYU, what we students can do for the college is not nearly as important as what we can do for our fellow brothers and sisters. The environment here at BYU is just uplifting. Many people walk around with smiles on their face and you can easily bet that they share the same beliefs. It just makes the transition into the “real world” that much easier. Since I have been here at BYU (wooohooo a whopping four weeks!) I have built a better base for me to stand upon. Back home I was constantly surrounded by drugs, sex, alcohol, and immorality. I still found a way to have a strong base, but it has been a much easier task here at the Y. I suggest that we all need to take full advantage of being at this wonderful establishment and make the best of it. Not only make it happen for ourselves but also for those around us. I know I am going to strive to be the best child of God that I can be. President McKay reminds us that “no success in life can compensate for failure in the home.”
My fellow cougars and cougarettes, let us “roll in the dough.” We hit the jackpot of all educations.
GO COUGARS!
Chelsey's response to "Mother Eve"
Strong woman. Feminist. “You are such a girl.” Why do these words and phrases have such a negative connotation in today’s society? Are woman really weak and less intelligent than men? Of course not. So why are we still treated as such? Sure, we have more “rights” than we did in the past, but according to a 2008 poll conducted by Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, sixty-three percent of women in the United States felt that the media is biased against women, sixty-eight percent reported sexual discrimination in the workplace, and seventy-two percent believe that women are treated unfairly in politics. This is appalling to me, and has always made me wonder what ever happened to give females such a bad rep. According to Beverly Campbell, it all comes down to the very first woman herself, Eve.
It’s true that in mainstream society Eve is known as the weak, disgraced, disobedient, subordinate of Adam. Most people you ask will say that they feel that we are now paying the price for her blatant lack of obedience. I’m even ashamed to admit that I’ve felt this way at one point myself. So it was very comforting to know after reading Campbell’s analysis of Eve to discoverer that, contrary to popular belief, Eve was in fact a woman of honor, dignity, intelligence, and good judgment.
The main points of Campbell’s that I felt most applied to me and women everywhere were the following:
1) Eve’s role to Adam was as “a power equal to.” Sorta changes the whole way people think about women, huh? The men are not our “masters;” instead, they are our “ equal partners” in everything we do.
2) Eve was deceived by the identity of the messenger, not the message. Campbell reiterates throughout the passage that Eve knew all along that she eventually had to disobey God’s commandment so that she could eventually multiply and populate the earth. She was not deceived by Satan’s message; rather, she was deceived by Satan’s identity, an entirely different thing. Eve knew her role in the plan of salvation, and she carefully considered the consequences before partaking of the fruit.
3) Satan is a key architect in the “battle of the sexes.” This one’s for you, boys. Whenever you find yourself comparing yourself to the opposite gender, remember: it’s Satan that wants you to feel this way. Women are meant to be respected and valued rather than demeaned and controlled.
Eve is a huge role model for all women today and for me especially. It is our duty to make clear to the rest of the world Eve’s true nature, so that sexism and inferiority are no longer an issue. We should all be able to stand up for ourselves, and exclaim loud and proud:
“I am a daughter of Eve!”
It’s true that in mainstream society Eve is known as the weak, disgraced, disobedient, subordinate of Adam. Most people you ask will say that they feel that we are now paying the price for her blatant lack of obedience. I’m even ashamed to admit that I’ve felt this way at one point myself. So it was very comforting to know after reading Campbell’s analysis of Eve to discoverer that, contrary to popular belief, Eve was in fact a woman of honor, dignity, intelligence, and good judgment.
The main points of Campbell’s that I felt most applied to me and women everywhere were the following:
1) Eve’s role to Adam was as “a power equal to.” Sorta changes the whole way people think about women, huh? The men are not our “masters;” instead, they are our “ equal partners” in everything we do.
2) Eve was deceived by the identity of the messenger, not the message. Campbell reiterates throughout the passage that Eve knew all along that she eventually had to disobey God’s commandment so that she could eventually multiply and populate the earth. She was not deceived by Satan’s message; rather, she was deceived by Satan’s identity, an entirely different thing. Eve knew her role in the plan of salvation, and she carefully considered the consequences before partaking of the fruit.
3) Satan is a key architect in the “battle of the sexes.” This one’s for you, boys. Whenever you find yourself comparing yourself to the opposite gender, remember: it’s Satan that wants you to feel this way. Women are meant to be respected and valued rather than demeaned and controlled.
Eve is a huge role model for all women today and for me especially. It is our duty to make clear to the rest of the world Eve’s true nature, so that sexism and inferiority are no longer an issue. We should all be able to stand up for ourselves, and exclaim loud and proud:
“I am a daughter of Eve!”
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Lyse's response to "A Rose for Emily"
I've been on a bit of a “modern classic literature” binge lately. And by lately, I mean this month. First, there was this hour long discussion about The Catcher in the Rye that ended with me putting it on hold to re-read. I ended up letting my boyfriend, Zach, read it as I did my econ homework in the laundry mat and he kept laughing at Holden’s incessant whining and sarcasm. Second, I re-read The Great Gatsby and felt inspired to read more F. Scott Fitzgerald. This urge created an hour-long wild goose chase through the Harold B. Lee Library to find Six Tales of the Jazz Age. Zach and I ended up being followed by 1920s era posters and soft jazz music throughout our entire search. When we finally got to the row of Fitzgerald books it was not even there; we were about to leave when my eye caught the gold lettering on a red spine. The search itself ended up being like a Fitzgerald story—nothing actually happened, but that wasn’t the point. There was more significance in the search along the way than in the discovery in the end.
A Rose for Emily by William Falkner is like this. It is basically a short story about an average southern town and a bizarre woman who lives there. Part mystery, part “postage stamp” portrait of rural America, A Rose for Emily explores a single character, Miss Emily. Miss Emily came from a proud family, and was haughty herself. She made me sad though; she lives this sad life, totally lost in her memory on her one love, Homer Brown. She killed him to try to preserve his love and loyalty. She died, old, shut-up, in the bottom story of her house, “her gray head propped on a pillow yellow and moldy with age and lack of sunlight” (378). She never lived. She was either consumed in her arrogance or her memory.
Living completely in the past terrifies me, as does living in the future. Miss Emily did both; she never lived her life for the lessons, never lived for present. There’s something wrong with always looking forward, something wrong with watching a sunset and thinking only “One day, I want to come back here!” instead of thinking how lovely it is right now. Miss Emily also scares me because of her pathetic loneliness, her inability to love completely. Not just love in the conventional “sweep-me-off-my-feet” sense, I mean love in the “growing-old-together-your-habits-disgust-me-but-I-still-want-to-be-with-you” way. When I love someone, I share so easily; I laugh while helping them clean, I smile while sitting quietly doing homework. My best friend Stella and I were like this last year. A lot of times, we didn’t do anything special, we just spent a lot of time together, talking and cooking and watching Friends. We got in a fight in June and I haven’t talked to her since. I really miss her.
I don’t want to live my life burning bridges, living in nostalgia, decaying and disappearing with nothing and no one to remember me by. I want to hold hands with Zach; happy that we are just together now, not thinking about what happens in a year, in six months, in four, in one. I don’t want Stella to hate me; I don’t want to hate her either.
I don’t want to decay like Miss Emily, nothing but the foul smell of her dead lover to sustain her. I don’t want the ending of my story to be the only point of it.
I just sent Stella a message.
A Rose for Emily by William Falkner is like this. It is basically a short story about an average southern town and a bizarre woman who lives there. Part mystery, part “postage stamp” portrait of rural America, A Rose for Emily explores a single character, Miss Emily. Miss Emily came from a proud family, and was haughty herself. She made me sad though; she lives this sad life, totally lost in her memory on her one love, Homer Brown. She killed him to try to preserve his love and loyalty. She died, old, shut-up, in the bottom story of her house, “her gray head propped on a pillow yellow and moldy with age and lack of sunlight” (378). She never lived. She was either consumed in her arrogance or her memory.
Living completely in the past terrifies me, as does living in the future. Miss Emily did both; she never lived her life for the lessons, never lived for present. There’s something wrong with always looking forward, something wrong with watching a sunset and thinking only “One day, I want to come back here!” instead of thinking how lovely it is right now. Miss Emily also scares me because of her pathetic loneliness, her inability to love completely. Not just love in the conventional “sweep-me-off-my-feet” sense, I mean love in the “growing-old-together-your-habits-disgust-me-but-I-still-want-to-be-with-you” way. When I love someone, I share so easily; I laugh while helping them clean, I smile while sitting quietly doing homework. My best friend Stella and I were like this last year. A lot of times, we didn’t do anything special, we just spent a lot of time together, talking and cooking and watching Friends. We got in a fight in June and I haven’t talked to her since. I really miss her.
I don’t want to live my life burning bridges, living in nostalgia, decaying and disappearing with nothing and no one to remember me by. I want to hold hands with Zach; happy that we are just together now, not thinking about what happens in a year, in six months, in four, in one. I don’t want Stella to hate me; I don’t want to hate her either.
I don’t want to decay like Miss Emily, nothing but the foul smell of her dead lover to sustain her. I don’t want the ending of my story to be the only point of it.
I just sent Stella a message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
