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.
Monday, October 26, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
