Comment #2

I commented on Carson's blog entry on blogging. I reiterated some of the points I used in my in class essay because I do feel strongly about how neat of an assignment this blog has been! The link to the post is here. Hope everyone's finals go amazing!

<3 Amy

Moved by the Spirit?

Okay, so for last class we had to read about the religious upheaval that took place in Kentucky and surrounding states during the early 1800s. It was foreign to me and I think most of the students my age because I don't think we're very familiar with religious fanaticism. And when I say religious fanatacism, I don't mean to infer that the Americans of that time period and area were dangerous, but rather that they showed interest in their religion to a surprising extent.

Some might consider Mormons to be fanatics, and most of us are very committed to our beliefs, but it doesn't seem like it's to an outrageous extent, and it doesn't seem like we do anything unnatural. This could be really biased because I was raised LDS, but I honestly feel I never do anything in worship or praise that ever seems contradictory to my nature.

This relates to the religious upheaval that took place in Kentucky because there were some strange happenings there. At the biggest meeting, there were several preachers expounding doctrine at the same time in their own different spheres, but all throughout this time period from about the 1820s to the 1830s, people were known to be "moved by the Spirit" where they would either shout suddenly or start having spasms all over, and those were just some of the occurences.

This was somewhat foreign to me, because in all the church meetings I've been to, nobody has ever stood up and shouted "Amen" or started having spasms(although I have been in a Church meeting where a girl started to have a seizure and it included something of the both...maybe these "religious fanatics" were simply epileptic!). And I've always assumed most congregations are simliar to mine (though honestly, I've only ever been to one church service that wasn't LDS).

One other thing about the religious upheaval that took place in Kentucky in the 1820 that I found interesting was that it was a combination of different Christian denominations. Both Methodist and Baptists ministers were represented there and they really didn't segregate. This seems almost unbelievable seeing as the difference in doctrine is what usually stirred up so much commotion on the religious scene. Nevertheless, I think it said something about the people at the time, that they were willing to set aside doctrinal differences to focus on the merit of the event, which was really just to become more religious and more dependent on God.

I really can't imagine some of the events they recorded actually occurred, but I recognize that what they participated in had a good intent, and I think even though as Christians we can differ on doctrine, if we could gather without borders for a week just to draw closer to God, that would be pretty amazing. It also do something for our nation's condition right now...

I Once Was Blind

...that's actually a partially true statement. In elementary school, I had the worst eye sight, but then I got glasses and was able to declare, "Now I see!". Okay, okay, cheesy story, I know, but I just wanted to show that I know what it's like to go from blind to seeing. Everything becomes so much clearer and it's almost like a new world. Perhaps you've guessed it already, but this week, we watched Amazing Grace in class. I've actually seen the movie before, but it was definitely a different experience having studied the history of America and the struggles America had on their path to abolition.

Amazing Grace is about William Wilberforce, the "force" and voice behind the British movement for abolition. It took several years before he saw any success in Parliament despite relentless effort in finding evidence and members to support his cause. I think it telling that he had integrity enough be considered an independent in Parliament. He joined no party and rather voted Tory or Whig depending upon the merit of their argument. And he sacrificed his mind and health to see the end of an institution that was such an ingrained part of the British economy. He knew what was right and wasn't afraid to stand up for it. He is an example even to us now.

How often have I been faced with opportunities to stand up for what I know is right? And how many times I have acted upon those opportunities? How many times will I be called on still to stand up for what I believe? The opportunities are sure to come, because they are our tests in life, to see if we are able to choose light over darkness and lies over truth. Hopefully we can all learn a lesson from Mr. Wilberforce who sacrificed so much for a cause that wasn't even his. I think once we understand and are able to emulate him in his efforts, we are finally able to say that now we see.

MOA Trip

Last class we were able to visit BYU's own Museum of Art for a tour. We got to take a look at the museum's religious collection and we learned that the MOA is one of the only BYU art museums to put such an emphasis on collecting religious works. As we were looking at their collection on display, the curator took the time to point on some interesting points of Christian art.

It was interesting to note that most depictions of Christ and others of the same time period are of Caucasians. It wasn't until the 20th Century that artists began to make more realistic depictions of Christ. Also, there is great symbolism found in the colors and shapes. Artists would use threes (such as a halo divided into 3 sections) do represent the trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Virgin Mary was often dressed in red and blue to represent both the upcoming tragedies and her divinity as the mother of Christ.

It was an interesting exhibit because it was almost progressive ( you got to see each part of the Savior's life). My favorite piece there would probably be the three paneled crucifixion scene because it showed every man kneeling to Christ and the vine that extended up the cross reminded me of the hope of life that is the most important part of the Savior's atonement. I love that it depicted that every head will bow and every knee will fall to the Savior of the World, even Christ and I know that I was definitely moved by the painting.

Commentation

For my blog post, I commented on a classmates blog. You can check it out here

Hypocrisy in Economic Potential

The chapter we had to read for class last week had to do with the economic revolution that ocurred as part of the American Revolution. During this time period of resistance and independence, the United States was preparing themselves to have a strong free market system. Up until the 1700s it was just assumed that mercantilism was the most effective market system out there because of Great Britain's success with it. However, with the publishing of Adam's Smith The Wealth of Nations, the founding fathers were given a different perspective. Though, none of the founding fathers advocated outright a switch to a free market system, the turn of events perpetuated the switch.

This was significant in America because it gave all an opportunity to make their own wealth without the hand of the government making every decision. People were allowed to work selfishly, for their own benefit because it actually benefitted the nation. Now, I am a pretty solid advocate for a free market system, but it is interesting to note that when the free market economy first came to the United States, it had many restrictions; not on business policy, but rather social restrictions.

Though people were allowed to work in whatever field they wanted to, making or selling what they wished, the definition of people was firmly defined as white men. Before and even after the Civil War, it was impossible for a black man to find the same kind of opportunity available to the a white man. The stigma also held with women; though they could find menial jobs, the possibility of working up the ladder toward success was denied them.

I bring this up because I find it interesting to note the history of the free market system in America as far as its societal impacts go. It wasn't until the 20th Century that women and blacks could even really dream of making something really successful of themselves, but now, both women and blacks can be found heading large businesses and organizations. Now, I won't go so far as to say that bias is dead in the free market economy, because it isn't. The implementation of the Equal Opportunities Act is an example of this. It did take a while for blacks and women to have equal opportunities in the work force, but I am of the opinion that having a free market economy was the quickest way to that. I might not have any evidence to back that up, but it seems pretty logical in my head. We can accept the past as long as we commit to continually moving towards a country that finds success without hypocrisy or bias.

An Imperfect Constitution

Last week in class we watched the movie "A More Perfect Union" which is about the passing of the Constitution as a new government to replace the failing Articles of Confederation. I have also been reading Just and Holy Principles, a book that we have to read and write an essay about for this class. It includes different speeches given by leaders of the Church from Joseph Smith's time to ours. There are some similar themes I have recognized in the movie and in this book.

One of the most striking is that the Constitution is not a perfect document. Throughout the movie we saw change after change come to the document, and the delegates of the conference had a hard time agreeing on what the best path would be. Comprimises had to be made and they created a government that could be changed as was neccesary for the nation. Not everybody was happy with what decision the Second Continental Congress came to, but they all knew that what they had created would work.

Brigham Young in a speech given on the 4th of July some years ago spoke of how the Constitution wasn't working. Granted, he knew that it could work, but after going through and seeing so much persecution of the Church he had a hard time believing that the government was part of the "more perfect union" set up by the founding fathers. He even went so far as to say that the country was no longer Republican in that it refused to hold up the rights of those under its protection even if they were in the minority.

Brigham Young was right about one thing in particular. The Constitution wasn't perfect then, and it still isn't perfect, but because it gives the people of this nation the power and right to make changes to make it better, it is "a more perfect union" than any on the earth. Now whether or not the citizens and leaders of our nations live up to that standard is the test, but I have hope as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did that when we, as a nation come to a breaking point, and destruction is looming on the horizon, we will make the hard decision that will save our nation--and it's hard to be hopeful these days...

Impressed by the Printing Press

Last Tuesday I had the opportunity to visit the Crandall Historical Printing Press Museum. It was a very neat experience. The way they presented the history of the printing press--from the perspective of those who have the restored Gospel--really helps you understand how momentous it all is. The fact that Johannes Gutenberg was able to print bibles and other books in mass amounts is amazing. What was really telling though, was the fact that the printers themselves were somewhat dumbfounded as how the Book of Mormon was printed so fast and effectively. I don't have any experience with printing and only got a small glimpse there, but those men had been working with it since they were 14 and it still amazes them, and that, in turn amazes me.

For those of you that didn't get to go, I'll outline the events leading up to the restoration of the Gospel that they talked about in this museum visit.
1439- Johannes Gutenberg invents the printing press allowing for the mass production of books and significantly decreasing the cost of books.
1821- Smith Improved Printing Press invented by Peter Smith is first released for sale. This was the most up-to-date press available at the time the Book of Mormon was first published.
1825- The Erie Canal is opened up, which allowed the heavy printing press to be brought right to the back step of E. B. Grandin's printing shop.
1827- E. B. Grandin purchases the printing press and office of the Wayne Sentinel where he had been an apprentice.
1829-E. B. Grandin agrees to print the Book of Mormon after initially refusing and begins printing in September.
March 1830- The printing and binding of the 1st 5000 books is completed in only 7 months time.

I don't know what to believe as far as how all this got done, but I know that the hand of the Lord had to be in it, because it is his work. I know that the Book of Mormon was not written by Joseph Smith or any of his contemporaries and I know that somehow a way was provided for the fulness of the Gospel of Christ to be restored in April of 1830.

We Need No Proof

It's fun when your classes come together to create a higher, sythesized education. I'm taking the 2nd half the Book of Mormon from a Professor Charles Swift, who in my opinion, is a great man and a great teacher. He is unafraid to take on the more intellectual issues that arise in our minds and hearts as we read the Book of Mormon. He brought up an interesting point a couple of class periods ago that relates in a way to the article by Bushman we read for Professor Holzapfel's class. He said something to the effect that there was physical proof in the world to prove the validity of the Book of Mormon, but Church members and leaders alike don't like to highlight this evidence. When he said this, I immediately thought of the studies and discoveries I'd heard about. I had noticed that physical proof played a sort of back role.

Of course there are several scholars, some mainly nicknamed apologists by non-Mormons, that have studied, researched, and published on physical proofs they have found. Bushman joins this number with his writing on the government of the Nephites and the dissimlarities between it and the American government, using this as a sort of proof that the Book of Mormon is no creation of Joseph Smith or another man's imagination and bias. I, myself, find he brings up several good points, but I continually find myself going back to my thoughts from Swift's class.

The fact of the matter is that we need no proof. At least not physical proof. The proof we need is personal and non-sensory. It's a proof that does not come to our senses but to our spirits through the Holy Ghost. It isn't some kind of supernatural occurence either. Actually, quite the opposite is true, I believe our spirits yearn for the feelings and whisperings of the Spirit that remind us so much of our pre-Earth home--the place we long to return to. It is natural, peaceful, quiet, and real. Discernible. Light.

Yet, in a material world, we cannot help the desire to find proof with our eyes or with our hands. I have sought such proof before. I have never as yet found peace or solitude when seeking for such proof, I always feel more lost or confused until I realize again that I have had proof, regardless of if I had seen an angel or the hand of God. It is then that I like to read Alma's words to Korihor:

"Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." (Alma 30:44)

These peer-reviewed studies have their place, but compared with the faith and the understanding we gain from the Spirit, their place is rather low. I sometimes wonder if others believe that we Mormons( or any other religion for that matter) believe that we rely on this sort of physical proof to keep our minds at ease. I think I could see where they get their arguments from. I think the best advice I have for myself and other Latter-day Saints is to fear God more than man, for while man may have the right to judge you by the law in this life, no one but God has the right to judge you by the law after this life.

I am sober while writing this...

No, really, I am completely serious right now. teehee, did you pick up on my play on words? Okay, for class I had to read this speech given by Martin Diamond entitled "The Revolution of Sober Expectations". It had nothing to do with the sobriety levels of the founding fathers. Rather it pertained an analysis of the American revolution as one of realistic goals. This interests me because it is sort of an oxymoron with the connotation we have for revolution today.

When I think of revolutions, I think of coup d'états, bloodshed, and chaos. Yet the American Revolution contained only one of those. The founding fathers staged no military coup. They did, however, set up their own colonial postal service, colonial army, and more. When I compare to other revolutions I've learned of, the American Revolution is surprisingly docile and PG. It didn't contain as much drama or hystericalness that seems to accompany revolution. I learned from the reading that this was because the founding fathers and the colonists knew what they were getting into.

I tend to relate inspirational with brash sometimes. I know where I get it from too. It's from all the superhero movies that have come out. It seems like the heroes always have to have that one characteristic that sets them apart even beyond their magical or super power. And that is to be able to act quickly. Their actions usually always end up with positive results, however rash or unrealistic their actions were. For some reason, I related this to the founding fathers. It seemed to me like the founding fathers, were, in their own way, superheroes. They held positions that were not necessarily envied, they were good people with minor flaws, and they were able to save the people in the end from evil dominion. Does anyone else see the parallels?

Despite the connections I may come up with my head, the founding fathers were very much human, in fact very, extremely serious about the task in front of them. They hardly ever acted in rashness. While thinking things through might not be a necessary characteristic for a superhero, it is paramount in political leaders. They were concerned with having a protracted political debate--it took 10 years for them to produce a successful document that would bind the colonies together as a nation. They were careful to not bite off more than they could chew and what challenges they did take on, they recognized the possibility that they might fail. The Declaration of Independence was just that, and nothing more. They reconvened after the unanimous ratification of that declaration and started working on a constitution--not something they would add or amend to the declaration, but a separate and distinct document. They did fail with the Articles of Confederation that didn't hold the colonies together. In the end their sobriety in expectations yielded a better reward than they even imagined. Maybe because of their sobriety they could be called superheroes in their own way, and thank goodness for sober superheroes.

The Characteristics of a Great Man

We read in the Book of Mormon that "if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto [Captain] Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever," (Alma 48:17). Surely if there ever was a great man upon the face of the earth it would have been Moroni. If we were to look at what characteristics Moroni possessed that made him stand out, we would she that he was "a man of perfect understanding", he "did not delight in bloodshed", he gloried in "doing good" and in "preserving his people", and who found joy in the "liberty and freedom of his country".

All of this I found while doing homework for my Book of Mormon class. It was just a coincidence (or was it?) that that same day, I was able to watch a movie about John Adams, one of the key founding fathers. In the same week, I also read "Colossus of Independence" a chapter on the final congress meetings before the ratifying of the Declaration of Independence. Both of these forms of media emphasized the huge role John Adams played, but the movie entitled "John Adams" really made me see the similarities between John Adams and Captain Moroni.

When Great Britain began their attack on the colonies in Massachusetts, very near to where John Adams' house was, we see disgust and sadness on his face when he sees the wounded and dead men at the battleground. He obviously regretted that so many lives were lost, but he knew that they fought for a noble cause, and that's what strengthened him. Of all the members of Congress, nobody fought for independence as fervently and unceasingly as John Adams. He saw how Great Britain was taking away their liberties and freedom, and he did all he could to stop it, eventually persuading almost all the delegates to vote for independence and join the fight. I was also impressed with how the movie showed how spiritual John Adams was. He believed in God and he stayed close to him through the way he lived.

Now there are some major differences between John Adams and Captain Moroni. One was an army commander, and one was a delegate in the continental congress before becoming the 2nd President of the United States. Moroni's expertise was on the battlefield while Adams had great power in the political assemblies. Probably the most importance difference was that Moroni had the Gospel of Christ in his life, and John Adams didn't. Nevertheless, Adams was a God-fearing man, whose actions and influence helped cultivate a nation and a land where the God's true and living church could be restored. By comparing John Adams to Captain Moroni, I have come to see that John Adams was indeed a great man, and that we are very blessed to have had him as one of our founding fathers.

Looking Back

When I was in the 6th grade, I had a teacher--Mrs. Ferguson--that fully believed that learning should be fun. Throughout the year we participated in several different simulations, one was called Math Land, one of them was modeled after the Greek city-states, and one was an enactment of the Iditarod race. Then there was the simulation we did of the American Revolution.


Mrs Ferguson split the class up into Patriots, Loyalists, and Undecideds. The setting was a Congressional Congress where Patriots and Loyalists would debate about what action to take in regards to England. If we were Patriots, we faithfully fought for the independence, if we were Loyalists, we faithfully fought for continued reliance on the mother country all the while trying to sway the undecided representatives to our side. The culmination of our speeches, debates, and forums was a final vote on whether or not to separate from England.

I remember with triumph that day when as a class, we decided to separate from England. I'm not sure we fully understood what it meant when we adopted the Declaration of Independence, though we had spent weeks debating the subject. Still, we were excited that we had as a class reached the same decision our founding fathers had reached on the fateful day in July.

As I was reading in our textbook, Give Me Liberty! I saw a parallelism between the colonists and my 6th grade class. I don't think the founding fathers knew in full what it meant to declare independence from England. There were a few that we look at and say "they must have had a greater vision than their own", but I doubt they ever saw the complete picture. I think that as a whole, American colonists had no idea what they were getting themselves into, just that they needed to do it.

As I watched Obama's inauguration address and noted his integration of history with our future, I felt the same kind of excitement I felt in my 6th grade class when we decided to separate from England, the excitement that in a small way must have been felt by every representative in that Congress meeting on that summer day in 1776. An excitement about liberty. A liberty that doesn't quite exist anywhere else, at least not yet. And finally, not a static, flat liberty, but an expanding and ever growing liberty. I really do feel blessed to live in the United States of America.