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.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
