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.