The Miracle of the Book of Mormon

Dear Readers--

Last week I had the great privilege of touring the Crandall Printing Museum, a small little place tucked away on Center Street. This museum is one of Provo's most valuable, but most unknown, treasures. I had never even heard of it until I read the Honors 240 syllabus back in January, but even then, I knew the name and nothing else. I had very low expectations of the museum--I predicted it would be a bit like the BYU Museum of People's and cultures. I thought it would have a few nice artifacts, some interesting explanatory notes to read, and a few kind docents but remain generally underwhelming. This was confirmed when I first saw it and realized how small it was. Well, I'm happy to say that my expectations were magnificently exceeded.

The tour began with a short lecture and demonstration on Gutenberg's development of the movable type printing press. And when I say demonstration, I mean the docent explained and showed (to the best of his ability considering the time we had) every step of creating just one tiny piece of type (a capital "B"), including fixing the mold into the hand type-cast and pouring molten printers' metal into the type cast to create a brand new piece of type that all of us in the tour could hold in our hands and pass around. The demonstration concluded with us actually pressing two pages of the Gutenberg bible--an exact replica of the original (I pulled the handle on the press--it was fun). I will never see Gutenberg the same way. He was truly a genius and truly inspired of God. What he achieved considering the technology and education of the time was brilliant--so brilliant that no one could surpass his model of the press (at least in terms of fundamental innovation) for more than three hundred years. I'm so grateful that Heavenly Father inspired talented and faithful men to invent and accomplish the things that paved the way for the restoration.

Next, we moved into a little recreation of Benjamin Franklin's printing shop, discussed his career as a printer, and learned about how influential printed literature was in fueling the revolution. There's a great quote that I can quite remember, but it went something like this: "It was the press, not the pistol that won the revolution."

Lastly, we enjoyed a presentation in a recreation of the print shop that produced the first edition of the Book of Mormon. We saw an a printing press of the exact make and model of the press that printed the Book of Mormon. We saw how the pages were configured on the press. We saw how the book was bound and finished. We heard some statistics that were completely mind-blowing--for seven months, the press was running eleven hours a day at two sheets a minute. A group of strapping young men from BYU could run the press at that pace for approximately fifteen minutes before they had to let up. Back in 1830, a team of fourteen year-old boys was running the press eleven hours a day. The pace of binding the five thousand copies of the first printing was even more impressive. The physical coming forth of the Book of Mormon was every bit as much of a miracle as the divinely inspired translation.

I don't quite know how to express my appreciation for this museum. I came out of it ecstatic and impressed and overwhelmed. I donated all the cash I had in my wallet (well, it was only five dollars, but the widow only had two mites, right?) and I encourage any of you who have the chance to visit the museum (and I hope all of you do, the next time you are in Provo) to donate. The Museum has received a sizable donation from the Church to expand, but requires more aid. President Monson hopes that, after the museum has finished it's expansion plans, every missionary in the Provo MTC will be able to go through the museum to gain such a tangible appreciation of the miracle of the Book of Mormon.

Let me know the next time you are in town, and I'll gladly go through again :-)

--Christian

P.S. I just recently got into "So You Think You Can Dance." I know it's not in season, and I don't even have a TV, but I discovered a couple clips on YouTube and was amazed. Here's one of my favorites that I've found so far:



Enjoy!

Women's Rights

Dear Readers--

It is difficult for me to write about women’s rights because I am not a woman and have never had to deal with the type of inequality that women faced in the nineteenth century. I think the key to really understanding and loving history is to draw a personal and emotional connection with the events. I guess I’ll just have to use my imagination this time.

From the beginning of the colonial period of American history, women always filled a very necessary role. The pilgrims and other folks weren’t moving into a nice, new, developed neighborhood across the Atlantic. They were settling an unsettled (at least by their European standard) land. They were fighting for survival and everyone was needed. Men worked hard and women worked hard and equality was generally enjoyed. Any legal inequalities that surely existed between men and women were not likely to be pressing aggravations because both genders had to work so hard to build and maintain society.

As the colonial period ended and the new nation got to its feet, the feminine role underwent a shift. The concept of Republican Motherhood was born, and women were valued because they had the power to bring new Americans into the world and raise them to be model citizens. I’m sure that women’s rights activists from any era would have much to say about Republican Motherhood for good or for bad, but I’m not going to guess or address what such activists might say, nor pass any judgment on Republican Motherhood. Frankly, I don’t know enough about it to determine if it created any significant or oppressive inequality between men and women. The point is, women still enjoyed a respected role in society and were considered useful in that role.

After a few decades, the novelty of the Revolution and new government and the accompanying concept of Republican Motherhood seemed to wear off. By this time, European-settled America had a two hundred-year history and survival was no longer an issue (excepting those on the frontier). All along the East coast, intense labor on the part of both genders was no longer necessary for the economic well-being of the nation and society became economically/politically/et cetera dominated by men. From these conditions evolved a new concept to define the role of women (I wonder what concepts were created to define the role of men): the cult of domesticity. In this new way of looking at femininity, women were still on a pedestal, but no longer considered useful. Men considered their wives to be angels to bless and/or decorate their homes. Women received little education other than in the womanly arts taught at finishing schools. These finishing schools were not designed to help women contribute to society or enlarge their minds, but to help them win a man to put them up on that beautiful, feminine, pedestal. In other words, with the advent of the cult of domesticity, women found themselves in a situation that was undoubtedly unequal. The equity they enjoyed for almost or about two hundred years of American history was abolished.

Once women became aware of their diminished position in society, it was not long before the women’s rights movement began to form and mobilize. Remarkable women demanded and obtained education for themselves and worked to extend that same blessing to the rest of their sex. They gathered and spoke and protested and marched and wrote and the rest is history.

But the question arises, “why did it take so long for the women’s movement to begin and pick up steam?” The answer (at least my answer, however legitimate it is) can be found through the history of the female gender role in America. Whether or not they were legally equal, the necessity of female labor for the survival of early American society resulted in general equality between men and women. Women were useful, needed, and therefore equal. The usefulness of women continued until the nineteenth century when society had changed to the point that women were no longer as useful. This highlighted the legal inequality that was likely already in existence. Once women realized the inequality they suffered, they were quick to speak up, but it took two hundred years of history before that inequality became apparent.

I guess that's why it took so long!

Here's a song from Shrek the Musical that also deals with issues of (in)equality and standing up for one's rights. While I don't agree with the political subtext of this song (I'm sure most of you know exactly what I mean) but the message at face value is pretty good and it's just such a fun song to listen to and watch! Enjoy:

--Christian

Amistad

Dear Readers--

Happy Saint Patrick's Day! I'll have you all know that as I write this I'm listening to the soundtrack of Riverdance and once I've finished, I'm rewarding myself with a delicious bowl of Lucky Charms.

Last week in Honors 240, we watched a pretty incredible film, called Amistad. It tells the story of the controversy surrounding the Amistad slaves and the trial determining their fate. Here's the premise. A group of Africans was taken from Africa in a Portuguese ship and then transferred to a Spanish ship, La Amistad. The Africans took control of the ship, tried to steer it back to Africa, but ended up landing on the East Coast of the United States (I'll be honest. There was footage of the ship heading East, into the rising sun and I don't understand how they got turned around and landed on the East Coast. Oh well, it happened). There was some other business with an American ship who tried to "claim the cargo" of La Amistad. There were four main competing claims (and several smaller parties that were also involved)--the Africans claimed their own freedom, the Spanish owners of La Amistad claimed private ownership, the Queen of Spain (Isabella II at the tender age of eleven), and the Americans who discovered and "salvaged" the "cargo."

The case proved to be very difficult. There was falsified logic, unprovable but true and valid evidence, and of course the problem that none of the Africans involved spoke any European tongue. The case was fought long and hard and decided in favor of the Africans. It was then taken to the Supreme court. The decision was the same, but it was a very difficult legal battle.

The movie stimulated a lot of thinking about a lot of issues. Here are some scattered ideas that stick out a week in retrospect.

First, I'm grateful to live in the circumstances I enjoy. Though the world today is by no means perfect, it's a lot better than it was one hundred and seventy years ago. I'm grateful to be part of an economy that is not founded on human bondage (although some would argue that it is, considering the vast majority of the goods we enjoy are manufactured in sweatshops). I'm grateful that human dignity is recognized and valued in my society. I'm grateful to live in a nation that was founded on the idea of freedom and that has realized that idea as well as any nation ever has.

Next, I'm shocked at the corruption that was and is in politics. It is sickening to know that, even in the nineteenth century, when right and wrong and personal integrity were valued much more than they are today, there were so many in power who were so obsessed with maintaining their power that they sacrificed their integrity. I imagine that the situation is even worse today. That being said, the film made me much more thankful for men of integrity and fidelity who stand up for what is right no matter how such action will affect their careers and integrity. This film showcased several men who were so committed to doing the right thing. It was very inspiring.

I was also very impressed at the power of ideas, educated men, and good public speaking. I don't quite know how to explain this one--you'll have to watch the film, but you'll know what I mean if you. Some day I'll figure out how to articulate thoughts pertinent to this subject and I'll blog about it.

Lastly, this movie made me love John Quincy Adams! For so long I thought of him as sort of a loser who wasn't very effective as president and whom no one really liked. This movie completely changed that opinion, especially if the speech at the end of the movie is similar or identical to the speech that he surely gave in real life. That speech alone is enough reason to watch the movie--it is stunning.

Well, that's all I have to say on the subject for now. Here's some Irish hardshoe for Saint Patrick's Day (random: I accidentally typed thanksgiving and then caught my mistake--I think I've had one to many yummy treats today).



Enjoy!

--Christian

The Federalist Papers

Dear Readers--

A new week of course means a new blog post for Honors 240. This week I'll be writing about the federalist papers, so get ready :-)

Of the federalist papers that we studied, I think my favorite is number ten. It was the federalist paper with which I was most familiar before this class (though I was hardly familiar with it at all, and even now I do not consider myself an expert by any means) and retains its special place in my heart now that we have examined a few in some depth. Why is Federalist Number Ten my favorite, you may ask? Well I really do not know how to answer that question--I am not sure there is any particularly good reason for it, it just is.

I do, however, know perfectly well why it appeals to me, even if I can't explain why it is my favorite. Perhaps the coolest aspect of this essay is that it is so counterintuitively sensible. It addresses a problem that was surely worrisome to the founding fathers and other politicians of the day, indeed any politician of any time and any nation, and offers a wonderful solution in the most surprising of ways. I suppose, incorporating the proper phrase, it can be said that Federalist Number Ten fights fire with fire.

The problem of factions had afflicted every government ever to exist (or almost every government--I suppose the City of Enoch did not suffer from a plague of troublesome factions) and had never been successfully figured out. Leave it to James Madison to discover, or even have the idea that the way to negate the ill effects of factions is to actually encourage their growth!

More amazing to me than the fact that James Madison generated such a novel and unexpected idea is the fact that this new idea completely changed the general concept of a healthy government and a healthy society. It certainly took a while for the idea to sink in; George Washington, who served as President after the writing of the paper, in his farewell address, counseled America to avoid any sort of political division--to cling to unity and avoid and discourage political factions as much as possible. I do not know exactly how long it took for that idea to reverse itself in the general mentality of the people and the politicians, but nowadays, political parties and multiplicity of political groups is usually seen as a symptom of healthy government. Those societies in which separate political parties do not form, for whatever reason, are usually viewed as unhealthy, even oppressive.

The party system which formed in America is a more plastic system of checks and balances that tends to protect the rights, liberties, and freedom of the people alongside the protection built into the structure of the government. The party system produces multiple opposing candidates, all of whom are ambitious and hopefully well-intentioned as well, who all present different ideas and potential policies. The very expression of these various ideas in a competitive setting is conducive to freedom because it gives citizens more choices and is more likely to result in a candidate that will specifically cater to the desires of the general populace. A tyrant is much more likely to emerge from a society without political parties than from a society that cherishes them.

Best of all, I love Madison's conscientious exploration of all the options and possibilities in Federalist Number Ten. He logically examines the different ways that societies have tried to deal with factions, whether through eliminating the causes or manipulating the effects , and constructs a distinctly American solution in a genuine desire to serve the American people.

Well those are just a few thoughts on Federalist Number Ten. I hope they made sense!

No video tonight, but lots of love just the same!

--Christian

A More Perfect Union

Dear Readers,

Last week I had the tremendous blessing of watching the BYU film A More Perfect Union which tells the wonderful story of James Madison and the constitutional convention. I could write post upon post about the excellent acting and direction and craft in general, but that doesn't have much to do with our topics of discussion in Honors 240 :-). More along the lines of American Studies, I was very struck by how dramatic all the founding fathers seemed to be. Sure we don't have video footage of how they actually acted, but (to my knowledge--I could be completely) the script was based on the detailed notes that James Madison took as the convention dragged on. Anyway, for being the American paragons of the Age of Reason, they sure let their emotions drive them. The whole time I was so frustrated by how resistant they all were to compromise. Granted, they were involved in perhaps the most important intellectual and political work of the eighteenth century, but still, I was amazed at how long it took both sides of the representation debate to come around.

Furthermore, I was surprised at which particular characters (perhaps that's the wrong word) chose compromise first. The men who came off most headstrong at the beginning of the process seemed to be the first to suggest a mutually agreeable solution. Surprisingly, wise James Madison, who wanted the convention to succeed more than anyone, was one of the last to agree to the compromise which has lasted until this day. It's reassuring that their matters of debate were so greatly beyond themselves, otherwise their behavior might have accurately characterized them as some of the most stubborn and self-centered people in history.

I'd like to reemphasize how surprisingly dramatic the film was. If it weren't for the fact that the birth of the Constitution was of immense global and historical importance, the story would almost be a political soap opera.

Well, I'd better stop blaspheming the creation our nation's foundational document. I'll leave you with a video of a great singer singing a great song. Enjoy!



Christian

The Challenge

Dear Readers--

Here's yet another post for Honors 240, this time discussing the questions and difficulties faced by the Founding Fathers before they met to discuss and draft the constitution. Due to unexpected changes in schedule, this is the most hurried of any post I've written for the course so far. Hopefully it still makes sense and may even be enjoyable. I plan to revise and better it when I have the chance, but that chance is not now. Happy Reading!

It was more than clear that the Articles of Confederation weren’t working. In the first few years of their existence that became more than evident. Discord and discontent were rampant and chaos was quickly absorbing the logic, reason, and elevated thinking that gave impetus to the war for independence. Congress had little power to do anything and the inflated power of the individual states prevented the nation from functioning as a united body. Neither the states’ governments nor the national government were functioning as they ought. The high hopes that accompanied victory in the Revolution were certainly disappointed.

The biggest problem was that the founding fathers were doing something that no one had ever done before. Never had a fair, non-tyrannical, non-oppressive government been conceived, executed, and sustained on such a large scale as the United States. Unless my history is quite wrong, the thirteen new states and accompanying territories were larger in geographical space and population than any of the states of Europe. And Europe, even on that smaller scale, had not yet proven itself capable of good government. Combine this creative challenge with the chaos already reigning, the pressure of the watchful eyes of every European nation, the primitive (by our standards) means of communication and transportation available at the time, and the terrifying desire and necessity to succeed at such a lofty task, (among many other challenges that I cannot list here) and the job that the framers of the Constitution faced surely seemed pretty well nigh impossible.

They had no example to follow. No guidebook with detailed and concise instructions as they assembled the pieces of a new government. No model to inspire the pieces themselves. And yet they had to succeed, they believed, for the sake of mankind.

After extensive reading of historical accounts and political treatises, James Madison clearly understood that every government ever to have existed (or every government that whose record was available to him read) was flawed. He and the rest of the Constitutional Convention faced so many questions. Which aspects of past governments are good and virtuous? Which aspects proved self-destructive? Which aspects proved tyrannical? Once the proper parts of other governments were identified and selected, how could they be modified and molded to fit together in this new context? The delegates from the small states wondered how to preserve their power in congress. The delegates from the large states wondered how to equalize the imbalanced system of representation. Both groups wondered how to convince the other of their point. But most of all they wondered how to make a perfect government out of flawed individuals. The imperfection of human nature often came close to tearing apart even the small group that was the Constitutional Convention. How could they possibly deal with that challenge when created the government of an entire nation.

But, thanks to Divine aid and inspiration, they succeeded in answering each of those questions and many more besides. Though the government they created was not perfect, it was very close to it. As close any group of men possibly could come, and today we are the better for it.

--Christian

John Adams

Dear family and other readers,

The rest of my Honors 240 class is blogging about their responses to a segment of the John Adams miniseries based on the David McCullough and comparing the film portrayal of the man to their own understanding of his life and personality. Having been sick in bed last week when they watched it, I don't have the same privilege. My post tonight is a collection of thoughts on some basic Wikipedia research on the man and his life.

Factual as the Wikipedia article may be, it does not give much of a sense of his personality or character. Nevertheless, in piecing together those same dry facts, I left with the impression that one of John Adams chief qualities was humility. I could be completely wrong. I did not know him personally, and I haven't even read the David McCullough book. I am certainly not the expert on his personality, and yet I can't help thinking that of all the adjectives that might sum up who he was, humble was one of them. He definitely had dreams and aspirations and ambitions, but it seems that in every case his goals were for the greater good and not for his own gain. For example, he put his reputation on the line in defending the British troops involved in the massacre because he knew it was right. He knew that most of those officers were completely innocent and that (according to my understanding) even the officers that did fire in the crowd thought they were doing so under orders. He knew that it was his fellow Bostonians and friends who had, in this case, been in the wrong and he risked permanently losing or damaging his clientele because of his defense in behalf of the British soldiers. Yet this humility paid off and his victory in that most difficult of court cases resulted in respect for his prowess as a lawyer and contributed to (or at least confirmed) his appointment to the Continental Congress. Throughout the rest of his political career, it seems that he kept this same sort of humility. He would always stand up for what he believed to be just, yet he did not do this for attention or wealth or any sort of personal gain, he did it because he thought it was the right thing to do.

I am also impressed by his role as a family man. He and Abigail are, of course, famous for their letters. It is a blessing to have that correspondence so thoroughly preserved. Someday I would love to read their letters thoroughly--as of now I haven't (I have read one or two but not enough to create an intelligible picture of their relationship in my mind). But, as far as my understanding is correct, their relationship was very admirable and they clung to each other as best they could, through correspondence, during John's long stays away from home. In a day of rationalism and pre-romantic philosophy, it is refreshing to hear of a happy, successful marriages in which the man and wife are so mutually supportive. In addition to his role as loving husband, he was also the father of several children. Considering his many political accomplishments, it is highly unlikely that he was able to be very present as a father, and yet his children ended up living very successful lives. It is a tribute to him that his son John Quincy became the president, and that many of this posterity have taken up office, following in his footsteps. Though he may not have always been present in the home, his fatherly influence was certainly great, considering the success of his children.

I'm grateful that his temple work has been done. It will be interesting to talk to him in the hereafter to check if my take on his character is correct.

Now for the weekly Youtube treats. The musical Finian's Rainbow, recently revived on Broadway, is my new favorite. Here's a little tidbit of a video from this latest production. More videos will follow in future blogs. Enjoy!



Love,
Christian