This will be a little disjointed as there are two points I want to make about Eve. One goes along nicely with what Julia said about agency, and the other is about love (surprise, surprise).
First, my favorite quote from the book: "Satan wishes to blur our knowledge of the absolutes of good and evil. The power inherent in that knowledge makes us like God. It is our choice of good over evil which makes us godlike. If the adversary is able to diminish or erase our sensitivities in this regard, his chances of keeping us from becoming as God are significantly enhanced . . .." pgs. 39-41.
This is a very provocative quote. It is essentially saying that there is no "gray" and that we are dulling our spiritual sensitivities when we try to create and/or justify gray areas. That means that homosexual marriage is wrong--no matter how difficult it is to explain it to a homosexual friend. It means that the curse put on the Lamanites that made their skin dark really did happen, no matter how awkward it is to explain to a non-white friend. It means that we really should attend all of our classes no matter how much fun we have chatting with our friends in the hall during Sunday School.
It means that if we are spiritually in tune, we always know the correct thing to do. It doesn't mean we will always do it, but we will always know what we should do. Especially since: "Discernment, the ability to see beyond the literal to the divine essential, has ever been God's gift to women." pg. 41 There is a lot of justifying in most of our lives. It bears thinking of that when we choose to justify a wrong choice, or label something as too insignificant to really matter, we are crippling ourselves in our efforts to become like our Father in heaven. We are also undermining our spiritual gift of discernment. It is better to openly acknowledge to ourselves that what we are doing is wrong but we are not yet willing to change our behavior. At least that would be honest and not spiritual self-delusion. Better yet, of course, would be to change the behavior. Always easier to say than do!!!
Another of my favorite quotes is this one:
"She [Eve] had a long history of being taught in the premortal existence as well as in Eden. She had developed wisdom, judgment, and evaluative powers, having received spiritual guidance and sacred ordinances. She was in a unique position to draw on knowledge and light. Eve likely did not have a total picture of all that was meant for humankind upon entry into mortality, any more than we know when we begin a new phase of life what it will bring. But, as we have learned, Eve was sufficiently prepared for a proper exercise of agency." pg. 75
That last line is a doozy. If Eve was sufficiently prepared for a proper exercise of agency, we have been sufficiently prepared. We were taught in the premortal existence. We have developed/are developing wisdom, judgment, and evaluative powers as we grow in experience. We have received spiritual guidance from the scriptures, from the prophets, from other church leaders, and from blessings like our Patriarchal blessing. We have made covenants and been taught by ordinances. We, as daughters in the dispensation of the fullness of times, are in a unique position to draw on knowledge and light. We do not have a perfect knowledge of what is to come, but we have been "sufficiently prepared for a proper exercise of agency." Combine that with the previous quote, and we get a sense that we are not going to be able to talk ourselves out of poor behavior with a winsome smile and pretty words.
On a different note, I liked that the author included this quote:
"They [Adam and Eve] chose wisely, in accord with the heavenly law of love for others." pg. 38 Adam and Eve truly did put us ahead of themselves. They could have lived in innocent comfort for eternity. But they didn't. It is a great example of love. It is also a mortal example of love. Adam and Eve, like the people living in the city of Enoch, act as examples of how loving and Christ-like we can become despite our mortality. They were subject to opposition but they chose to love each other with a Christ-like love. With compassion, empathy, and generosity. And so can we. That is one of the greatest lessons of Eve.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Kim, by Kelly
Sadly, I haven't given Kim the time it deserves. I had a hard time getting into it. Not because I didn't find it somewhat interesting, but because I've just had too many things getting in the way of giving it my complete attention. I have worked on it all month, off and on, and still haven't quite finished it. Grrr. It couldn't suck me in enough, I guess. I got about 3/4 through it.
I have to hurry and read a different book before tomorrow night, and then I want to move on, so here's my take on Kim at this point.
Here is one of the questions Andrea addressed:
1. For decades many critics have shown great disdain for Kipling, equating his work with the idea that British imperialism was a righteous and justified act. Is this assessment fair? Was Kipling simply writing what he knew or structuring his literature on his political beliefs?
I can see why modern day liberal-thinkers (not referencing today's current political climate, necessarily) would not be able to swallow Kipling's approval of British imperialism. We've convinced ourselves that this was a shameful period of Britain's history. (Side note - the British left behind some good after their colonial rule - there are many aspects of that that the Indians kept (language, parliament, and other things) when they returned to ruling themselves. Throughout history nations have come out of an imperial rule better in some ways than they were when the went into it, although we can argue that they lost things in return).
While Kipling doesn't have a problem with British Imperialism, I don't think he would agree that the British are superior to the Indians. I think it is fairly obvious that Kipling loved India and loved it's people. The British characters in the story are often silly, while the Indian characters have a depth and wit to them.
Central to the story is Kim's relationship with the lama. I loved their story. One of my favorite parts is when Kim leaves school and joins up with the lama, and how they each pretend that they are not all that excited to be together again.
A second thing I enjoyed was the rich culture of India. The people were so real and well-drawn. I love reading about other cultures and discovering their little idiosyncrasies that make them unique. There is a strict code of behavior and manners here which Kim understands and is able to manipulate in order to get what he wants in terms of food and shelter. He knows exactly who to play, and how, which I thought was pretty funny.
I thought Andrea addressed the religious issue well - better than I would have, so I won't go into it. Just add a huge ditto.
Kami, Mahbub was my favorite character also.
Have you guys ever read The City of Joy? It's about India also, but about the poor of modern-day Calcutta. Kind of heart-wrenching, but interesting.
I have to hurry and read a different book before tomorrow night, and then I want to move on, so here's my take on Kim at this point.
Here is one of the questions Andrea addressed:
1. For decades many critics have shown great disdain for Kipling, equating his work with the idea that British imperialism was a righteous and justified act. Is this assessment fair? Was Kipling simply writing what he knew or structuring his literature on his political beliefs?
I can see why modern day liberal-thinkers (not referencing today's current political climate, necessarily) would not be able to swallow Kipling's approval of British imperialism. We've convinced ourselves that this was a shameful period of Britain's history. (Side note - the British left behind some good after their colonial rule - there are many aspects of that that the Indians kept (language, parliament, and other things) when they returned to ruling themselves. Throughout history nations have come out of an imperial rule better in some ways than they were when the went into it, although we can argue that they lost things in return).
While Kipling doesn't have a problem with British Imperialism, I don't think he would agree that the British are superior to the Indians. I think it is fairly obvious that Kipling loved India and loved it's people. The British characters in the story are often silly, while the Indian characters have a depth and wit to them.
Central to the story is Kim's relationship with the lama. I loved their story. One of my favorite parts is when Kim leaves school and joins up with the lama, and how they each pretend that they are not all that excited to be together again.
A second thing I enjoyed was the rich culture of India. The people were so real and well-drawn. I love reading about other cultures and discovering their little idiosyncrasies that make them unique. There is a strict code of behavior and manners here which Kim understands and is able to manipulate in order to get what he wants in terms of food and shelter. He knows exactly who to play, and how, which I thought was pretty funny.
I thought Andrea addressed the religious issue well - better than I would have, so I won't go into it. Just add a huge ditto.
Kami, Mahbub was my favorite character also.
Have you guys ever read The City of Joy? It's about India also, but about the poor of modern-day Calcutta. Kind of heart-wrenching, but interesting.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Kim
Kipling has an extraordinary ability to make India come to life for the reader. He mentions the smells, the colors, the noise, the customs, and the landscapes. The part that contrasts most vividly from current American life is the amalgam of religions and, more materially, how respect for a religious observer increases proportionally to the level of strangeness the faith requires.
In the United States, religious observance is the norm. Most people affiliate with a religion, even if only in a vague, non-practicing way. The accepted religious affiliation is "christian" in a Catholic/Protestant denomination. The farther a person strays from this connection, the more he is looked on with suspicion. Mormon--weird, but generally harmless. 7th Day--annoying but tolerable. Quaker--antiquated, but nice.
At that point, the only other options are fringe religions (Scientologists), or romanticized religions (Buddhism). Atheism or agnosticism is acceptable as long as you are white, rich, and educated. Muslim is outside the bounds of acceptability. Jewishness comes in and out of vogue. Usually out.
But the primary thing to remember, if you are in the United States and want to maintain a generally acceptable profile, is to always avoid the taint of true, avid, heart and soul religious belief and observance. For heaven's sake--white Americans can't handle emotion and even more they can't handle behaviour that is based on fervent belief of something they don't believe. Religious devotion is great--religious strangeness is not.
The difference in Kim couldn't be more plain. First, Kim served the lama without the least interest in Buddhism. A strange old man comes by looking for a river that will purify him and Kim immediately assumes the lama is the holiest man he'd ever met. Moreover, Kim reverences the lama for his religiosity despite his own lack of the same. Every time the lama is introduced to people they believe his sincerity and respect his status as a holy man. They lack the incredulity that our current society would display on meeting a similar person.
In fact, the exact opposite of American religious preferences exist in Kim's India. Where we embrace the norm, the Indians distrusted the run-of-the-mill religious people as avaricious. In the United States those who worship in an extreme way are considered unbalanced and most likely prone to violence and/or other gross sins. At the very least, they are considered ignorant. In Kim's India, the more extreme a person is in his religious observance the more respect he garnered from those around him.
In reading Kim, I found the acceptance of all religious visions/quests/searches as holy and important rather refreshing. Truly, a man's religious journey is far more important than any other facet of his life and should be celebrated and supported. I find I prefer a society that reverences spirituality in all its manifestations. That might be because I'm Mormon and therefore borderline nutty. Hmm.
In the United States, religious observance is the norm. Most people affiliate with a religion, even if only in a vague, non-practicing way. The accepted religious affiliation is "christian" in a Catholic/Protestant denomination. The farther a person strays from this connection, the more he is looked on with suspicion. Mormon--weird, but generally harmless. 7th Day--annoying but tolerable. Quaker--antiquated, but nice.
At that point, the only other options are fringe religions (Scientologists), or romanticized religions (Buddhism). Atheism or agnosticism is acceptable as long as you are white, rich, and educated. Muslim is outside the bounds of acceptability. Jewishness comes in and out of vogue. Usually out.
But the primary thing to remember, if you are in the United States and want to maintain a generally acceptable profile, is to always avoid the taint of true, avid, heart and soul religious belief and observance. For heaven's sake--white Americans can't handle emotion and even more they can't handle behaviour that is based on fervent belief of something they don't believe. Religious devotion is great--religious strangeness is not.
The difference in Kim couldn't be more plain. First, Kim served the lama without the least interest in Buddhism. A strange old man comes by looking for a river that will purify him and Kim immediately assumes the lama is the holiest man he'd ever met. Moreover, Kim reverences the lama for his religiosity despite his own lack of the same. Every time the lama is introduced to people they believe his sincerity and respect his status as a holy man. They lack the incredulity that our current society would display on meeting a similar person.
In fact, the exact opposite of American religious preferences exist in Kim's India. Where we embrace the norm, the Indians distrusted the run-of-the-mill religious people as avaricious. In the United States those who worship in an extreme way are considered unbalanced and most likely prone to violence and/or other gross sins. At the very least, they are considered ignorant. In Kim's India, the more extreme a person is in his religious observance the more respect he garnered from those around him.
In reading Kim, I found the acceptance of all religious visions/quests/searches as holy and important rather refreshing. Truly, a man's religious journey is far more important than any other facet of his life and should be celebrated and supported. I find I prefer a society that reverences spirituality in all its manifestations. That might be because I'm Mormon and therefore borderline nutty. Hmm.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Kim
First, in response to some of the questions I posted.
1. For decades many critics have shown great disdain for Kipling, equating his work with the idea that British imperialism was a righteous and justified act. Is this assessment fair? Was Kipling simply writing what he knew or structuring his literature on his political beliefs?
This question is silly. Kipling is very blatant that he finds no fault with imperialism. I don't think anyone could rationally argue that he was opposed in any way to the Brits presence in his beloved India. He wrote "The White Man's Burden," after all. However, Kipling's acceptance of imperialism led to him both writing what he knew, and structuring his literature on his political beliefs. There is no "or."
2. As Kim moves from the intellectual world of school to the spiritual world he finds with the lama later in the story, he continually questions who he is. Is this questioning simply that of a young orphan or does it hint at larger political unease?
Again, I'm irritated with the question. Kim never moved into the intellectual world in any real way. He was putting in his time so he could fully integrate into the Great Game. Yes, his exposure made him more aware of his sahibness. Yes, he was groomed to act more white and therefore less religious. However, Kim was a religious person in a sahib setting much more than he was later a sahib in a religious setting. I recognize that Kim wasn't religious in the sense that he worshipped a particular God or followed a particular code of behavior. He was religious in the sense that he embraced religion in all its forms as natural. His questioning of self wasn't a defining of himself as sahib or Indian or spiritual or secular--it was his coming-of-age decision making. Was he going to stay with the lama indefinitely or jump into the Great Game full throttle?
3. What is the purpose of the prophecy Kim brings to the soldiers?
It was a literary device that allowed Kim to enter the world of the sahibs as an equal and thereby invigorate and enlarge the spying element of the novel. It also led to all future conflict as he was no longer allowed to wander around India at will. It also allowed Kipling to express disdain for Brits who felt superior to Indians.
4. Is it surprising, given Kim’s spirituality, that he joins the Secret Service? How does he reconcile his two separate lives?
I would argue that Kim was not very spiritual in a sense that would make the Secret Service an odd choice. Kim loved the lama. He was willing to do anything for the man. He never demonstrated any inclination toward affiliating with Buddhism or any other religion. The excitement and glamour of the Great Game was far more enticing than any religious devoutness, and even if the Great Game had not presented itself as a possibility, it was quite obvious that Kim was destined for a life most lively.
5. In a 1943 essay, critic Edmund Wilson referred to the ending of Kim as a “betrayal” of the relationship of the old man and the young Kim, which made the book more literary than a mere adventure story. Do you agree with this? Why or why not?
I am confused by the question. Was the ending a betrayal by Kipling of an adventure story that he wanted to dress up as a literary novel? Or, was the ending a betrayal of the relationship which launched the book out of the mud of adventure novel into the lofty heights of literary novel? Hmm. Regardless, I loved the ending because it clarified for anyone still wondering that the main point of the book was the relationship between Kim and the lama and not the somewhat superfluous spying plot thread. The lama was old. He was wise and gentle and Kim loved him. Nothing could make Kim happier than knowing his beloved lama had found his river. And nothing could make the lama happier than knowing his beloved chela had washed in the river. Kim, no doubt, would wash himself, feel no different but assure the lama otherwise and happily skip through the rest of his life grateful that his eternal destination was clear. In short--he wouldn't give it much thought. He would, however, derive a great deal of happiness from the happiness of his lama. That is the point of the ending.
6. In her article “Adolescence, Imperialism, and Identity in Kim and Pegasus in Flight,” Nicole Didicher says, “Adults writing for adolescents inevitably use imperialist discourse to influence their readers’ maturation. Kipling . . . uses an existing imperialist society to present the protagonist’s establishment of his psychosocial identity.” Do you agree that all adult writers “inevitably” use imperialist discourse to reach their adolescent audiences? Did Kipling use imperialist India because that is what he knew, or was he simply entertaining a young audience?
I'm pretty sure that's a lot of circular writing to ask if Kipling knew what he was doing in the literary sense by placing Kim in an imperialist setting. I would say no. Most writers write what they know and Kipling knew India during the Brits imperialistic heyday. That adolescents respond to injustice stories of all kinds because they feel disenfranchised and picked on isn't very relevant to this story. The story is about love and friendship. If adolescents responded well to the book it is most likely because they thought it was a story about spying and getting to run wild around an exotic country.
I know I promised Susie Q an essay today, but I'm tired and I am going to bed. Stay tuned though . . . tomorrow for sure my essay will be posted.
1. For decades many critics have shown great disdain for Kipling, equating his work with the idea that British imperialism was a righteous and justified act. Is this assessment fair? Was Kipling simply writing what he knew or structuring his literature on his political beliefs?
This question is silly. Kipling is very blatant that he finds no fault with imperialism. I don't think anyone could rationally argue that he was opposed in any way to the Brits presence in his beloved India. He wrote "The White Man's Burden," after all. However, Kipling's acceptance of imperialism led to him both writing what he knew, and structuring his literature on his political beliefs. There is no "or."
2. As Kim moves from the intellectual world of school to the spiritual world he finds with the lama later in the story, he continually questions who he is. Is this questioning simply that of a young orphan or does it hint at larger political unease?
Again, I'm irritated with the question. Kim never moved into the intellectual world in any real way. He was putting in his time so he could fully integrate into the Great Game. Yes, his exposure made him more aware of his sahibness. Yes, he was groomed to act more white and therefore less religious. However, Kim was a religious person in a sahib setting much more than he was later a sahib in a religious setting. I recognize that Kim wasn't religious in the sense that he worshipped a particular God or followed a particular code of behavior. He was religious in the sense that he embraced religion in all its forms as natural. His questioning of self wasn't a defining of himself as sahib or Indian or spiritual or secular--it was his coming-of-age decision making. Was he going to stay with the lama indefinitely or jump into the Great Game full throttle?
3. What is the purpose of the prophecy Kim brings to the soldiers?
It was a literary device that allowed Kim to enter the world of the sahibs as an equal and thereby invigorate and enlarge the spying element of the novel. It also led to all future conflict as he was no longer allowed to wander around India at will. It also allowed Kipling to express disdain for Brits who felt superior to Indians.
4. Is it surprising, given Kim’s spirituality, that he joins the Secret Service? How does he reconcile his two separate lives?
I would argue that Kim was not very spiritual in a sense that would make the Secret Service an odd choice. Kim loved the lama. He was willing to do anything for the man. He never demonstrated any inclination toward affiliating with Buddhism or any other religion. The excitement and glamour of the Great Game was far more enticing than any religious devoutness, and even if the Great Game had not presented itself as a possibility, it was quite obvious that Kim was destined for a life most lively.
5. In a 1943 essay, critic Edmund Wilson referred to the ending of Kim as a “betrayal” of the relationship of the old man and the young Kim, which made the book more literary than a mere adventure story. Do you agree with this? Why or why not?
I am confused by the question. Was the ending a betrayal by Kipling of an adventure story that he wanted to dress up as a literary novel? Or, was the ending a betrayal of the relationship which launched the book out of the mud of adventure novel into the lofty heights of literary novel? Hmm. Regardless, I loved the ending because it clarified for anyone still wondering that the main point of the book was the relationship between Kim and the lama and not the somewhat superfluous spying plot thread. The lama was old. He was wise and gentle and Kim loved him. Nothing could make Kim happier than knowing his beloved lama had found his river. And nothing could make the lama happier than knowing his beloved chela had washed in the river. Kim, no doubt, would wash himself, feel no different but assure the lama otherwise and happily skip through the rest of his life grateful that his eternal destination was clear. In short--he wouldn't give it much thought. He would, however, derive a great deal of happiness from the happiness of his lama. That is the point of the ending.
6. In her article “Adolescence, Imperialism, and Identity in Kim and Pegasus in Flight,” Nicole Didicher says, “Adults writing for adolescents inevitably use imperialist discourse to influence their readers’ maturation. Kipling . . . uses an existing imperialist society to present the protagonist’s establishment of his psychosocial identity.” Do you agree that all adult writers “inevitably” use imperialist discourse to reach their adolescent audiences? Did Kipling use imperialist India because that is what he knew, or was he simply entertaining a young audience?
I'm pretty sure that's a lot of circular writing to ask if Kipling knew what he was doing in the literary sense by placing Kim in an imperialist setting. I would say no. Most writers write what they know and Kipling knew India during the Brits imperialistic heyday. That adolescents respond to injustice stories of all kinds because they feel disenfranchised and picked on isn't very relevant to this story. The story is about love and friendship. If adolescents responded well to the book it is most likely because they thought it was a story about spying and getting to run wild around an exotic country.
I know I promised Susie Q an essay today, but I'm tired and I am going to bed. Stay tuned though . . . tomorrow for sure my essay will be posted.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Kim
I was going to write my Kim essay tonight but I got distracted looking for book group discussion questions online. Then I started reading what other people said about Kim and then I was forced to get annoyed. I did find a few "book group discussion questions" but even they annoyed me. Do I think everyone should agree with me about this book? Why, yes. Yes, I do.
Here are the questions.
1. For decades many critics have shown great disdain for Kipling, equating his work with the idea that British imperialism was a righteous and justified act. Is this assessment fair? Was Kipling simply writing what he knew or structuring his literature on his political beliefs?
2. As Kim moves from the intellectual world of school to the spiritual world he finds with the lama later in the story, he continually questions who he is. Is this questioning simply that of a young orphan or does it hint at larger political unease?
3. What is the purpose of the prophecy Kim brings to the soldiers?
4. Is it surprising, given Kim’s spirituality, that he joins the Secret Service? How does he reconcile his two separate lives?
5. In a 1943 essay, critic Edmund Wilson referred to the ending of Kim as a “betrayal” of the relationship of the old man and the young Kim, which made the book more literary than a mere adventure story. Do you agree with this? Why or why not?
6. In her article “Adolescence, Imperialism, and Identity in Kim and Pegasus in Flight,” Nicole Didicher says, “Adults writing for adolescents inevitably use imperialist discourse to influence their readers’ maturation. Kipling . . . uses an existing imperialist society to present the protagonist’s establishment of his psychosocial identity.” Do you agree that all adult writers “inevitably” use imperialist discourse to reach their adolescent audiences? Did Kipling use imperialist India because that is what he knew, or was he simply entertaining a young audience?
I'll be posting my essay tomorrow as February is fast coming to a close and I have a few fiction books on my pile to get through before Eve.
Here are the questions.
1. For decades many critics have shown great disdain for Kipling, equating his work with the idea that British imperialism was a righteous and justified act. Is this assessment fair? Was Kipling simply writing what he knew or structuring his literature on his political beliefs?
2. As Kim moves from the intellectual world of school to the spiritual world he finds with the lama later in the story, he continually questions who he is. Is this questioning simply that of a young orphan or does it hint at larger political unease?
3. What is the purpose of the prophecy Kim brings to the soldiers?
4. Is it surprising, given Kim’s spirituality, that he joins the Secret Service? How does he reconcile his two separate lives?
5. In a 1943 essay, critic Edmund Wilson referred to the ending of Kim as a “betrayal” of the relationship of the old man and the young Kim, which made the book more literary than a mere adventure story. Do you agree with this? Why or why not?
6. In her article “Adolescence, Imperialism, and Identity in Kim and Pegasus in Flight,” Nicole Didicher says, “Adults writing for adolescents inevitably use imperialist discourse to influence their readers’ maturation. Kipling . . . uses an existing imperialist society to present the protagonist’s establishment of his psychosocial identity.” Do you agree that all adult writers “inevitably” use imperialist discourse to reach their adolescent audiences? Did Kipling use imperialist India because that is what he knew, or was he simply entertaining a young audience?
I'll be posting my essay tomorrow as February is fast coming to a close and I have a few fiction books on my pile to get through before Eve.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Kim
To begin with, my brain is fried--I just finished our tax returns. But I wanted to get this written out so that I could start on another book with a free mind.
I enjoyed reading Kim a lot. I've read The Jungle Books, and I didn't really like it that much. This was far better. It reminded me of reading Huckleberry Finn, only set in India. I thought Kim was a completely enjoyable character: innocent, boyish, and fun. He was quite obviously a "golden" boy, nothing ever really went wrong for him and everybody that knew him, loved him and went out of their way to help him. There's nothing that really adds much depth to the novel or to Kim, himself, to make them more than a fun adventure except the lama. I really think that the lama's presence in the novel is what makes it a piece of classic literature.
Again, it reminds me of Huckleberry Finn and the bond formed between Huck and Jim, the runaway slave. Both pairs are an unlikely duo and I think that's what makes both books compelling. In both situations, the boy character--in their society and with their race--choose a mentor/father-figure that was taboo at that time. I found it amusing that Mahbub (an equally taboo choice) was even jealous of the bond between Kim and the lama. Yet through much of the book Kim refers to the lama as crazy, and while he studies the Buddhist principles extensively with the lama on their last journey together, he still never leaves his "Britishness" enough to recognize and understand when the lama has reached nirvana. So despite their attachment, the taboo of a white kid becoming fully indoctrinated and assimilated into the other's culture is never crossed.
However, I think think this possible crossing of a "taboo" is what the climax of the book is really about. When Kim is sick towards the end of the novel, Rudyard Kipling makes it clear that it is due to him trying to decide who he is in the world. For instance:"All that while he felt, though he could not put it into words, that his soul was out of gear with his surroundings--a cog-wheel unconnected with any machinery...(pg. 331)" and again later down the same page, "I am Kim. I am Kim. And what is Kim? His soul repeated it again and again." I think the pressure put on him of carrying the packet of papers (pressure to be British) and the pressure of taking care of the lama (pressure to remain a chela) forced him at that time to decide which life he was going to pursue--that of a sahib or an Oriental. While it's fairly obvious throughout that he will always be a "sahib" and I don't think Rudyard Kipling would have had it any other way, I think the author almost wished it could be the other way, as his love for India is so evident in the novel. Kim ultimately retains his own culture, which is again made completely clear when he fails to grasp his teacher's nirvana or even to care much about it at that point, besides wanting to make sure the lama is taken care of.
(The End--of my very short essay.)
However I do have a few other comments. I loved Mahbub. He was by far my favorite character. I also found it interesting how closely the Buddhism described in the book was the same to what I learned in my world religions class--for some odd reason I had expected disparities. And now, I really need to go to bed. Chao.
I enjoyed reading Kim a lot. I've read The Jungle Books, and I didn't really like it that much. This was far better. It reminded me of reading Huckleberry Finn, only set in India. I thought Kim was a completely enjoyable character: innocent, boyish, and fun. He was quite obviously a "golden" boy, nothing ever really went wrong for him and everybody that knew him, loved him and went out of their way to help him. There's nothing that really adds much depth to the novel or to Kim, himself, to make them more than a fun adventure except the lama. I really think that the lama's presence in the novel is what makes it a piece of classic literature.
Again, it reminds me of Huckleberry Finn and the bond formed between Huck and Jim, the runaway slave. Both pairs are an unlikely duo and I think that's what makes both books compelling. In both situations, the boy character--in their society and with their race--choose a mentor/father-figure that was taboo at that time. I found it amusing that Mahbub (an equally taboo choice) was even jealous of the bond between Kim and the lama. Yet through much of the book Kim refers to the lama as crazy, and while he studies the Buddhist principles extensively with the lama on their last journey together, he still never leaves his "Britishness" enough to recognize and understand when the lama has reached nirvana. So despite their attachment, the taboo of a white kid becoming fully indoctrinated and assimilated into the other's culture is never crossed.
However, I think think this possible crossing of a "taboo" is what the climax of the book is really about. When Kim is sick towards the end of the novel, Rudyard Kipling makes it clear that it is due to him trying to decide who he is in the world. For instance:"All that while he felt, though he could not put it into words, that his soul was out of gear with his surroundings--a cog-wheel unconnected with any machinery...(pg. 331)" and again later down the same page, "I am Kim. I am Kim. And what is Kim? His soul repeated it again and again." I think the pressure put on him of carrying the packet of papers (pressure to be British) and the pressure of taking care of the lama (pressure to remain a chela) forced him at that time to decide which life he was going to pursue--that of a sahib or an Oriental. While it's fairly obvious throughout that he will always be a "sahib" and I don't think Rudyard Kipling would have had it any other way, I think the author almost wished it could be the other way, as his love for India is so evident in the novel. Kim ultimately retains his own culture, which is again made completely clear when he fails to grasp his teacher's nirvana or even to care much about it at that point, besides wanting to make sure the lama is taken care of.
(The End--of my very short essay.)
However I do have a few other comments. I loved Mahbub. He was by far my favorite character. I also found it interesting how closely the Buddhism described in the book was the same to what I learned in my world religions class--for some odd reason I had expected disparities. And now, I really need to go to bed. Chao.
Another Quote
This morning I was reading a talk by Elder Marlin K. Jensen and stumbled upon this great quote that goes along with Andrea's question, "How do you know if you're improving?"
He said, "Consciously trying to acquire humility is . . . problematic. I remember once hearing one of my colleagues in the Seventy say about humility that 'if you think you have it, you don't.' He suggested we should try to develop humility and be sure we didn't know when we got it, and then we would have it. But if we ever thought we had it, we wouldn't."
How's that for CONFUSION!!?!?!
And then later on he quotes Micah 6:8 which goes along perfectly with what I think Andrea has been saying all along. It reads, "He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God."
It's all about LOVE.
He said, "Consciously trying to acquire humility is . . . problematic. I remember once hearing one of my colleagues in the Seventy say about humility that 'if you think you have it, you don't.' He suggested we should try to develop humility and be sure we didn't know when we got it, and then we would have it. But if we ever thought we had it, we wouldn't."
How's that for CONFUSION!!?!?!
And then later on he quotes Micah 6:8 which goes along perfectly with what I think Andrea has been saying all along. It reads, "He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God."
It's all about LOVE.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Eyring
What was the exact book you were reading by Eyring? I could just go back and check old posts, I guess. I loved and appreciated the comments. Thank you! AND welcome Autumn.
Here is a response to the Eyring comments:
"The real trial of your faith is anything that would divert you from doing what God would have you do." I think this is what Julia worries about--that she'll get so caught up in doing things that are good that she won't get done the things that are essential. This is a hard one because it requires you to really be in tune with the Spirit. How do you know when you missed a prompting because you weren't in tune? You don't. Exactly.
This is a little bit true. I will say that I think I've got the main essentials down: scriptures, prayer, take care of family, serve others. Not that I do them perfectly, but you know what I mean. I think it's more that I don't want to reach the end of my life and see that I didn't fulfill what the Lord wanted me to fulfill. I guess. My struggle seems to be more with what you said a couple of paragraphs later.
"You should expect that great difficulties will come to you in the pursuit of doing what the Lord would have you do." Now, we've heard variations on this theme all our lives. My question is this: how do we know when we're improving? How do we know when we're becoming more Christ-like? How do we know, we self-critical women, when our efforts are acceptable or our response to the difficulties is growth?
I have had these same exact questions, and I think this is more my issue than the paragraph before (though both go in circles around my mind). Some days I look back and think I was stronger and "better" five years ago than I am now. Is that improvement, or humility?!?!?
The question I would add to this is, How do you know if the difficulties arise because you are trying to do what you feel you've been commanded to do OR if you're going the wrong path and being prompted to set your sights elsewhere? To answer this a little bit, at Education Week this last summer I went to the BEST speaker: Bartholomew was his name. He pretty much took two chapters in Hebrews and expounded upon them. WOW! I wish I could do that!
Hebrews 10:32, 35; 11:1 - "But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated (meaning, felt that spiritual prompting to pursue God's commandments) ye endured a great fight of afflictions . . . Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward . . . Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of htings not seen."
So basically, this teacher expounded that the Lord is not going to give you a commandment and then make you suffer and hurt as you try to accomplish the goal. He called it the Jospeh Smith Principle from in the Sacred Grove JS encountered an evil spirit after he chose to follow the promptings of the spirit to pray. A similar thing happens to us. When we receive a prompting and choose to follow that prompting, there will be opposition but it is not a "trial of your faith." So if we can remember the moment we were "illuminated" we can push forth, maintain confidence in the Lord and thus exercise our faith because we have that assurance. Anyway, I'm not saying it all as eloquently as he did, but I think I'm getting my point across.
And I loved this whole part:
And don't tell me that we'll feel the Spirit more because that's bunk. Elder McConkie said that he worried about the Saints because they focused so much on testimony and feeling the Spirit, which opened them up to falling into inactivity. Instead he said we need to focus all our energies on obedience because obedience is what saves you--not your testimony.
I think sometimes we (I) tend to "overthink the Spirit," if you know what I mean. I want it to be grander than it needs to be. I remember a cousin of mine wasn't getting married because he was waiting for the "shake the earth" type of experience to know who was the right girl. It's very easy to fall into this trap and to foget that sacred power of agency we've all been given.
Anyway, very interesting thoughts, Ans!
JULIA
P.S. If it took you that long to read Kim, just imagine how much longer I'm taking. I'm sorry, I'm slowly giving up. I'll give it a couple more tries, but don't expect much. :-(
Here is a response to the Eyring comments:
"The real trial of your faith is anything that would divert you from doing what God would have you do." I think this is what Julia worries about--that she'll get so caught up in doing things that are good that she won't get done the things that are essential. This is a hard one because it requires you to really be in tune with the Spirit. How do you know when you missed a prompting because you weren't in tune? You don't. Exactly.
This is a little bit true. I will say that I think I've got the main essentials down: scriptures, prayer, take care of family, serve others. Not that I do them perfectly, but you know what I mean. I think it's more that I don't want to reach the end of my life and see that I didn't fulfill what the Lord wanted me to fulfill. I guess. My struggle seems to be more with what you said a couple of paragraphs later.
"You should expect that great difficulties will come to you in the pursuit of doing what the Lord would have you do." Now, we've heard variations on this theme all our lives. My question is this: how do we know when we're improving? How do we know when we're becoming more Christ-like? How do we know, we self-critical women, when our efforts are acceptable or our response to the difficulties is growth?
I have had these same exact questions, and I think this is more my issue than the paragraph before (though both go in circles around my mind). Some days I look back and think I was stronger and "better" five years ago than I am now. Is that improvement, or humility?!?!?
The question I would add to this is, How do you know if the difficulties arise because you are trying to do what you feel you've been commanded to do OR if you're going the wrong path and being prompted to set your sights elsewhere? To answer this a little bit, at Education Week this last summer I went to the BEST speaker: Bartholomew was his name. He pretty much took two chapters in Hebrews and expounded upon them. WOW! I wish I could do that!
Hebrews 10:32, 35; 11:1 - "But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated (meaning, felt that spiritual prompting to pursue God's commandments) ye endured a great fight of afflictions . . . Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward . . . Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of htings not seen."
So basically, this teacher expounded that the Lord is not going to give you a commandment and then make you suffer and hurt as you try to accomplish the goal. He called it the Jospeh Smith Principle from in the Sacred Grove JS encountered an evil spirit after he chose to follow the promptings of the spirit to pray. A similar thing happens to us. When we receive a prompting and choose to follow that prompting, there will be opposition but it is not a "trial of your faith." So if we can remember the moment we were "illuminated" we can push forth, maintain confidence in the Lord and thus exercise our faith because we have that assurance. Anyway, I'm not saying it all as eloquently as he did, but I think I'm getting my point across.
And I loved this whole part:
And don't tell me that we'll feel the Spirit more because that's bunk. Elder McConkie said that he worried about the Saints because they focused so much on testimony and feeling the Spirit, which opened them up to falling into inactivity. Instead he said we need to focus all our energies on obedience because obedience is what saves you--not your testimony.
I think sometimes we (I) tend to "overthink the Spirit," if you know what I mean. I want it to be grander than it needs to be. I remember a cousin of mine wasn't getting married because he was waiting for the "shake the earth" type of experience to know who was the right girl. It's very easy to fall into this trap and to foget that sacred power of agency we've all been given.
Anyway, very interesting thoughts, Ans!
JULIA
P.S. If it took you that long to read Kim, just imagine how much longer I'm taking. I'm sorry, I'm slowly giving up. I'll give it a couple more tries, but don't expect much. :-(
Brutalized Quote
Here is the full and correct quote by the correct person, Heber J. Grant.
"There is but one path of safety to the Latter-day Saints, and that is the path of duty. It is not testimony, it is not marvelous manifestations, it is not knowing that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true, . . . it is not actually knowing that the Savior is the Redeemer, and that Joseph Smith was His prophet, that will save you and me, but it is the keeping of the commandments of God, the living the life of a Latter-day Saint."
"There is but one path of safety to the Latter-day Saints, and that is the path of duty. It is not testimony, it is not marvelous manifestations, it is not knowing that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true, . . . it is not actually knowing that the Savior is the Redeemer, and that Joseph Smith was His prophet, that will save you and me, but it is the keeping of the commandments of God, the living the life of a Latter-day Saint."
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Welcome Autumn!!
Everyone, we have a new member! Her name is Autumn. I don't know her last name now, but it used to be Prince. She's Kami's and my cousin and she's currently living in Arizona with her hubby and baby Hayleigh (sp??). Welcome, welcome!
About the ignorant comment on fencing and red hair... Stupid! I personally think fencing is better because you receive one on one mentoring and it is a useful skill as was already stated--self-defence is an awesome skill to have! Also, I always liked red-haired guys. I'm not allowed to say that I do now only because I didn't marry a red head--LOL. But I used to! Also, I remember in the ensign a few years ago the church was trying to bring back the road shows--theater and dance and music are wonderful things. They are just like any other good thing--Satan can twist it and make it bad. Oooh--look up Michael Ballam's talk about music and the power it has to convey either the love of God or the hate of Satan. Anyway, I know people who have been in the theater crowd who have really struggled with same-sex attraction because that is a big part of the theater culture right now--however, no matter WHAT you are interested in you have to be careful of something. And I think that the song and dance stuff are amazing talents that help your child develop discipline and patience and all those other great things. I am taking violin and piano right now and my husband though he is busy with work and school, on his time off he practices the same instruments. Thomas Jefferson used to practice his violin for 3 hours a day!
More President Eyring
I finished Kim last night. Timothy mocked me that it took me so long to read. His exact words: "I've never seen you take so long to read a book." I've been busy!! There was a wedding! Sheesh.
Since I just finished, I'm not quite ready to write my essay about it. Instead, I wanted to solidify in my brain some of the concepts President Eyring wrote about in his book.
First, this quote: "If we stay at it long enough, perhaps for a lifetime, we will have for so long felt what the Savior feels, wanted what he wants, and done what he would have us do that we will have, through the Atonement, a new heart filled with charity. And we will have become like Him." This is the summary paragraph of an article PE wrote in response to the question: how do we live a more righteous life?. His basic argument is that when we read the scriptures we should try to feel what the Savior feels. I have nothing to say about that--I'm just a little nonplussed by the idea and thought I'd throw it out there.
The next article was about trials and I almost skipped it because I find the subject of trials fairly boring. I'm glad I did not skip it. PE had some really thought-provoking things to say on the subject.
"The real trial of your faith is anything that would divert you from doing what God would have you do." I think this is what Julia worries about--that she'll get so caught up in doing things that are good that she won't get done the things that are essential. This is a hard one because it requires you to really be in tune with the Spirit. How do you know when you missed a prompting because you weren't in tune? You don't. Exactly.
I think this is mostly about desire. If you truly desire to be an instrument in God's hands, then He'll most likely let you know when He has something He needs you to do. However, I also think that our follow through affects our usability. By follow through I mean how well we're keeping the commandments as that plays the most vital role in the state of our testimonies. The answer then--the same answer I'm getting to everything--is that the better relationship you have with your Father (due to your obedience and desire), the better you'll be able to serve Him.
"You should expect that great difficulties will come to you in the pursuit of doing what the Lord would have you do." Now, we've heard variations on this theme all our lives. My question is this: how do we know when we're improving? How do we know when we're becoming more Christ-like? How do we know, we self-critical women, when our efforts are acceptable or our response to the difficulties is growth? And don't tell me that we'll feel the Spirit more because that's bunk. Elder McConkie said that he worried about the Saints because they focused so much on testimony and feeling the Spirit, which opened them up to falling into inactivity. Instead he said we need to focus all our energies on obedience because obedience is what saves you--not your testimony. I translated that into marriage as a way to understand it. If you base your marriage on love it can so easily end in divorce. Oh, I fell out of love--nothing to be done. A marriage that lasts is one where each person is committed to the promises they made, regardless of how they feel about the other person. So again--how do you gauge progress?
PE then discussed humility. "If you'll remember that the key to not being diverted from serving God is humility then you'll understand that some of those days when you thought things were going badly were a great blessing."
"Our Father in Heaven loves us; he wants us to be guided, and he knows we can't be guided in arrogance."
"Everything I have that's good is a gift from God. How would he have me use my gifts to serve someone?"
PE talks a lot about serving others in relation to developing a closer relatioship with God. That doesn't really surprise me, but the next few quotes really hit home as I am constantly struggling with one of my darling little ones. Praying to love our children as Heavenly Father loves them is pretty critical, I'm learning. I think the following ideas are also key pieces to the puzzle as well.
"When I gave of my time in a way I thought the Savior would want me to for my wife, not only did my love for her increase--I also felt His love for her." In this case, PE was talking about making the bed for his wife when they were both in a hurry. I don't think he's making the argument that you have to do big/grand things--just give more service in the proper frame of mind and with the proper attitude.
"I promise you that if you'll use your gifts to serve someone else, you'll feel the Lord's love for that person. You'll also feel his love for you." I'm pretty sure that has significant ramifications for mothers. Especially mothers with children who are difficult to love. Maybe a sign of progress is when we can do things for our children without resentment (like clean up the broken glass in the bathroom from a child--who shall remain nameless--who wrapped a towel around a lightbulb and pulled it out of the socket. Of course, the lightbulb broke and the bottom part is stuck in the socket creating a bit of a problem. Much resentment over that one, I'm afraid).
To sum up, some of the key ways to build a stronger relationship with our Father in Heaven are: 1) be humble; 2) serve God; 3) serve others. Yes, I realize that #2 and #3 are the same thing.
Since I just finished, I'm not quite ready to write my essay about it. Instead, I wanted to solidify in my brain some of the concepts President Eyring wrote about in his book.
First, this quote: "If we stay at it long enough, perhaps for a lifetime, we will have for so long felt what the Savior feels, wanted what he wants, and done what he would have us do that we will have, through the Atonement, a new heart filled with charity. And we will have become like Him." This is the summary paragraph of an article PE wrote in response to the question: how do we live a more righteous life?. His basic argument is that when we read the scriptures we should try to feel what the Savior feels. I have nothing to say about that--I'm just a little nonplussed by the idea and thought I'd throw it out there.
The next article was about trials and I almost skipped it because I find the subject of trials fairly boring. I'm glad I did not skip it. PE had some really thought-provoking things to say on the subject.
"The real trial of your faith is anything that would divert you from doing what God would have you do." I think this is what Julia worries about--that she'll get so caught up in doing things that are good that she won't get done the things that are essential. This is a hard one because it requires you to really be in tune with the Spirit. How do you know when you missed a prompting because you weren't in tune? You don't. Exactly.
I think this is mostly about desire. If you truly desire to be an instrument in God's hands, then He'll most likely let you know when He has something He needs you to do. However, I also think that our follow through affects our usability. By follow through I mean how well we're keeping the commandments as that plays the most vital role in the state of our testimonies. The answer then--the same answer I'm getting to everything--is that the better relationship you have with your Father (due to your obedience and desire), the better you'll be able to serve Him.
"You should expect that great difficulties will come to you in the pursuit of doing what the Lord would have you do." Now, we've heard variations on this theme all our lives. My question is this: how do we know when we're improving? How do we know when we're becoming more Christ-like? How do we know, we self-critical women, when our efforts are acceptable or our response to the difficulties is growth? And don't tell me that we'll feel the Spirit more because that's bunk. Elder McConkie said that he worried about the Saints because they focused so much on testimony and feeling the Spirit, which opened them up to falling into inactivity. Instead he said we need to focus all our energies on obedience because obedience is what saves you--not your testimony. I translated that into marriage as a way to understand it. If you base your marriage on love it can so easily end in divorce. Oh, I fell out of love--nothing to be done. A marriage that lasts is one where each person is committed to the promises they made, regardless of how they feel about the other person. So again--how do you gauge progress?
PE then discussed humility. "If you'll remember that the key to not being diverted from serving God is humility then you'll understand that some of those days when you thought things were going badly were a great blessing."
"Our Father in Heaven loves us; he wants us to be guided, and he knows we can't be guided in arrogance."
"Everything I have that's good is a gift from God. How would he have me use my gifts to serve someone?"
PE talks a lot about serving others in relation to developing a closer relatioship with God. That doesn't really surprise me, but the next few quotes really hit home as I am constantly struggling with one of my darling little ones. Praying to love our children as Heavenly Father loves them is pretty critical, I'm learning. I think the following ideas are also key pieces to the puzzle as well.
"When I gave of my time in a way I thought the Savior would want me to for my wife, not only did my love for her increase--I also felt His love for her." In this case, PE was talking about making the bed for his wife when they were both in a hurry. I don't think he's making the argument that you have to do big/grand things--just give more service in the proper frame of mind and with the proper attitude.
"I promise you that if you'll use your gifts to serve someone else, you'll feel the Lord's love for that person. You'll also feel his love for you." I'm pretty sure that has significant ramifications for mothers. Especially mothers with children who are difficult to love. Maybe a sign of progress is when we can do things for our children without resentment (like clean up the broken glass in the bathroom from a child--who shall remain nameless--who wrapped a towel around a lightbulb and pulled it out of the socket. Of course, the lightbulb broke and the bottom part is stuck in the socket creating a bit of a problem. Much resentment over that one, I'm afraid).
To sum up, some of the key ways to build a stronger relationship with our Father in Heaven are: 1) be humble; 2) serve God; 3) serve others. Yes, I realize that #2 and #3 are the same thing.
Monday, February 15, 2010
People
I'm in agreeance with Kelly . . . why do people say stuff sometimes?!? I'm sure I've put my foot in my mouth far too many times than I'd care to admit, and I'm sorry for that the longer I am a parent! Anyway, I think Eli is a darling kid. I only wish I were more like you in embracing the true passions of my children. I'm getting better . . . BTW - Fencing is an Olympic sport as well! :-)
JULIA
JULIA
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Fencing
Obviously, the person who is against fencing has not seen the most recent Star Trek movie. If they had, they would see that not only is fencing still a sport in the future, it comes in darn handy in a life-or-death situation.
My question is, why do people think they need to tell you these opinions?
My question is, why do people think they need to tell you these opinions?
Some things that bug me
I'm officially annoyed by the idea that there are "acceptable" pursuits for your children and "not acceptable" pursuits. For example, once I was chatting with someone who asked me what Cowen liked/wanted to do. I said he's a really physical kid and he really desperately wants to take fencing lessons. I then got a little lecture about how that was lame because who takes fencing lessons and why doesn't he want to play cool sports--like basketball and football, and I should try to steer him in that direction. Clearly, according to this person, a more acceptable direction.
What makes basketball a better choice than fencing?
Then today, my family and I were all sitting around chatting and I said that Cowen was clearly not going to be my song and dance boy, but Eli loves music so I'm hoping Eli will turn out to be a song and dance boy. (Not that I care, but it is awfully fun to have a boy around who will sing and dance.) Then I was told, most emphatically, that I shouldn't hope that he'd turn out weird when he already has red hair (apparently a strike against him). Now, I understand that most red-headed boys are not . . . the most attractive men. But, who cares? That's hardly a strike against him. Most people aren't the most attractive people on the planet and we all munge along just fine.
The main point, of course, is why is being a song and dance boy less acceptable than being a jock? All my best friends were song and dance people and they were great people. Most the jocks I know are great people. If my son wants to sing and dance that is not weird. It is just two options among many.
Okay--I'm over it. Thanks for letting me vent a little.
What makes basketball a better choice than fencing?
Then today, my family and I were all sitting around chatting and I said that Cowen was clearly not going to be my song and dance boy, but Eli loves music so I'm hoping Eli will turn out to be a song and dance boy. (Not that I care, but it is awfully fun to have a boy around who will sing and dance.) Then I was told, most emphatically, that I shouldn't hope that he'd turn out weird when he already has red hair (apparently a strike against him). Now, I understand that most red-headed boys are not . . . the most attractive men. But, who cares? That's hardly a strike against him. Most people aren't the most attractive people on the planet and we all munge along just fine.
The main point, of course, is why is being a song and dance boy less acceptable than being a jock? All my best friends were song and dance people and they were great people. Most the jocks I know are great people. If my son wants to sing and dance that is not weird. It is just two options among many.
Okay--I'm over it. Thanks for letting me vent a little.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Kim
Ju--don't give up on Kim. It takes awhile to figure out all the different religions and names people are called and whatnot. It really picks up at about pg. 100. Really--it is such a grand adventure--he's a spy, after all.
Capitalism . . .
That's all fine except that there is the economics book just before those two . . . so I may not make it through all three at once. I kind of need to read some fun fiction mixed in with the nonfiction . . . We've only got one fiction in a mix of 7 books. :-( With that said . . . I'll follow the crowd as best I can whatever you decide. :-)
JULIA
JULIA
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Economics
So I know this is a bit down the list, but I wondered what you guys thought. I forgot to add the How Capitalism Saved America book, and Andrea told me she just heard about this fabulous economics book (a very pro-capitalism/free market book from the reviews I read), so then I put The Post-America book after that because it might give a bit different perspective. But then I thought that might be a little too much overload on the topic. What do you guys think? However, that's all assuming we actually stick to our list more this time anyway. Hee. Hee.
Long time gone
I know I've been MIA for a while, but hopefully things will start to settle now. I did pick up Kim from the library today. I'm 5th in line for the Eve book, 3rd in line for the Capitalism book, and somewhere in line for the Guns, Germs and Steel too. I'm really excited to get back into the swing of things. Anyway, have a good night, I must go finish the dishes. Blah. But then maybe I can read Kim a little bit.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Love is in the Air
Thank you for your thoughts Andrea! I've been reading about Widsom and Order, putting first things first, so this was a perfect addition/reminder for me. :-)
Secondly, I just scanned the new reading schedule and LOVE IT!!! (though I am struggling with Kim). :-)
Love you all!
JULIA
Secondly, I just scanned the new reading schedule and LOVE IT!!! (though I am struggling with Kim). :-)
Love you all!
JULIA
Friday, February 5, 2010
this year's motto/life goals/things to remember
In January I was supposed to teach a conference talk in RS that just didn't do anything for me. Sometimes I've had to stretch a bit, but this talk just didn't have anything I felt like the sisters could really use. So I bagged it. It is the first time I've ditched the assigned lesson and done my own thing.
I ended up teaching President Uchtdorf's talk, "The Love of God." It is awesome. When I read it, certain statements really stuck out to me and I've made them my theme for the year. Or rather--everything I study or prepare I'm correlating to these thoughts.
Thought Number One: "When asked to name the greatest commandment, He [Jesus] did not hesitate. 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,' He said. 'This is the first and great commandment.'
"Because love is the great commandment, it ought to be at the center of all and everything we do in our own family, in our Church callings, and in our livelihood."
Thought Number Two: "We are created in the image of our heavenly parents; we are God’s spirit children. Therefore, we have a vast capacity for love—it is part of our spiritual heritage. "
Thought Number Three: "Since 'God is love,' the closer we approach Him, the more profoundly we experience love."
Thought Number Four: “Ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.”
I'm sure you can see all the connections, but humor me. First, our greatest commandment is to love God and the second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor (everyone) as ourselves, or better than ourselves. So in our lives, we need to be less selfish and learn to love other people. To really make love the center or reason for all that we do.
That sounded impossible to me when I first thought about it. To love like that is to love like Heavenly Father loves, and he's divine and I am mortal. But then President Uchtdorf reminded me that I am a daughter of God--I have unlimited potential and capacity. If I don't tap into it and try to increase it that's my sin. There are no excuses here. And just say that out loud to yourself--"vast capacity for love." We have it. That's amazing. It puts learning to love like our Heavenly Father within reach. Or rather, it puts getting a lot better at loving like Heavenly Father within reach.
Obviously, as we develop a stronger relationship with God we will learn to love Him more. The more we love Him, the more capable we will be to love other people as He loves. So our first priority should be building a stronger relationship with our Father. This isn't easy, but it is comforting to know that Heavenly Father wants to be found and he's promised that if we seek him, we will find him.
Job number one: seek Him. Earnestly. With full purpose of heart. That will help with commandment number one and commandment number two. The two great commandments.
I know, you already knew all this but that phrase, "vast capacity for love," just won't leave my brain so I thought I'd share.
I ended up teaching President Uchtdorf's talk, "The Love of God." It is awesome. When I read it, certain statements really stuck out to me and I've made them my theme for the year. Or rather--everything I study or prepare I'm correlating to these thoughts.
Thought Number One: "When asked to name the greatest commandment, He [Jesus] did not hesitate. 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,' He said. 'This is the first and great commandment.'
"Because love is the great commandment, it ought to be at the center of all and everything we do in our own family, in our Church callings, and in our livelihood."
Thought Number Two: "We are created in the image of our heavenly parents; we are God’s spirit children. Therefore, we have a vast capacity for love—it is part of our spiritual heritage. "
Thought Number Three: "Since 'God is love,' the closer we approach Him, the more profoundly we experience love."
Thought Number Four: “Ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.”
I'm sure you can see all the connections, but humor me. First, our greatest commandment is to love God and the second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor (everyone) as ourselves, or better than ourselves. So in our lives, we need to be less selfish and learn to love other people. To really make love the center or reason for all that we do.
That sounded impossible to me when I first thought about it. To love like that is to love like Heavenly Father loves, and he's divine and I am mortal. But then President Uchtdorf reminded me that I am a daughter of God--I have unlimited potential and capacity. If I don't tap into it and try to increase it that's my sin. There are no excuses here. And just say that out loud to yourself--"vast capacity for love." We have it. That's amazing. It puts learning to love like our Heavenly Father within reach. Or rather, it puts getting a lot better at loving like Heavenly Father within reach.
Obviously, as we develop a stronger relationship with God we will learn to love Him more. The more we love Him, the more capable we will be to love other people as He loves. So our first priority should be building a stronger relationship with our Father. This isn't easy, but it is comforting to know that Heavenly Father wants to be found and he's promised that if we seek him, we will find him.
Job number one: seek Him. Earnestly. With full purpose of heart. That will help with commandment number one and commandment number two. The two great commandments.
I know, you already knew all this but that phrase, "vast capacity for love," just won't leave my brain so I thought I'd share.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
