Zachary C. Bowie
March 29, 2016
The misogynistic narrator of The Great Gatsby, Nick Carraway, has been titled to be indifferent and and the antagonist of the narrative notwithstanding the fact that he is the the only true and real friend that Gatsby has. There are several examples from the introduction of the novel to the closure of it that can back this simple truth up.
He is a honest man and we can tell that within the first chapter of the narrative that Caraway is a highly educated man, having gone to Yale University, with the knowledge of how to “”walk around in someone’s skin” as Atticus Finch once said. However it can be argued that Nick is very hypocritical of himself. Even though within the first couple of pages into the book Nick claims that he can understand that, ¨...not everyone has had the same experiences that...¨ he had. Although there are many cases in the novel where Nick is seen being very hypocritical of this statement, where he is very judgemental to some of the characters in the novel. But for the most part it turned out alright in the end. Nick tried and strived to live by the motto he stated in the beginning of the book. He is human. Humans are not perfect beings but beings full of imperfections and can it can be said that these imperfections can make us perfect. Through his imperfections Nick learns from his mistakes can becomes better at understanding other people's experiences, ideals, and dreams. Throughout the book we see an evolution in his character and we see how someone who is already well educated can better himself into a light parting the clouds of life.
He is the only true friend that Gatsby has in the novel. When Gatsby time came to an end we see that Nick Carraway was the only character to organize and attend his funeral showing the reader that he was a true and real friend to Gatsby. Despite the argument about why he did plan Gatsby’s funeral it is without a doubt that Nick Carraway does have a positive connection between him and Gatsby. Nick realizes he's being drawn into a dishonest lifestyle, and that's what makes him scurry back West. Right after Jordan calls him a "bad driver," he tells her, "I'm thirty … I'm five years too old to lie to myself and call it honor"
The protagonist of The Great Gatsby, Nick Carraway, has been perceived to be indifferent and and the antagonist of the narrative notwithstanding the fact that he is the the only true and real friend that Gatsby has. There are several examples from the introduction of the novel to the closure of it that can back this simple truth up. Such as how he realizes that he has been living a dishonest lifestyle and that drives him to go West. By this and numerous examples within the book it is without a doubt that Nick Carraway turns out alright at the end.
Zachary C. Bowie
February 19, 2016
In a coming of age novel serval author bring in several similar themes into their works such as knowledge, and applying that knowledge through a event of enlightening the mind.
Maslow´s hierarchy of needs and how that is very influencing in many young adult novels. Having characters that lack essential parts of the lower tier of the pyramid of needs cause a need for an event or circumstances that cause for the main character to undergo a transformation that causes them to reach the final tier. Living in a hard or difficult circumstances causes characters to believe that is all that they can obtain for life. Several characters in bildungsroman novels are stuck in the bottom of the barrel and stop themselves from progressing. The character that can fulfill the basic needs of a human being can crawl out of the pit of despair and suffering. If¨ by Rudyard Kipling has great impact to the reader regarding bildungsroman events. Within the first stanza it says, ¨ If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you¨ this is a very bildungsroman characteristic. It shows how to hold your ground even when everyone around you is doubting. It tells the reader to doubt your doubts during hard times and to hold on to the iron rod. Being able to wait without growing impatient with yourself. It also talks of not looking too good or talking to wise. I find this a very critical line in the first stanza. People will be people and be judgmental of those that appear to be more successful than them. By acting lower than you are they will be less prompted to mock you. Being able to handle destruction and despair with a positive attitude
In many bildungsroman novels we can discover several different themes that contribute them in finding a way to escape their lower way of thinking and become enlightened beings. Innocence plays a major part in these novels because in is because of their innocence they can not progress. It is not till that innocence is shattered that they finally see the answer to the obstacle before them. Several characters such as the little u’ns go through their experience on the island through a glass of innocence. Unaware of the true circumstances that they face. Even some of the older characters have innocence. Jack is innocence in the fact that he does not accept their situation. Civilization and how it´s rules and regulations can control and affect the actions of individuals that are in a poor circumstances. In ¨The Lord of the Flies¨ it shows how youth in a unique circumstance were trapped on an unpopulated island and tested what they knew of civilization. Civilization and its rules were no longer enforced and they were left to their own devices to make their new civilization and laws.
The development of the protagonist directly correlates to how the story and mindset of the novel unfolds. How enlighten minds can fall and those who have nothing can find everything. In numerous novels the development of the protagonist is often times how the story in made and created. In novels such as, ¨The Lord of the Flies¨ we see how the protagonist comes to the realization of their humanity and civilization. The Novel itself goes into depth and detail making circumstances that make and forces the main character to make a critical thinking decision. That decision can make or break the protagonist as well as the minor characters that may be involved as well. Maslow´s pyramid of need is often used in most novels such as, The Lord of the Flies. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is considered a bildungsroman novel because it shows how the main character underwent a considerable transformation. Huck broaden his way of thinking throughout the novel as he went through new experiences. He was able to see people differently because of his past experiences. Huck is more forgiving because of those experiences. Status symbol to appear that your thriving in society? Blank slate or born evil?
As we have seen throughout the examples given it is evident that bildungsroman novels show the reader how those of unfortunate circumstances and placed low in society can undergo mental and physical transformations that cause them to be enlighten beings. This however does not guarantee success of the character. They have to be willing and take action in their new life in order to grasp the success of life itself.
Can war be inevitabile? According to a multifold of authors war is not of human nature. However, many argue that is human nature to be in war. That Man is tainted with sin since the beginning. Other say that War is not part of our nature at all and many capitalist society have rid the presence of war in their respective countries.
Because of the Original Sin man was man born into this world with evil in his heart, and due to this evil he can not overcome war. Many Christian use Romans 5:12 from the Bible to support their claims of Original Sin, ¨Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:¨ The Council of Trent (1545-63), or Trentine councils were a series of Roman Catholic theological meetings in response to the Protestant Reformation. The Council of Trent gave the official stamp to the idea that original sin was transferred from generation to generation by propagation - which means during the sexual act that led to conception. This formalised the notion of Original Sin as part of Roman Catholic doctrine. But, we didn't evolve with the desire and need of war according to most historians and authors. Notwithstanding the fact that over the course of human history there has been multiple societies that have rid many practices that were once thought of as permanent in our human nature.Things such human sacrifice, blood feuds, duelling, slavery, the death penalty, and many others. War long predates capitalism, and surely Switzerland is a type of capitalist nation just as the United States is. But there is a widespread belief that a culture of capitalism — or of a particular type and degree of greed and destruction and short-sightedness — necessitates war. One answer to this concern is the following: any feature of a society that necessitates war can be changed and is not itself inevitable. The military-industrial complex is not an eternal and invincible force. Environmental destructiveness and economic structures based on greed are not immutable.
Even though numerous societies have rid of the presence of war there are still countless battles going on to this day. Why do different cultures or countries go to war? Competition is one of the first reasons to why civilizations go to war. Competition over scarce resources (money, leisure, sexual partners, and so on) is at the heart of all social relationships. Competition rather than consensus is characteristic of human relationships. Number two, Structural inequality. Inequalities in power and reward are built into all social structures. Individuals and groups that benefit from any particular structure strive to see it maintained. And those individuals or groups that don't benefit from the structure seek to have it destroyed. The third reason why countries go to war is revolution. Change occurs as a result of conflict between social classes competing interests rather than through adaptation. It is often abrupt and revolutionary rather than evolutionary thus often times it results in a war And finally,War itself: Even war is a unifier of the societies involved, as well as war may set an end to whole societies.
Is War is beneficial? In the second half of the 19th century, rear Admiral S. B. Luce argued that “war is one of the great agencies by which human progress is affected. Against the background of the US Civil War, Luce who was the founder of Naval War College believed that was in general solves political, economic and social problems. No doubt, the Civil War solved the issue of a divided nation that had to choose between the agrarian slave-based economy of the south or the industrial-commercial mobile labor based north that was interested in national economic integration and competition with Western Europe during the Industrial Revolution. The price was 600,000 casualties and it cannot be argued even by the most loyal and redneck southerner that the social and racial issue was solved, although the political and economic ones were. Furthermore, does the legacy of the US Civil War justify S. B. Luce’s arguments and those who agree to this day regarding military solutions for political, economic and social problems confronting society? Pacifism was an underlying pacifist trend among all religions, but most pronounced about the oneness of humanity so characteristic of Indian religions can be found in Guru Nanak (1469-1534), the first Sikh Guru who wrote a hymn regarding the sacredness of life and peace.
‘No one is my enemy
No one is a foreigner
With all I am at peace God within us renders us
Incapable of hate and prejudice.’
In conclusion, war can be avoided if certain humanitarian needs are meet. Having social equality and good competition are all aspect of a war free society. It is possible for capitalist countries to be free of war. Switzerland is a fine example of this. The argument of Original Sin is definitely a debatable discussion that is relevant. However humans can get past there human nature and become a war free civilization. It just depends if they are willing to sacrifice.
If Ammon Bundy and other Mormons involved in taking over a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon believe their religion is backing them, they should reconsider. Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "strongly condemn the armed seizure of the facility," spokesman Eric Hawkins said in a news release Monday, "and are deeply troubled by the reports that those who have seized the facility suggest that they are doing so based on scriptural principles." The release further states, "...this armed occupation can in no way be justified on a scriptural basis...Americans are privileged to live in a nation where conflicts with government or private groups can — and should — be settled using peaceful means, according to the laws of the land."
Neil Wampler joined Bundy’s 2014 armed standoff with Bureau of Land Management officials at the ranch outside Las Vegas. He said the wildlife refuge offers hot showers, comfortable beds, and, on Monday night, a spaghetti and sausage dinner with a vegetable salad and homemade biscuits. “Man, that dinner was good,” he said. “When I was at the Bundy ranch, we lit a fire on a propane stove in an outdoor shed and washed our dishes in a ditch. But I could get used to this.” Late Monday, Wampler said, ranchers arrived with enough meat to fill four industrial refrigerators, replenishing the group’s diminishing supplies. The next morning, Wampler walked and wondered why more militia members hadn’t flocked to southern Oregon as they did to the Bundy ranch in 2014.
“These are excellent conditions compared to other standoffs I’ve taken part in,” said Wampler, whose wool cap bore the slogan “State of Jefferson”, signifying a move for northern California and southern Oregon to secede and create a new state.
Some, like Jason Patrick, were wild-eyed about their military-style occupation. “There’s a rifle pointing from every blade of grass,” he said. Others were more practical. Michael Stettler, a 49-year-old electrician who arrived on last Monday from a nearby county, said he “wasn’t ready to take a bullet, but if the federals move in and offer a chance to leave, I’m leaving,” he said.
CHICAGO — The bond for Jason Van Dyke, the Chicago police officer charged with murder for shooting a 17-year-old, Laquan McDonald last year, was set at $1.5 million, a judge said early Monday afternoon.
¨A few hours later, Van Dyke was released. He posted the $150,000 needed to be released shortly before 5 p.m. and left the Cook County Jail, according to the Cook County Sheriff’s Department. Part of the money was raised by the Fraternal Order of Police’s Chicago chapter. Van Dyke, 37, had been held without bail since he was charged last week with first-degree murder for fatally shooting Laquan McDonald, a Chicago teenager, in October 2014.¨ ~Wachington Post
The shooting came to national attention when the dashboard cameraś footage of Van Dyke shooting at a 17 year old was released. The young man had a knife and the footage shows Van Dyke shooting a total of 16 times at McDonald. Many shots were fired even after he had fallen. Since then protesters have been marching up the streets of downtown Chicago because of the 13 month delay of the video release. Alvarez being the one that delayed the release has come under heavy fire from the media. In a broadcast interview with a local television station last week, Alvarez said her critics are “wrong and misinformed” and that all criticism of her actions is “political.” As for the delay, she said it was needed to conduct “a thorough and meticulous evaluation and investigation.” Munoz, a local leader, said waiting longer than a year is questionable. “Take two, six weeks, or two months. But don’t take a year and a month. It is an obvious cover-up. They never thought a court would order a release of this video,” he said.
¨Jay Darshane, the Burger King manager, has accused police of erasing the restaurant's surveillance tape. He also told the Chicago Tribune that the FBI seized the video recorder containing all of its surveillance images.¨
Allegedly, Burger King´s manger erased approximately over 86 minutes of the restaurant's surveillance tape during the time of the shooting of McDonald. According to some employees that have report this unusual gap in the tapes. However, the authorities in Chicago have labeled the claim as untrue. Because of this and other recent event, many call for reforms in the Chicago's police department.
"Does literature portray women in a poor light in the areas of being domineering, inept, ignorant, or malicious? Is there justification in how literature portrays women? What could be the cause of this portrayal?"
Literature does put woman in a poor light. In many cases as it with Nora, from ¨A Doll House¨ we see woman in literature as ignorant, and malicious. Nora spends vast amounts of money behind her husband's back during an economic hard time. It shows her as childish and irresponsible through Set I and Set II. The more you investigate the matter, the more it seems that women are domineering, incept, ignorant, and malicious. Or in cases like Nora, it may seem to the reader that women aren't smart, and can't be trusted with important task. The author in many cases such as it is with ¨A Doll House¨ is for women's rights and a proud advocate of it. This being said, the authors still but a twist to it, and portrays women in a poor light. Its not just characters from ¨A Doll's House¨. It is also found among stories such as Lilith, Jezebel, and many others. Among the three mentioned stories women are portrayed in a demeaning light and are viewed as evil, and manipulative. Mrs. Linde from ¨A Doll's House¨ also falls into this boat of ideals as well. Mrs. Linde is similar to Nora is some aspects. She shows woman in a poor light by not being independent.
In ¨A Doll's House¨, by Henrik Ibsen, Nora, the main character undergoes a transformation at the end of the story. Mrs. Linde had role e with her transformation due to her relationship with Nora. Thanks to Mrs. Linde Nora was finally able to come over her obsolete personality and 'awaken'.
It all started with Krogstad and Mrs. Linde relationship. While Nora and Torvald were dancing in the upstair ballroom Mrs. Linde and Krogstad met in secret. Mrs. Linde setted up the meeting by leaving a notice at Krogstad's house. He was using Nora to build himself up again. Nora constantly borrowed money from him to buy new dresses and costumes as well as a Christmas Tree. Despair drove Krogstad to trick Nora into continue to lead money from him. Mrs. Linde knew how despair can drive people into doing things they normally would not do, and took advantage of that and was able to control Krogstad to do what she desired. She was also very good friends with Nora. She told Nora that she had nothing to fear from Krogstad and to speak out. By trusting her advice she does what Mrs. Linde tells her. Thus Mrs. Linde effectively controls both Krogstad and Nora. Torvald stays in his ignorance ignoring the signs of Nora's was giving out. She tried to stop her transformation by trying to get the letter out of the letter box that Mrs. Linde set up, but it was to no avail. Krogstad letter sparks her transformation and makes her decided to leave Torvald.
January 19, 1999
After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God.
When a fourteen-year-old boy, named Joseph Smith Jr, went into a grove of trees in 1820 to pray about which church he should join, his miraculous experience would change his life forever, and would also impact modern religion. It would become one of the most hotly debated topics in all of Christendom. Did God the Father and Jesus Christ appear to him? Here is Joseph Smith's own account of what happened in that grove, and the events that led up to what has been named "the First Vision". Following Joseph's testimony will be my own thoughts and analysis of the "First Vision".
It begins with a religious fervor sweeping the area of upstate New York where Joseph lived. Joseph was investigating each church, deciding which one he would join. This segment picks up as Joseph is reading his Bible, looking for answers.
"While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
"Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passage of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.
"At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to "ask of God," concluding that if He gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.
"So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.
"After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.
"But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction\-not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvellous power as I had never before felt in any being--just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.
"It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said--pointing to the other--This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
"My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right--and which I should join.
"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; they teach for doctrines the commandments of men: having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."
"He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven."
Okay, I'm going to give my thoughts on this, and also demonstrate that the First Vision is entirely consistent with biblical precedents. I think that it is first, important to point out that Joseph's first step in determining which church to join was to study the scriptures. How many of us, both LDS and non-LDS, have searched through the scriptures to find what directions and guidance the Lord and his prophets of Old have given us on how to recognize Christ's church. This is also important to learn how the primitive church Jesus organized was structured. How can anyone truly claim that they belong to His church, when the church they belong to doesn't come close to resembling the church Christ himself organized. It is also interesting to note that before the revelation came the Spirit, testifying the truth of that verse to him. The great feeling Joseph felt in his heart was the Holy Ghost, confirming the truth of James 1:5. God does indeed teach and confirm truth to those who ask Him in faith. Joseph came to the conclusion that all men and women must come to when trying to decide which church is true: he must pray about it.
The next part I want to cover is where he says he was attacked by an unseen force. Satan must have known what was coming, or else he would have left Joseph unmolested. The devil wouldn't have bothered him if he thought Joseph was just another cook with a revelation story. Satan also might have left Joseph alone in his ignorance, the same that has happened with so many other "prophets" who have come and disappeared through the ages. The fact that the forces of darkness were trying to overcome Joseph sets him apart from others who have claimed to have received messages from God, such as Ellen G. White and David Koresh. This is saying that even Satan knew that Joseph was to be the prophet who would usher in the restoration or "refreshing", spoken of in Acts 3:19, that would end the Apostasy and precede the Second Coming. We can also compare this to a biblical perspective. We read in the Gospels of the New Testament that Satan began to try and tempt Jesus, just as He was beginning His ministry. Satan knew that Christ was about to begin teaching, so he tried to stop it before it could happen, by trying to get Christ to deny His Divinity. If Satan had been successful in tempting Jesus, he would have essentially destroyed the Savior spiritually. So here we also see Satan trying to foil the plan of God before it can happen, by destroying Joseph before he could utter the words of his prayer. Also, note that it was the power and glory of the Godhead that rebuked Satan's power, nothing Joseph did could stop the attack.
Now to cover the most important part, the vision itself. Notice that the first words out of God's mouth isn't "I am God and I have a message for you." It was "This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" This stays entirely consistent with all biblical accounts of God the Father revealing Himself. He has always deferred to Christ. Christ is the Great Mediator between us and the Father. The Father always testifies of His Son. Compare this to the stories of Jesus' baptism in Matthew 17:5; Mark 9:7; and Luke 9:35. Just for fun, I would also like to point out that the vision happened in the setting it should have, while in prayer and alone. Joseph was not sitting in a trailer park watching for aliens, and he didn't suffer from the "Christ" complex people get after they visit the Holy Land. He was in prayer and alone, as was Abraham, Moses, Zachariah (John the Baptists Father), and Mary. Joseph prayed, and his prayer was answered. Now lets cover the answer.
Joseph asked Jesus what church he should join, and Jesus told him to join none of them. Jesus gave him two reasons why he shouldn't join any of the existing churches of that time.
1st: "all their creeds were an abomination in His sight." The creeds He is referring to are the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed. But why would these creeds be abominable in His sight? The First Vision story testifies that Jesus and The Father are two separate Personages. These two creeds originated the tradition of the Trinity, the Godhead being 3 in 1, or as the Nicene Creed states, "being of one substance with the Father." The Athanasian creed also supports the three-Gods-in-one belief. Since the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) are three distinct beings, the creeds are leading men away from the true nature of God, and are therefore an abomination to Him. The concept of three separate Beings, one in purpose, and not in substance is biblical. One quick example is John 17: 21-22, "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that THEY MAY BE ONE, EVEN AS WE ARE ONE"(emphasis added). Jesus is praying to God the Father that the apostles may be one even as They are. It is impossible for the apostles to physically become 12 in 1, so this teaches us that to be "one" means to be one in purpose, glory, and deed.
2nd: "that those professors were all corrupt; that "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; they teach for doctrines the commandments of men: having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof." When Jesus began His ministry in Jerusalem, the Jews were in a state of apostasy. The prophets were long since gone, and the Jews were being led by the Pharisees, a group of religious scholars who held close to traditions but had become spiritually corrupt by their own pride. Jesus chided them on several occasions for being hypocritical and leading the people astray. Jesus restored the gospel truths and the priesthood to His apostles. But, Paul taught that there would be another apostasy, or "falling away", in the Church before the Second Coming. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first,...". At the time of the First Vision, the world was in this foretold Apostasy. It's not hard to look at history and see all the atrocities that were performed in the name of religion, and worse, sometimes in the name of Christ. Events like the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the enslavement and murder of the South American Natives by missionaries. Even in today's news you can see traces of apostasy still holding, look at Ireland for example. Two groups of people killing each other in the name of God. I believe Martin Luther and other Reformers recognized the "falling away" of the teachings of Jesus, and that's why they tried to reform it. But without revelation, they were merely teaching and preaching what they believed to be the true gospel.
It is easy to recognize the statement "having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof" in many of today's beliefs. There are people and churches who believe that God can perform miracles, but they don't believe He performs them in these latter days. They deny the power of God, because they don't recognize His hand in modern life. I read a criticism of the first vision where the writer claimed that he couldn't believe that Jesus would say something like "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me;". I testify that Jesus did say this to Joseph Smith, and that He meant it just as much as He did when He said it to the Pharisees. "He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me."(Mark 7:6).
It ends off with Jesus once again telling Joseph not to join any churches. This of course, is because in the future, Joseph will be the tool the Lord uses to once again build up His church on earth. By revelation from God, through Joseph Smith, the apostasy will end, the Book of Mormon will be delivered to us, and the priesthood keys will be restored, and Christ's church will once again be upon the Earth. Another part of the first vision which rings true to me is that neither God the Father or Jesus mentioned anything about bringing a message to people or starting a church at this time. They simply answered his question, and set the wheels in motion for the rest.
Read Joseph Smith's Testimony in it's entirety.
Ownership, in many cases in Humanity is connected closely to Pride. He who ownes, not necessary a material possession, but a sense of purpose, has something no one else has. Plato stated that owning objects is detrimental to a person’s character. There are many ways that people use ownership to corrupt youth today. Countless youth today now receive countless gifts from their parents. Gifts that are often times thrown away after the kid loses interest in it, or he get’s another toy. What character does this reflect as Plato stated? Parent’s that give their children ownerships show the spoiled and selfish heart of the whole family. A heart that shows wealth, power, and pride. Their child is the offspring of pride itself. In the Gospel of Luke in this rich family’s dusty Bible tells what will happen to them in sixteenth chapter, verses twenty two thru twenty four, “22 And it came to pass, that the beggar[Lazarus] died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.” It’s pretty clear to what the Christian God has to say about them being rich and selfish.
Now Aristotle claims that ownership of tangible goods can helps to developed moral character. A young man on a farm, lives a humble, moral life. He has to work hard to make his way for his family. He is given money(often the source of greed/pride) for that hard work and uses that possession to support his love ones. This shows that his heart is moral, loving, and humble. In this event it shows how by having a ownership of little it can be used to support and serve others. What is to be made of this? In both cases a boy is given a possession. One is thrown away, the other is given away, and thus both are gone in the end. However the effect of each differs drastically. One is tossed out without a care in the world, the other given away with the heaviest of hearts, and poorest of circumstances. In John-Paul Sartre’s view the proposes that ownership extends beyond objects to include intangible things as well. In the last story the country boy had a possession that the other did not have. He had love. He became proficient and earned money and used his possession to supported his family. His true possession was love. Love for his family, love for his life.
Although some possessions can be detrimental to a person’s well being. It can make someone’s very prideful and selfish. Unless someone from the outside controls what he receives, he will become basically a spoiled brat. Even in the Holy Bible that so many Americans rely on as their way to judge people gives light to this. The New Testament book of Mark chapter ten, verses nineteen thru twenty two we read, “19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. 20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. 21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. 22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.” To the contrast, someone who works for everything they own, who’s going to be the better person? The one who works, or the one that goes gimme?
I was born in the grand state of Texas, and currently live Northwest Arkansas. I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thanks for reading my blog!!!
As we marched away, I thought of the words of a rhyme I had learned in Primary years before:
Dare to be a Mormon;
Dare to stand alone.
Dare to have a purpose firm;
Dare to make it known.
Thomas S. Monson is our Prophet of the Earth today, watch the vid. above
You haven't heard of Lindsey Stirling's sister? She plays TUBA!
Grandpa Mckneely is my great grandpa and he recently passed away in April 2014. If you guys want to follow up on his life you can read some stuff on my dA
Another epic picture of me!