November 2009 Book

So for November's book, I propose that we read "Complications," by Atul Gawande. The book was a National Book Award finalist, so I'm assuming it should be readily available. It's a quick read, but I think very interesting and full of good insight about health care today. Besides, I want you guys to get a peek into my world.

Also, there have been few posts lately. It might be good if you all reply to this post so that we get an informal count of who is engaged with the PVS at present.

Happy reading, and careful with that scalpel...

The Future of the PVS Book Club

While we're waiting for Robert to collect his thoughts on the September book of the month, can someone (Peter?) tell me who is in charge of picking the books for October/November, and December?

The Road less traveled (thank goodness)

I listened to this from start to finish on Saturday. It was a bit intense and fairly disturbing. Long ago I read The Running Man, by Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman. The Road brought back memories of Running Man, probably because of the sense of hopelessness that the author creates around his character. I was glad that this book had a happier ending than Running Man.

Thoughts, in no particular order:

• The thought that went through my head as I read about the bomb shelter with the food storage and other emergency supplies was, "I wonder if they were Mormon?" I look back and laugh that I actually thought that.
  
• When the father and son visited the childhood home of the father, the father mentions a Christmas passed. I expected the son to ask, "What's Christmas?" but he doesn't. Did that surprise anyone else? I can't envision them having had celebrated a post-apocalyptic Christmas.
• Speaking of religion, the topic comes up a few times in the book, especially towards the end. The man seems to have had some religious upbringing, but it didn't seem like he had passed on much in the way of doctrine to the boy, though his son certainly had a solid moral compass.
• Like Alvin, I pictured the boy being about 8 years old. I'm not sure how long it look them to get to the coast, but the boy seemed to mature during the coarse (intentionally misspelled) of their journey. He started getting uncomfortable with his did staring at him. He would be irritable or uncommunicative at times. To me this indicates either maturity accellerated by scenes and experiences that children shouldn't have to endure, or the approach of adolescence (10-12). This role has to potential to launch the career of the next Haley Joel Osmet. I just did an imdb search on the movie; I hadn't heard of Kodi Smit-McPhee, but I'm guessing Hollywood will see more of him int he future.
• The saddest/scariest part of the book for me was when the dad was trying to explain when/how to commit suicide. That should NOT be part of a father to son talk.
  

Not the bio I was looking for

I was expecting something more along the lines that Sister Dewey wrote about Gordon B. Hinckley. This book was more of an analysis of the Church with David O. McKay as a point of reference. The first and the last chapters were more of the biography that I was looking for. Perhaps if it was written more linearly rather than categorically, I might have been satisfied. Part of the problem for me was that some things were repeated as they crossed over into the history of multiple topics (eg. the chapter on communism, the chapter on politics).

Some things that surprised me were similar to what others have already mentioned: McKay's tolerance of others' viewpoints, the collisions of opinions between General Authorities (while reading the book I wondered if these clashes made it difficult for some of them to be involved with certain prayers in the temple), Ernest Wilkinson ('nuf said), Ezra Taft Benson's persistance in certain matters and McKay's change of decision from Benson's influence. Some of the authors' depictions made the leadership in the church appear to me like the top level management of a large corporation.

I look forward to talking with my Dad about this book and his recollections of this period. Like Peter, I wonder if the members of the Church viewed things as Miss Middlemis did. Given her proximity to things, I'm sure that they didn't.

A question I have, and maybe one of you can add some insight, is about a comment the authors made in the chapter about The Church and Blacks. The book claims that Joseph Smith ordained some blacks to the priesthood, but the authors left no supporting reference.

September book of the Month?

Hopefully there are still a few people thinking about commenting on The Road, but I'm ready to turn my attention to the September book.

Bob, I think it's your turn to choose; do you have anything in mind?

"The Road"

Finishing that book was like waking up from a bad dream. I'm not saying the book was bad, but quite the opposite. The writing style was very different than anything I've read before, even the lack of apostrophes and chapters. For whatever reason it sucked me in as if I was "the man" and I saw my own son was "the boy". Maybe that is way McCarthy left them unnamed; so that we could more easily see ourselves in their place.

Back in my high school wrestling days, I would often go three days without food and very little water to "make weight". During those days I remember my mind and body going into a catatonic state. I went through the motions of life, but I felt I had no life in me. I remember one winter night after practice sitting on our living room coach wrapped up in blankets zoned out in front of the TV. I was so cold, with no fat or calories to burn and dry cotton-mouth was my every day reality. That night a Sprite commercial came on and I watched as the cool refreshing beverage was poured over that delicious crystal ice. I was just about ready to give up everything in life just to have a sip of that. Anyway...this book brought me back into those same feelings.

I read the entire book in one sitting working my uneventful flooring customer service part-time job at RC Willey. I was compelled to eat my dinner early while reading because I couldn't bear to "go without" again. Maybe that's why I'm getting more and more on the hefty side. I just have a hard time going into that mental state of being without food and water, especially without a spiritual purpose to support me through it.

I enjoyed the father and son relationship shown in this book. I loved the goodness of the boy shown in his tenderness with with the man who called himself "Ely" and for the mercy he showed toward the thief at the beach. I sensed the boy's frustration with his father's apparent hypocrisy. The father told stories of good deeds, but when it came down to it, the man was more concerned with protecting his son's life than extending the kindnesses he preached.

The harsh possibilities of human nature are portrayed in horrific imagery...the suicide of the man's wife rather than face the futile struggle to live in such a world...the pregnant woman seen and then shortly after the headless baby cooking over the fire...the imprisoned people in the basement being cannibalized one body part at a time.

What it comes down to is the basic good versus evil. How would I be in this same situation? I would I carry the fire of goodness and hope or would I devour my fellow human beings and long for death.

At a Rest Stop On the Road

[Sorry about the accidental post of nothing, don't know what happened.]

I started listening to this book on a drive to NC. It was early evening when I started out, and as we drove it got darker and darker, while the book got creepier and creepier. When we eventually stopped at a rest stop, I had a conversation go on inside my head that was very similar to the one that takes place between the boy and his dad several times in the book.

Boy Me: [Looking at the Dirty, Dark Restroom feeling creeped out.] "I don't want to go in there."

Dad Me: "It'll be OK. We'll just go in really fast and be right back out."

Boy Me: "I don't really need to use the bathroom. I'm fine."

Dad Me: "We have to go in there."

Boy Me: "I really don't want to go in there."

Dad Me: [Grabbing imaginary pistol] "We have no choice. Let's go."

Note: I only listened to the book, and based on some comments I read online, I may have used a bit too much punctuation. Sorry.

Listening to this book, I had no problem staying awake on the 6 hour drive, even though I was rather tired when we started. This was especially surprising because there were times when I felt the book was repetitive (starving, scary people, find food, starving, scary people, find food, etc.), and I just wanted them to get to the beach already.

The author was very effective in conveying a specific feeling, that of the darkness and the weight of a sometimes hopeless struggle. It's not necessarily a feeling that I want to feel often, but any time an author can not only make you think or keep you entertained but can make you feel something, I think that takes great skill. Plus, when you've really felt the darkness, then when the character get something of a respite (checkers and a hot bath) the relief and joy you feel is magnified. Relative to their (your) previous experience, simple pleasures become immensely satisfying.

I thought the author's choice to not explain what happened to cause the apocalypse was simultaneously artisitic genius and a cop-out. It's genius because it's not really relevant to the story, and any discussion of it would be unnecessary and distracting. Still, I kept thinking about possible scenarios and what was reasonable for the father and son to find and what wasn't. I'm not sure any explanation would have completely satisfied me. Thus, it was a cop-out because it was the easy way out, but it was genius because it was the only way out.

Still, does anyone have a good explanation why the father would never use his son's name? I suppose this makes it, so it could be any father and any son. Perhaps, it also adds to the bleakness of the situation. But really, what father never calls their child by name?

To Peter's points:

Provider vs. Protector: I agree that the hunger scenes were much more anxiety-ridden than the ones where they were attacked or threatened, but I think that says more the nature of the problem than about me. A physical attack gives you a rush of adrenaline, and your brain shifts into attack/defense mode. It can be almost an out of body experience. Very quick. Starvation, much like excessive debt, etc., is something that lingers and hovers over all of your other experiences. It weighs down on you, especially when you're not thinking of just yourself (ie fasting) but when you have to provide. (Or at least that's how the author effectively made me feel since I've never really experienced it myself.)

Skills: I don't have any skills that will be useful in the apocalypse, neither to face reality steely-eyed or to fix things, etc. ...unless someone else can think of an apocalyptic scenario in which UNO playing skills come in handy.

Father's Tragic Flaw: I really liked this insight, Peter. I didn't catch it when I read it, but I think you're right on. I think my 4 year old is about 6 months away from realizing how I'm a flawed mortal. (I think my final guess for the kid's age in the story was about 8.)

In the end, I wouldn't put this book on my favorites list, and I wouldn't recommend it to most audiences. That being said, it was a powerful and memorable book.

On the Road Again...

A few observations and a few questions:

I was most struck by McCarthy's color imagery. The only time color shows up, that I can recall, is in the scenes discussing fish at the very beginning and very end. Other than that, everything is black or gray. It's a device that I normally would find quite tedious, but McCarthy was able to do it without losing me. It gave the book a bleakness that was searing.

I wonder whether any of you identified more with the son than the father. Of course, it's probably easier to identify with the father, as the story is told from his perspective, and since that's the place most of us find ourselves in currently. On the second read I felt much less anxiety-ridden; I was practically a basket case my first time, most particularly during the scenes when they were running low on food. The more visceral scenes, like when they were running from bad guys, I didn't feel threatened; maybe that's because I see my role in my family as provider as more important (or perhaps more tenuous) than my role as protector.

One thing that kept coming back to me was from John Barleycorn. A criticism London made of milque-toast men who don't rage in behalf of lost causes. And here is McCarthy's hero, doggedly continuing in the face of utter hopelessness. Perhaps he doesn't mean for me to generalize about what it means to be a man, but between Barleycorn and the scene in The Road where his wife gives up, I'm struck by the concept that Real Men aren't Quitters. I was also reminded of "On The Beach," the film by Stanley Kramer of the onset of nuclear winter. The premise is a nuclear cloud is engulfing the earth, leaving none alive in its wake. The last place it covers is Australia. There's a brief time when the populace knows the cloud is coming and prepares for the inevitable. In the movie, Anothony Perkins plays a young father who must make the decision between a suicide pill for him, his wife and their young son, or the certainty of radiation sickness. In the movie, IIRC, it was the man who pushed the pill and the woman who refused. In this case, the manly virtue was being able to face reality steely-eyed. Obviously these two virtues (and I can believe both are virtues) are in tension. Personally, I don't feel I've sufficiently cultivated either of them to be of much use in an extreme situation.

One other thought was my admiration at the ability of the father to do simple things. Simple things that I wouldn't have known how to approach, like how to disassemble a propane stove, fix a wobbly shopping cart wheel, etc. Wilderness survival particularly adapted to the horrific wilderness in which he found himself. I guess it made me a little guilty of my inabilities; the softness of the modern man. It also reminded me a little of David O. McKay as an 85 year old man, standing out in the sun all day, pushing on a horse. There's a sense that's being lost in me at least, of how to work and live in a non-mechanized, non-computerized environment. Maybe that's necessary, but it's a loss nonetheless.

Last thought; the confrontation on the beach, with the man who had attempted to steal all their stuff. It's heart-breaking for me. The father exacts retribution, and as a result loses a measure of the respect (although not the love) that the son bore for him. His son was obviously overwhelmingly concerned with morality, and the question of whether they were good or bad. The father always made the "good" decision, until then. It was a moment, I guess, when the son saw the father as a flawed mortal, rather than the hero-god. Psychologically, I suppose that's an integral last step in growing up, which may be why McCarthy ended the novel so soon after. The son had learned all he needed to learn, and was ready for his apprenticeship. And needed to leave his father behind. But I still cried when the father died. Even on my second reading.

David O. McKay and The Modern (?) Church

I enjoyed reading the first 250 pages or so. The last 150 I had to plow through, as the story had become fairly repetitive. If I had to summarize things into a single sentence, it would be: "David O. McKay energetically moved the church forward, although he was occasionally swayed strongly by affinities for specific people to make decisions that probably had some negative consequences." This theme was repeated in connection with blacks and the Priesthood, BYU structure development, KSL, communism, missionary work, and the building program.

As an overall work, I was often frustrated with what I perceived as the authors' personal biases. They seem to have had a particular view, one which impacted their presentation of all the major characters in the book, particularly divisive figures. Consider, for instance, what I would consider the difference with which Sterling McMurrin's political views were presented (quite sympathetically) versus Ezra Taft Benson's political views (quite unsympathetically). I attribute this to a modern perspective on the particular issues, but I would have appreciated a more historical perspective that avoided the normativity. I don't imagine it was a conscious decision, rather it just seeped in from the authors understandable personal feelings and beliefs.

On some of the specific issues Paul raised: I do think the church generally held back the revelation on blacks and the Priesthood. I think the more interesting question is to what degree the feelings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee delayed the revelation. This is, I feel, a much trickier question. How limited are prophets, in their role as prophets, by personal feelings. Harold B. Lee seemed to have very strong feelings about the importance of the policy during McKay's tenure; when he became prophet did those feelings disappear, or was God able to speak through them, or did they (possibly) interfere with his potential to receive the revelation? I don't know.

I've never given the question of whether there is significant debate among members of the Quorum of the Twelve, or the First Presidency, a large amount of thought. I think that what I found more disconcerting from the way the governing organizations of the church were presented in the book was a lack of united front after decisions were made. Often this seemed (from the author's depictions) to arise due to ambiguity in David O. McKay's instructions. However, I question two things: how publicly divided the leadership of the church truly was (on issues like the John Birch Society, for example) and to what degree the Clare Middlemis records (private accounts, by in large) reflect the general public perception at the time. Personally, I imagine the issue of Elder Benson's politicization wasn't nearly as conflictual as it was depicted in the book.

As a final note, I appreciated the opportunity to learn more about an important era in church history. While I take most of this record with a grain of salt, I don't find anything in it to shake my testimony. David O. McKay, like his predecessors and successors as President of the Church, was a prophet of God. Despite personal limitations and foibles, when he spoke as Prophet, he spoke the Word of God. And while it's important to always maintain personal perspective, I think doubting what is of man and what is of God should, in the end, be of mostly academic import. Less important than his dicta to the press over communism or priesthood are his words at General Conference. We should probably study those more, and the former less.

[Note: edited for date and time to make the post appear at the top of the blog]

July Book-o-th'-Month: the Decision

So, I've decided to go with The Road as the July book of the month. Hopefully you can all get a copy easily. I'll put an upfront caveat that not only is the book very stark in its depiction of post-apocalyptic America, but there are some graphically violent depicted events. Or maybe not graphic, but certainly disturbing.

Anyway, happy reading!

Doug on McKay

Thanks for picking this book. I have enjoyed what I have read so far; I don't know how much farther I'll get in the coming days. I start my new job in the morning.

Two thoughts and a longish quote:

1) I don't really like the author's writing style. I think the "blacks and the priesthood" chapter was better written than earlier chapters, but I still think the writing got in the way of the subject matter a little.

2) I love hearing about the discussion and (for lack of a better term) politics that seem to happen with the brethren. It's interesting. None of it affects my testimony. If I had more time, I would like to read the conference talks from the timeframe of some of these discussions. Might help us realize that these men spent the bulk of their time teaching true doctrine and leading. It's more interesting to point out the discord (and extremist comments), but I wager not proportionate to what was happening day-in and day-out.

3) The writing about the leaders of the church debating/discussing things that are later put forth as immutable truths reminded me of an interesting passage from the Heber J. Grant biography I have, by Matthew Haslam. Forgive the long quote, but it has always made me wonder just how much our Father in Heaven is willing to listen to our ideas, then support us in our actions. For what it's worth, the author cites the Conference Report of April 1941, page 5 for the quotation. I found the original article here: http://search.ldslibrary.com/article/view/195462

The background is that Elder Grant has been rather weighed down by his call as an apostle at age 25, and is riding alone through Arizona. The call came unexpectedly a little after the conference, which had concluded without filling 2 vacancies in the 12.

"In what he described as 'one of the most real things in all my life,' he listened in on a conversation of his father, the Prophet Joseph Smith, and the Savior. So real was the event that Heber 'seemed to hear the words that were spoken.' Listening with a 'great deal of interest,' he heard them converse about the status of the Quorum of the Twelve following the previous October conference. They addressed 'the question that a mistake had been made in not filling those two vacancies and... agreed that a revelation needed to be sent in order to correct the mistake. Heber reported:

"It was given to me that the Prophet Joseph Smith and my father mentioned me and requested that I be called to that position... that the Prophet Joseph and my father desired me to have that position, and it was because of their faithful labors that I was called, and not because of anything I had done of myself or any great thing that I had accomplished."

Happy reading... Doug (now in Durham)

Discussion items from David O McKay

Here are my thoughts in random order:

In my late teenage years, up through when you all knew me, I was a proud orthodox Mormon. My experience on my mission and last three years at BYU, including marriage, tempered a lot of my self-righteousness and natural tendency to judge others harshly. I have learned to relax and enjoy others for their strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps that is why I enjoyed so immensely the anecdotes about David O McKay and the Coca-cola and the rum-cake.

A history of our church from the perspective of academic openness would be an interesting one. How many people were excommunicated for their libertarian positions on Prohibition? How many people were excommunicated for their opinions related to our LDS history? If you have read, "Rough Stone Rolling" by Bushman, you can find historic details not mentioned in mainstream mormondom that might have got Bushman ex'd sixty years ago. I have found that the truth about certain historic events may challenge my former line of thinking, but as it is truth, my testimony is strengthened. I also found that to be the case while reading about some of the internal conflicts between the members of the twelve in President McKay's time.

I embrace an openness to critical thought and discourse in our church, especially as it relates to our history. History and points of interest that are non-revealed are all fair game in my book. The danger is when one crosses into "evil speaking" of the men called of God and in rejecting revealed doctrines.

The discussion of the book "Mormon Doctrine" was very interesting to me. I knew there was some controversy related to some of the content, but I had no idea about the heartache it caused the brethren and the unpublished reviews pointing out varying opinions and even corrections. I'd like to get my hands on that manuscript! The greatest scriptural truths are those found in apparent contradictions. Although Mormon Doctrine used to be "in application" as important to me as the scriptures, I have since come to realize that it should have been entitled "One Really Good Man's Scholarly Interpretation and Opinions of Stuff from the Scriptures." As the David O McKay book mentions, the printing of Mormon Doctrine has had a huge impact on the culture of our church. I think it helped broaden general understanding of church principles, but it also made us all a bit more like the Sadducee's and Pharisees. We let Elder McConkie's opinions lead us to be more critical of each other and perhaps we closed the door a bit on our personal revelations in coming to understand complex doctrines. Perhaps "Mormon Doctrine" led us to a more wide-spread belief that everything ever spoken by any prophet or general authority was truth and fit for doctrine.

If you all haven't read it yet, I might suggest for our August book-o-the-month, "Getting at the Truth" by Robert Millet. In dealing with difficult questions about our faith, especially from anti-Mormon's, I like how he defines what LDS Doctrine and beliefs are. They are those items that you can find in the official church curricula for Sunday School, Primary, Priesthood, Relief Society, Seminary and Institute guides, and current General Conference talks. If it ain't in there, it isn't our official position and you can't challenge Mormon beliefs that are not official.

I also found the discussion about Ezra Taft Benson fascinating. I admire a lot of what he wrote about the Proper Role of Government. He was surely caught up in the Red-Scare mania, but I still think he was right, even about the socialist results of civil rights legislation. Don't get me wrong here. I am all for equal rights under the law, but whenever a government has to force a policy on its people it isn't nearly as effective as if the change came from the people's hearts on their own. Because political leaders felt so horrible about the brutal treatment of blacks, programs were put in place to supposedly repair damages caused by centuries of abuse. Unfortunately almost every one of those "civil rights" programs created a deeper dependency of the government. This form of slavery is nearly as bad as their former servant-hood. At least a servant with a benevolent master still has personal dignity.

Lastly, on the topic of California's Proposition 8. Although a libertarian at heart, I have no internal conflict with moral legislation that perpetuates a "Good" society. (remember American Heritage!) The church's reason for supporting the legislation is very good and deep and can be found on the Newsroom portion of the church website. I did find it surprising that the church issued a letter that members were free to disagree on this issue without fear of repercussions and church discipline. How very progressive! I remember the letter being read in church, but I can't find a copy of it.

The First 60 Pages

I was only able to read the part that was available online, but I thought the part online was fascinating. I loved the description of how McKay looked like a prophet, and how he purposefully let his hair grow out instead of getting the missionary hair cut. I understand the purpose behind leaders not sharing all of their personal spiritual experiences (as some were alluded to and not shared), but it certainly is more interesting when they share them. I loved the story of McKay seeing the branch president in the audience and calling him "evil".

I will attempt to answer Paul's questions even though many of them refer to parts after the first 60 pages:

Q: was President McKay like Lincoln, erring on the side of mercy? Not to say that President McKay was swayed by personal relationships, but how can church leaders avoid being prejudiced when making hopefully inspired decisions?

I think we're all swayed by personal relationships, and that's not a bad thing. Isn't our goal to develop a personal relationship with Christ and hope God errs on the side of mercy come judgment day?


Q: Was the church membership holding back the revelation? Do we hold our leaders back from receiving the blessings they hope to be bestowed on the Church?

Not me. I'm all for some new revelation. Bring it on!

Q: Without trying to imagine discord amongst apostles, how much debate do you imagine goes on?

I don't know, but my institute teacher in NC would often illustrate my Book of Mormon class with examples of the living apostles, including how they handled differences of opinions. It was the best institute class I've taken. The examples of great men, including possible discord, are a much more powerful teacher than doctrinal quotes, which is why I enjoyed what I could read of this book.

Q: I try to categorize rules into three: principles (unchanging, truths), policies (rooted in principle, but based on circumstances), and procedures (by necessity change to accomplish policies). It’s usually easy to distinguish between principles and the other two, but often, if a rule seems procedural, it is harder for me to believe it was revealed truth. How much from, say, the Church Handbook of instructions is an opinion (albeit a very good source), and how much is and how much is “the Lord sayeth”?

I've had a big internal debate about this one with respect to gay marriage in California. My initial reaction was that government shouldn't define marriage one way or the other. It's a religious term, and marriage for me is different than it is for most people anyway. Then I thought more about what the prophet said about supporting Prop 8 financially, etc. I ultimately decided that if I were in CA, I'd just follow the prophet. Then my uncle (a BYU religion prof. and a staunch Democrat) said he would not follow the prophet on this one, citing blacks and the priesthood and how sometimes doctrines/policies/procedures change. I agree with you in theory Paul, but sometimes it's tricky to find the line between doctrines and policies.


Q: Boyd K Packer: “We live far below our revelatory privileges.” How far?

[Stretching my arms out.]

Q: Are the communists still out to get us? President Benson had some very Right opinions. That’s interesting to me for two reasons: The Lord respects our agency, and in any case President Benson was able to receive revelation.

A member of our stake presidency gave a great talk on self-reliance on Sunday and how our ability to be self-reliant affects our spirituality. He was talking about having a job, being free of addictions, etc. However, I think any form of government that takes away too much from the people's self-reliance is a move in the wrong direction. Can we have universal health care and still be self-reliant? Sure. But there are wrong ways to do things. Communism was one of many wrong ways, and I think there are other wrong ways proposed every day.

David O and the Rise

Hopefully this book was faith building rather than destroying. It was for me. I appreciate that the prophet struggles with problems within the Church—and it saddens me that there are so many who do not support him fully.  I know it was long.  And boring in parts.  And repetitive.  The first 60 pages, I think were the best.  I felt like the author(s) were trying to make things seem a lot more heated than they may have been, but I felt like I got to see the forest in spite of some of the authors' pet trees.

Tolerance/Agency

I love the quote regarding McMurrin’s possible excommunication: “They cannot do this to you! They cannot put you on trial!” While it was clear that President McKay was willing to execute the will of the Lord by not tolerating sin and helping people repent, whatever the process, he respected agency and free thinking. It appears that he sought open-mindedness in decisions and in his general thinking.

Q: was President McKay like Lincoln, erring on the side of mercy? Not to say that President McKay was swayed by personal relationships, but how can church leaders avoid being prejudiced when making hopefully inspired decisions?

Blacks

“I’ve had it! I’m not going to do it again!” Referring to his asking the question of blacks and the priesthood, President McKay said, “the last time I did it was late last night.” It appears that many Church leaders were anxious about the issue. Incidentally, I read a very comprehensive article on this subject in BYU studies. It talks about, among other things, the unity that existed when the revelation was finally received.

I am a counselor in my current church calling. Throughout most of the church, I think the problem is that counselors do not do enough to help their presiding authority, but this book has brought to light for me that we can very easily get in the way of the presiding authority’s plan of action.

For example, I wonder about the apparent opposition Harold B. Lee had to blacks receiving the priesthood. How much did that affect the Lord’s willingness to bless the Church? Obviously until after he died.

Q: Was the church membership holding back the revelation? Do we hold our leaders back from receiving the blessings they hope to be bestowed on the Church?

Revelation and the prophet

I think it’s also interesting how many different opinions there are. When the Lord speaks, it’s black and white. When the brethren are acting on their own, there’s plenty of discord, and that’s not always a bad thing. But it’s made me realize the importance of revelation. When the prophet speaks (especially from the pulpit or by written directives), it’s best to listen.

Take Mormon Doctrine. Aside from the Catholic reference, I didn’t know it was so controversial. In fact, it seems that there are quite a few holes in the author’s assertions—if there were thousands of doctrinal errors, why were there not some good examples? It seems the authors are trying to make, in this and in other instances in the book, a tempest in a teapot. The lesson for me, however, is the same. It makes me grateful for personal revelation to confirm when people speak the truth.

Q: Without trying to imagine discord amongst apostles, how much debate do you imagine goes on?
Q: I try to categorize rules into three: principles (unchanging, truths), policies (rooted in principle, but based on circumstances), and procedures (by necessity change to accomplish policies). It’s usually easy to distinguish between principles and the other two, but often, if a rule seems procedural, it is harder for me to believe it was revealed truth. How much from, say, the Church Handbook of instructions is an opinion (albeit a very good source), and how much is and how much is “the Lord sayeth”?
Q: Boyd K Packer: “We live far below our revelatory privileges.” How far?

Commies

Q: Are the communists still out to get us? President Benson had some very Right opinions. That’s interesting to me for two reasons: The Lord respects our agency, and in any case President Benson was able to receive revelation.

July Book-o-th'-Month

I have a few alternatives for the July book, and was hoping for some feedback before I made my decision. Here are the options I'm considering:

Nudge (Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler)

This sets forth the idea of "libertarian paternalism." The essential idea being not to necessarily heavily regulate things that are bad for us, but to make bad decisions slightly more difficult, thereby nudging people toward good decisions. I'm not a big fan of the concept, but the book is influential (as is Sunstein, who has been a constant counselor to Obama and heads the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs).

Every day, we make decisions on topics ranging from personal investments to schools for our children to the meals we eat to the causes we champion. Unfortunately, we often choose poorly. The reason, the authors explain, is that, being human, we all are susceptible to various biases that can lead us to blunder. Our mistakes make us poorer and less healthy; we often make bad decisions involving education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, the family, and even the planet itself.

Thaler and Sunstein invite us to enter an alternative world, one that takes our humanness as a given. They show that by knowing how people think, we can design choice environments that make it easier for people to choose what is best for themselves, their families, and their society. Using colorful examples from the most important aspects of life, Thaler and Sunstein demonstrate how thoughtful “choice architecture” can be established to nudge us in beneficial directions without restricting freedom of choice. Nudge offers a unique new take—from neither the left nor the right—on many hot-button issues, for individuals and governments alike. This is one of the most engaging and provocative books to come along in many years.

Home (Marilynne Robinson)

I read Robinson's Pulitzer-Prize winning Gilead a few years ago and found it very beautiful. Ask me what it's about, and I can't really tell you. Fathers and Sons, I suppose, and multiple generations of mid-West farm stock, religious men. Light on plot, heavy on lyricism. Anyway, Home is evidently a sort of follow-up to the original novel.

Hundreds of thousands were enthralled by the luminous voice of John Ames in Gilead, Marilynne Robinson’s Pulitzer Prize–winning novel. Home is an entirely independent, deeply affecting novel that takes place concurrently in the same locale, this time in the household of Reverend Robert Boughton, Ames’s closest friend.

Glory Boughton, aged thirty-eight, has returned to Gilead to care for her dying father. Soon her brother, Jack—the prodigal son of the family, gone for twenty years—comes home too, looking for refuge and trying to make peace with a past littered with tormenting trouble and pain.

Jack is one of the great characters in recent literature. A bad boy from childhood, an alcoholic who cannot hold a job, he is perpetually at odds with his surroundings and with his traditionalist father, though he remains Boughton’s most beloved child. Brilliant, lovable, and wayward, Jack forges an intense bond with Glory and engages painfully with Ames, his godfather and namesake.

Home is a moving and healing book about families, family secrets, and the passing of the generations, about love and death and faith. It is Robinson’s greatest work, an unforgettable embodiment of the deepest and most universal emotions.

The Road (Cormac McCarthy)

This is the only one of the three that I've already read. I just finished another of McCarthy's books (Cities of the Plain) and I find him very consistently enjoyable, occasionally thought provoking, with a spare writing style and focus on strength (particularly male strength) that makes him read like a modernized Hemingway. Bonus: this will be released as a feature-length film, starring Viggo Mortensen, later this year, so reading it now will give you water-cooler cred. Also a Pulitzer-prize winner, evidently.

The searing, postapocalyptic novel destined to become Cormac McCarthy's masterpiece.

A father and his son walk alone through burned America. Nothing moves in the ravaged landscape save the ash on the wind. It is cold enough to crack stones, and when the snow falls it is gray. The sky is dark. Their destination is the coast, although they don't know what, if anything, awaits them there. They have nothing; just a pistol to defend themselves against the lawless bands that stalk the road, the clothes they are wearing, a cart of scavenged food--and each other.

The Road is the profoundly moving story of a journey. It boldly imagines a future in which no hope remains, but in which the father and his son, "each the other's world entire," are sustained by love. Awesome in the totality of its vision, it is an unflinching meditation on the worst and the best that we are capable of: ultimate destructiveness, desperate tenacity, and the tenderness that keeps two people alive in the face of total devastation.

James Dean as Cain

I read the book a long time ago, and liked it a lot, but at that point, I had decided it didn't warrant an encore and I planned never to read it again--the book (especially Kate's evilness) was my first exposure to some very bad things.  So I wimped out like Alvin, and rented the old movie for the first time instead of reading the book again.  While I did enjoy Jimmy Dean's performance, and I generally like anything with Burl Ives, I realize, like Alvin, I think, that the film only touches a very small portion of the story . It attempts to, and does well at getting some of the themes in, but it really only hits the tip of the iceberg.  That being said, I've been fascinated with Steinbeck for a while (ever since the Grapes of Wrath in high school--I can't believe not everyone has read that!), and while some of his books are very good, this is definitely his masterpiece, and I've put it back on my list.  Incidentally, the movie does have a little Timshel--Cal recalls at the end that Adam always taught them that they had a choice--he doesn't have to be bad.  Cain to me is a special case, and I'll have to have another read or two of the Bible text and Steinbeck's novel to think it through.

I'm planning on posting for David O McKay book soon; I wanted thoughts from Eden to settle. 

A Visit to the Van Ordens

Come to visit us and look what you can do...



If you're up for some real excitement, there is also...

Of course, there were also a few games played during the visit, but we've found it's bad form to take pictures of our guests right after they've lost. ;)




Thanks for coming to visit, Glenn!

Jonah James Rees

We have another boy. Jonah James Rees. 8 lbs 9 ounces. 22 inches long. Natural birth. I should have posted this a while back, but I've been a little pre-occupied. Anyway, he's cute. We'll keep him. And one day soon, he'll even have a nice remodeled home to play in.

Don't Judge a Book Based on it's Movie?

OK, so I didn't read the book. I saw the movie, and I thought that would be enough to get me in on the discussion. But this Timshel stuff wasn't in the movie at all. It's a nice flick, though. I'll comment on other's comments (mostly Karl's), since I can't talk about the book.

Karl - We just purchased a foreclosed home, so I totally understand the fix-it-up lifestyle, except my wife isn't about to give birth. (That's a pretty big difference.) Actually, I made my father-in-law do most of the "fixing", and we've mostly being doing painting, cleaning, and more painting and cleaing. Everything takes longer than you think. We moved in last week, and we've been busy preparing for the visit of another PVS member.

As for losing weight, we bought an elliptical machine after Thanksgiving last year, and I began to exercise while watching things on the computer. I've lost 10 pounds and am about back to pre-marriage weight. Painting is also great exercise, and it has covered for some terrible eating habits of late.

And speaking of Lost, you'll recall my previous dilemma with the show. Ultimately, I decided I wasn't going to sit on the couch and watch it without my wife. Then I started exercising, and as I was consuming media alone anyway, I started watching Lost again. I saw the season finale, an excellent episode, and I am now faced with the new dilemma of waiting to find out what happens next.

On the positive side of cleanliness in media, we did get a ClearPlay DVD player. It seamlessly edits movies, according to the settings you choose. You download the edits, and the DVD player skips or mutes the movie accordingly, so it works on rentals or borrowed library movies. If a movie's entire theme is sinister, there's not much that can be done, but it does an amazing job of cutting out the "one bad scene" or violent moment or bad word. It can edit TV shows on DVD like Lost, but the downside is you have to wait for them to come out on DVD.

As for your profession, didn't it produce some of Einstein's greatest work? Who knows where our understanding of the universe would be without the patent system.

Robert- No Steinbeck here either. (Rural Illinois education.) The biggest difference is that I still haven't read a Steinbeck.

Peter- I was expecting/hoping for more comparisons between the book and the movie, since you mentioned how much you enjoyed the film. No thoughts on the tragic career of James Dean? I'm also jealous that your library system has the David O McKay book, since mine doesn't.

Doug - Good luck with the unpacking. Know that you're not alone. I think you'll really like North Carolina. I sure did. I have a cousin that's in Durham (Spencer and Brooke Cutler); my brother is serving in the mission and was just transferred from Durham; and my in-laws live in Cary. We come to visit often, so we'll have to stop by sometime after you've unpacked.

In reference to your marriage comments, I often get the feeling that there are more disfunctional relationships than functional ones, so I am constantly grateful for my marriage. Still, people keep getting married, so maybe successful relationships aren't as rare as they are often portrayed.

Glenn- See you tomorrow! Bring a good book to listen to, as it will be a commute to your conference.

Quick Steinbeck Comments

Oh man. I am usually pretty immune to tech blunders but I just lost my post. This is my substitute post. Mostly this is just my demonstration that I'm still participating and enjoying this forum.

Thanks to Karl for picking the book; I loved it.

Writing - I agree that Steinbeck is a fantastic writer. I have given some thought to re-reading his books I read long ago; I may like them much more as an adult.

Timshel - My old post was longer; the point is I think that the exercise of agency is a vital part of life. We can't buy our own salvation, but can do something great nonetheless. An unrelated example of this comes from the medical world: it is sad how many people live their lives as a "victim," medically speaking. Obesity (possibly the single biggest epidemiologic challenge facing America), diabetes, lung disease, HIV, and several other conditions are largely avoidable, and yet the incidence grows. Why? A bad decision made, nobody chooses to reverse course. It's easier to be a victim. Oh, and I love the seminary video reference, Peter.

Prostitution - also longer in my lost post, I just wanted to say that I think someone with Steinbeck's abilities could have written this story without the promiscuity. I know prostitution is common today and was then (and promiscuity without payment is nearly ubiquitous). This is art and a representation of things as they are in the eyes of the artist. But I personally don't want to read about it.

Caricature - I usually get sucked in to a story this long and well-written. The thing that kept me from "believing" this book was the fact that all the characters are one-dimensional, basically representing one part of human nature. Of course I'm sure this is on purpose and did make me ponder what in my nature is represented by a Charles, an Adam, a Kate, or a Lee. But I do not find any of the characters believable as individuals.

Marriages - There are a few uplifting relationships in the book, mostly involving Lee and others, or Sam Hamilton and others. But it seems like every marriage in this multigenerational, multi-family saga is a shell of a relationship. I actually began to wonder if Steinbeck himself was unaware of how good a marriage can be. Kate was blind to goodness; was this Steinbeck's blindness? Like I said above, he's really caricaturizing, but it does always tend to be in the direction of less-meaningful marriages.

Religion - Although there are multiple references to religious individuals, there is no reference to uplifting religiosity. I again questioned whether this was a little of Steinbeck's personal bias slipping through.

Anyway, this was a fun read. I look forward to David O. McKay, which I will start reading as soon as we unpack in North Carolina. Becky packed the bookshelf before I could nab the book.