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.

The Tree of Knowledge planted Eastward in Eden

Thinking about what Glenn said, about Aron and Kate being alike, I realized that knowledge plays a significant role in the development of all the main characters. Adam is perhaps the most striking example; at first he's unable to receive or process knowledge, hence his inability to consider his father's embezzlement and his blinders with regards to Kate, when in both instances Charles was able to see the situation clearly. Adam is presented with knowledge dramatically, when Kate leaves him; it takes him some time, and the help of a couple of his friends, to come to grips with that knowledge, but it eventually leads him to become a moral man. It gives him power over the scheming Kate, and an ability to face the challenges of life.

Kate, on the other hand, refuses (or is unable*) to process knowledge (of good, not evil). Aron is unable to process knowledge of evil (at least, within the scope of the book. Who knows whether his final scene is just him embarking on a journey of discovery similar to Adam's). Cal is an interesting case; he seems to seek out knowledge. This leads to abuses when he's young and unable to control the power the knowledge gives him, and later when his passions are inflamed over the slighting of his present. But he grows through the novel in wielding the power, and in the end shows a level of maturity and even responsibility.

As far as timshel goes, I think I side with Glenn. As presented, it's more or less the embodiment of agency. Which, as we all remember from the Book of Mormon seminary videos, is dependent on knowledge.

With regards to Cal's gift, and why it was rejected, I don't know about the "cultural" interpretation. I know it can be many things at once, but to me Cal's gift is steeped in an instrumental view of the world, where things (and other people) are there to be manipulated and used, rather than a respect for others as co-equals. I think it reflects very much the aspects of socialism and communism that Steinbeck believed so strongly in. This isn't a uniquely "American" question, in that sense, but America, particularly the West, where things are new and ready to be remade into other things is a perfect setting to work out these issues.

Finally, on the actual text, I'll just say that while I read it I was struck by how much better the writing was than a lot of the stuff I choose to read. I'd been thinking about whether classics were simply popular novels that got enshrined because they ended up on some English teacher's reading list. But in this case, the writing really is, IMO, sublime.

* On the issue of Kate's inability to process knowledge, it strikes me as counter to Steinbeck's conceptualization of timshel. He protrays her frequently throughout the novel as being incapable of good, thus the "thou mayest" construct doesn't seem to apply to her. Perhaps that's why he introduces her as being sub-human, a demon, etc. in the opening section; otherwise he couldn't rectify his thesis with one of his main characters.

~ 2 hrs East of Eden (give or take several thousand years)

I generally like central Missouri, except summers: hot, humid, plenty of ticks.
I miss California, except for budget shortfalls and crazy politics, and it was in a way fun to read this book and catch the names of somewhat familiar places.

I finished the book a couple of months ago and didn't write anything down as I was listening to it while I worked in the yard, walked the dog, etc. Though I do remember more of this book that I do of Grapes of Wrath, I don't have any worthwhile excerpts that I could quote.
I really enjoyed reading it, except some of the descriptions of Kate's vulgarness. Steinbeck is a master storyteller. His descriptions of people/places/events came across as very natural, as though they would be the words that would scroll across my mind if I were watching the story. Though Steinbeck is not quite as masterful as Tolkein in being able to tell a story with effective brevity, I felt as though he was able to keep the story flowing.

The character Kate reminded me somewhat of Benjamin Linus from the series LOST. She is a dangerously clever individual who is able to think several steps ahead of everyone, but ultimately she gets caught in her own game.

On the topic of Karl's first point, I agree and disagree. Karl says that Lee's take on timshel "ignores the role of Christ in overcoming sin, and places all of the responsibility of overcoming sin on the individual." Perhaps I am misunderstanding Karl's interpretation of the novel's commentary, but I believe that the Plan of Salvation truly tells us - "thou mayest." The only certainty is Christ. We will all be resurrected, and we all have the opportunity to accept the Savior's atonement and offer a proper sacrifice of our own will, but it is not a certainty. Despite everything Heavenly Father offers me, I may or I may not accept it.
But of course, Lee doesn't express it quite that way in the book (at least from what I can remember, I'd have to go back and look). Nevertheless, I remember my feeling as I listened to Lee while I washed the dinner dishes; timshel is a wonderful truth.

Thanks, Karl for getting me to read this book, and for initiating a good discussion. And congrats on the house. I look forward to seeing before and after photos.

C & A : East of Eden

I enjoyed reading East of Eden and I have to confess that I had never read Steinbeck before...nope, not even Grapes of Wrath. (That is Idaho education for ya)


Steinbeck had great character developement. There were characters I loved, some that I hated, many I related to, and some that simply disturbed me. I can see why this book was of "moral concern" when it was originally published in the early 50's. A few seasons of Law & Order SVU will pretty much desensitize a fellow.

I don't know that I have anything brilliant to say about the book. I expected the Genesis analogy to be more difficult to extract from the abstract, but it was pretty straight forward. I read reviews of the book after I finished it just to make sure there wasn't something I missed.


The prinicple of "thou mayest" struck a chord with me and fit perfectly into my understanding of agency. As Karl said, the role of a merciful Savior is essential for us to overcome justice.

East of Eden Discussion Starters

First, a little personal news. Angela and I bought a fixer-upper at the end of last month and, wow, has this month flown by as we've been fixing it up. Except for Sundays and the season finale of Lost, I can't remember the last time I sat on my couch. The sad part is, there's no way we can finish it now before Angela is scheduled to be induced. But hey, it's fun, I'm losing weight, and I'm sure it'll all be worth it in the end.

And now for East of Eden. The problem with discussing this book is that there's so much to discuss. I think my notes below are just scratching the surface.

1) Timshel. I've read several debates on whether Steinbeck got this right from a linguistic standpoint, and the reviews are mixed. So I'll back off from the linguistic side of things and focus more on the doctrine. On the one hand, Lee's interpretation seems somewhat dangerous--it ignores the role of Christ in overcoming sin, and places all of the responsibility of overcoming sin on the individual. This, as we know, is an impossible task. So it sets us up for failure. Instead, "will" may be a more accurate word than "may" because Christ overcame sin for everyone. On the other hand, I believe that Lee's interpretation is true in the sense that it imparts upon Adam and Samuel the possibility of man improving his own condition--so if by "overcome sin" we mean to learn form our mistakes, then yes it's an accurate interpretation.

An interesting side thought--Jehovah (at least, my understanding is that by "the Lord" the text refers to Jehovah at this point), is addressing not only Cain but all of mankind. Is He therefore including himself? Could it be that the prospect of "overcoming sin" was still conditional, in His mind, because he had not yet done it?

2) Could this story have worked without Kate being a whore? I think Steinbeck does an A- job of leaving things to the imagination instead of spelling things out, but I worry about the movie version of this that is supposed to come out in the next year.

3) Steinbeck goes out of his way to call Kate a half-human. But is Adam also a half-human? Is Adam the half that Kate is missing? I was initially inclined toward this interpretation, but towards the end I began to think that Aaron was in fact the other half of Kate. His inability to accept sin was just as pronounced as Kate's inability to understand good. I think this statement about Aaron describes both Aaron and Kate: "[He had] the ability for generalization that only the inexperienced have."

4) Steinbeck walked a fine line throughout the novel between writing an epic and writing a sermon. In fact, my chief complaint in the novel was that he used Lee and Samuel more to give sermons than as characters. All in all, I think Steinbeck writes well enough that I don't mind the sermons so much.

5) Lee--I just don't buy him. Especially the pidgin thing. I know Steinbeck was trying to make a point about cultural attitudes towards Asians, and I give Steinbeck props for being a little ahead of his time as far as multi-culturalism goes, but I think he's still a little guilty of stereotyping.

6) One thing I think Steinbeck did very well was constantly tease us. We all knew where the story was going. But the way he danced around the inevitable was what made the story entertaining. For instance, how many of you thought that Charles was going to kill Adam? But instead of resolving it there, he backs off completely and resets the story for a second movement.

7) Favorite metastory narrative observations: "I think the difference between a lie and a story is that a story utilizes the trappings and appearances of truth for the interest of the listener as well as the teller." and "If the story is not about the hearer, he will not listen."

8) Narrative statement most packed with hidden meaning: (with regard to Adam) "Perhaps the hard flat light of the West was blotting out his birthplace."

9) Just another thought-provoking quote: "if the Lord God wanted you to understand it He'd have given you to understand or He'd have set it down different." (from Liza)

10) Why was Cal's gift to his father so "wrong?" In Steinbeck's description of the Cain story, Steinbeck suggests that the unsuitability of Cain's gift was largely cultural. So was Cal's gift wrong because it went against the culture of the era to profit off of the war? Or is Steinbeck, as I suspect, saying something more fundamental about capitalism?

11) To what extent is it important that this is an American novel. Lee's discussion with Cal in Chapter 51 sets forth the paradox that is America--e.g. "we're overbrave and overfearful--we're kind and cruel as children." And I can't quite figure out if this is side commentary, or somehow crucial to the story.

12) When I first finished the novel, I was so distracted by Timshel, that I thought Timshel was the main point to the novel. I don't think so anymore. I think the story is more about fathers and son, birth and rebirth, the quest for immortality and perfection. It can be summed up with Lee's question to Cal: "Can you think that whatever made us--would stop trying?"

13) And finally, Samuel Hamilton (and the patent system). I don't know how accurate Steinbeck's depiction of his grandfather is (certainly, his character seems a little over-idealized and flat, with the exception of his last conversation with Adam). Clearly John admired his grandfather greatly. At any rate, Steinbeck wasn't exaggerating too much when it came to Samuel and the patent system. John's grandfather actually had three U.S. patents.

I probably ought to be defending my profession after passages like this:

Meanwhile Samuel got no richer. He developed a very bad patent habid, a disease many men suffer from. He invented a part of a threshing machine, better, cheaper, and more efficient than any in existence. The patent attorney ate up his little profit for the year. Samuel sent his models to a manufacturer, who promptly rejected the plans and used the method. The next few years were kept lean by the suing, and the drain stopped only when he lost the suit. . . But he had caught the patent fever, and year after year the money made by threshing and by smithing was drained off i npatents. The Hamilton children went barefoot, and their overalls were patched and food was sometimes scarce, to pay or the crisp blueprints with cogs and planes and elevations.

But, well, it's true. The patent system has a lot of flaws. Anyway, it's very rare that my profession pops up in literature, so I found this link to be a pleasant surprise. (Ironically, about the same time I was reading East of Eden, I was watching Dickens' Little Dorritt on Masterpiece, and Dickens also paints unkind pictures of the patent system, at least as it's implemented in the U.K.).

---

I hope everybody enjoyed the book as much as I, and I hope it wasn't too long for some of you. Namely Jesse :)

Geraldine Brooks' explanation of the end of Year of Wonders

So a few weeks back, Geraldine Brooks came to Lexington with her husband Tony Horowitz (who is also an award-winning author) to talk about historical writing. Most of their presentation was a question and answer period, and I took the chance to express my disappointment with the character assassination of Rector Mompellion at the end of Year of Wonders. I asked whether she just got to the end and needed some resolution, or if she'd planned the twist all along.

Her response was essentially that it had nothing to do with the Reverend. Rather, she wanted Elizabeth to end up in a warm, happy place. And that wasn't possible in the town of Eyam, because (remaining true to the historic record) the town would be essentially desolate for the next 100 years. So she needed some vehicle to drive Elizabeth away, and chose one she felt was most consistent with the rest of the novel. The actual account of her ship being captured by pirates and her being taken captive to the Barbary coast is also based on the historic account of two sisters who set out from Ireland and ended up being sold for slaves in Northern Africa (thanks to their ship being captured by pirates). But, due to their ability as healers, they were accorded positions of honor within the household of a wealthy merchant in the area.

Anyway, just thought it was interesting. It was clear, after listing to Ms. Brooks talking about her books for an evening, that she's a very thoughtful and intelligent and conscientious author, but that what she put into Year of Wonders was quite different from what I got out of it.

June 2009: David O Mckay and the Rise Of Modern Mormonism

I'm proposing a book about David O McKay for June. It is longish, and I'm about halfway through. The 1st sixty or so pages alone would serve as enough fodder for book club conversation and are on google:

David O McKay and the Rise Of Modern Mormonism .

My Life as a Traitor: Two last thoughts?

So I went into Traitor expecting something like a cross between Elie Wiesel’s Night and The Kite Runner. Needless to say, Traitor did not live up to my expectations. Most of the time, I felt like I was reading the diary of a whining teenage girl who thinks she knows everything about the world because she’s read a lot of books.

I believe I read somewhere that she wrote the text (or translated it herself) in English, so maybe that’s the problem. I wonder if the story would be better in Farsi. (Although, it has occurred to me that maybe the best way to portray the experience of isolation in a prison is to bore the reader to death with stream of conscious. Given that the background chapters are so much more interesting, I wonder if she’s aware that she’s doing this.)

But, as evidenced by the fact that I finished it (and actually finished it rather quickly), it was still an interesting read. For instance, the portrayal of post-revolutionary Iran during the war with Iraq was new to me. For some reason, I think my mind had just lumped everything that occurred after the revolution into a big black hole.

At any rate, I’ve pushed off writing this for so long that I can’t remember all that I wanted to say. Perhaps that’s just as well, since this way I can ensure that what I’m only commenting on my lasting impressions from the book.

Here are the two lasting impressions that come to mind:

1) Like several of you, I couldn’t help but think “thirty days?” Are you serious? And as the story progressed, I found myself annoyed, frustrated, and embarrassed by how “weak” Zarah seemed. However, I couldn’t discount the fact that to Zarah, at least, this was suffering.

And then it occurred to me—this isn’t a story about torture or injustice. This is a story about being a woman. To a man, to Zarah’s male friends, for instance, 30 days in an Iranian prison wouldn’t mean that much. To really appreciate Zarah’s suffering, however, we have to be inside the mind of a female. And perhaps even more specifically, we have to be inside of the mind of an Iranian female.

The shaved hair, the possibility of permanent facial scarring, the isolation, the feelings of helplessness. I’m not saying I’d like to go through any of that, but to understand how terrifying these experiences are to Zarah, I think I would need to be female. More importantly, the prison is largely symbolic of a more general suffering. Her whole world is a prison. The clothes. The lifestyle. The rules. What scares Zarah most is the thought of the whole universe collapsing in on her until there is nothing left of her.

This brings me to a tangent. Yes, perhaps Zarah’s ideals lacks a certain “morality.” But is she really culpable in this lack of morality? The fact is, she hasn’t had the freedom to openly make the kind of choices she would like to make. So in her thoughts and dreams, she tries to obtain as much “freedom” as possible. The more radical the thought, the greater freedom she’s “obtained” in thinking it. And when a rare opportunity to express her freedom on the outside crops up, she takes it, to prove to herself that she has some degree of individuality. I wonder if, with more “freedom” on the outside, she might have more of an opportunity to develop a sense of morality that we Mormons would better approve of on the inside.

2) Why does Zarah seek to universalize her experience? I wish I had the book so I could draw some direct quotes here, but she qualifies too many of her statements with something like “like all men” or “no different than any other culture” or “as they always do.” She does this especially often with reference to people she dislikes: men, people in positions of power, and complicit women. It makes me distrust her as a narrator. Sure, there may be some similarities between Southern wives at a church social in Georgia and the complicit, completely-covered wives of Iranian business men at a party, but really, what does she know about Georgia? Or Nazi Germany? The more she tried to generalize her experiences, the more I distrusted her. The whole point of her narrative is that her experiences have a uniqueness to them, and I think she does a great disservice to Iranian women when she tries to dismiss that uniqueness.

Anyway, I’m done with East of Eden as well. I’ll save those comments for another day. Right now, I’m busy buying and fixing up a house, hopefully in time for the baby next month.

Introducing Ivy Sophia Jones

Ivy Sophia Jones was born this morning at 6:45. Weighing a healthy 9 lbs. 3 oz., she's the largest of our children so far. These are pictures of friends and family meeting her for the first time today at the hospital.

Next challenge: squeezing three car seats in the back bench of a mid-sized sedan.

Me: He-Man or Pillsbury Doughboy?

It was better than I expected, though I was a little underwhelmed by her experience in prison. I might be softer than I think and break as Zarah did, but I honestly feel that I could endure the torture she describes. I could defy them if they handed me personal physical or psychological torture, but if those same threats were directed toward family or friends, I would fold much more quickly.

For me, the best parts of the book were her memories of life if Iran. It seems very culturally colorful. These parts of the book reminded me of a movie I saw a while back called "Children of Heaven." I don't remember if I saw it at the BYU International Cinema, but it is a fantastic movie that opened my eyes to Iranian culture. The country and the people are not full of conspiracy and hatred as some might have us believe.

I thought the ending was good. It seemed artsy, like the ending of a foreign film.

Well, that's it for this book.
I finished East of Eden. Can't wait to discuss it. Maybe I'll rent the movie to tide me over.

My Thoughts on the Traitor

I thought this was an interesting read on several fronts, and the length fit well into my schedule. Thanks Jesse for picking it out. My book's already back at the library, so you'll forgive me for doing this from memory...

Did she Suffer? So for me, the most shocking part of the book was not any part about smelly guards, being beaten, isolated, or convicted without a trial. I was genuinely surprised when her sentence was pronounced at... 30 days in prison. The desert of despair she seems to have traversed, the heights of her pain, the depths of her introspection, her professed insight into human nature and the response to torture... all of this had me thinking in terms of months at least, possbly more. 30 days seems, well, short.

Don't get me wrong; I am not condoning what was done to her, and she did certainly teach me a lot about living in an Islamist state.

But I'm wondering what she would have made of the 35 days I spent as a Surgery intern last October. It was all there... sleep deprivation, verbal abuse, mental anguish, one's convictions called into question nearly with every moment. There was even a room barely large enough for a bed, with blankets stained by previous users, where you were relieved to be - if only for a 15-minute period before being dragged back to the Emergency Room by your pager. There's a great guy in my program who did surgery this month, and it's amazing the transformation in his countenance. This is the most trying month of his life, and it shows.

The thing is, it was still only 5 weeks and I left that month with 1)gratitude that I'm not one of these guys living that life for 5-7 years, and 2)an appreciation of how short 5 weeks really is. I had the same experience this January in the Intensive Care Unit - minus the verbal abuse.

After hearing the 30-day number, I began to reconsider whether Zarah is the one who really suffered that much. I was like "Wait a minute! It really isn't that big of a deal to have your head shaved, is it?" I thought mostly about all of the other people in the prison who don't have rich friends, those who probably suffered the torture Zarah only feared. Those are the people I would like to liberate.

Who is the Hero? I am intrigued by Peter's comments about the boyfriend (Benham?) being perhaps the most laudable of the characters. He certainly seems to have spared our protagonist the worst of what could have been. Benham and his peers probably do have the only course to lasting reform in a country like Iran; it seems a revolt/revolution would only lead to the next oppressive and dogmatic regime. Zarah clearly outlines the history of this very dynamic in Iran. Zarah also makes something of a hero (if not an effective reformer) for her willingness to do what she believes, no matter the obvious consequences which await.

I don't know what this says about me, but my hero became the prisoner upstairs - Sohrab. Assuming his story is completely true (wrongfully accused prior to the murder etc.) I find myself sympathetic with his plight. Well not the part where he goes out and kills a man, but right up to that. He was going to prison for no reason other than trying to do the right thing. Now here's a guy who has been in the prison far, far longer than Zarah's -- wait for it... -- 30 days, and he does still have enough humanity to help the inexperienced girl downstairs get through it all. Plus he's a doctor. Somehow for me, the most emotional part of the book was when she was leaving and she promised she would never forget him. I'm sure he's still in there, periodically shouting at the guards so he can change life's pace with a beating or two. He is also the character that leaves me wondering about what we do in America with killers, but perhaps that's a topic for another day.

I learned a lot about Iran, whatever else you might say about the story. This is mostly because I am starting from no understanding at all.

Zarah's Morality has already been eloquently described by previous posts. I can only say Amen. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and say that pink shoes and pretty hair are really just symbolic of the hidden wishes of an oppressed people who have seen nothing but tyranny and war. But her "let's all be friends and stop pretending there's a God" attitude does fail to resonate with me. I also don't sympathise with her desire to sleep with the professor any more than I do with Americans who want to have fun getting pregnant but keep babies out of it (also a topic for another day). I'm not going to impose any "laws against a man's beliefs," but Zarah's moral agenda in this book didn't change my belief that there is joy in living according to Christ's teaching - joy that can be enjoyed by anyone who will partake. I'm sure if I told her about this joy, she would answer as did so many French people who told me happiness (and spirituality) is a many-sided mountain, with many routes to the top.

Overall, I had a great time reading this book and am glad it was chosen. I guess my comments are mostly negative, but you don't need me to point out all of Zarah's good points - she already made them herself.