StaggShire

Today's Word Fancy is:

Reprehensible: (adj.)- deserving of reproof, rebuke, or censure; blameworthy.

Something I particularly love about this word is its multitude of related forms. Allow me to extrapolate...

rep·re·hen·si·bil·i·ty, rep·re·hen·si·ble·ness, noun
rep·re·hen·si·bly, adverb
non·rep·re·hen·si·bil·i·ty, noun
non·rep·re·hen·si·ble, adjective
non·rep·re·hen·si·ble·ness, noun
non·rep·re·hen·si·b·ly, adverb
un·rep·re·hen·si·ble, adjective
un·rep·re·hen·si·ble·ness, noun
un·rep·re·hen·si·b·ly, adverb

Ex: Too many in this world think reprehensible actions, such as being inconsiderate and rude to your neighbors, are utterly nonreprehensible.

(The photo shows how I will look when the upstairs neighbors open their door one day after being particularly reprehensibly raucous and I greet them with an icy "REALLY?!")

Today's Word Fancy is:

Perfunctory (adj.): performed merely as a routine duty; hasty and superficial;
lacking interest, care, or enthusiasm; indifferent or apathethic

Ex: Bad refs are the only thing that revive me from my perfunctory attitude towards sports.

Why is it that heavy cream makes EVERYTHING so much more delicious??

Bonjour! J'ai l'idée de faire.... yeah, that's about as far as I'll get in French. So in order to share and remember new/ exciting culinary knowledge, I've created this niche for the blog.

Neufchâtel

French Neufchâtel is a soft, slightly crumbly, mould-ripened cheese made in the region of Normandy. One of the oldest cheeses in France, its production is believed to date back to the 6th century. It looks similar to Camembert, with a dry, white, edible rind, but the taste is saltier and sharper. It is usually sold in heart shapes (precious), however it is also produced in other forms, such as logs. It is typically matured for 8–10 weeks.

In 1872 William Lawrence, a New York dairyman of the township of Chester, created the first American cream cheese as the result of an attempt to create a batch of Neufchâtel. (Isn't that awesome that cream cheese is American? Something classy and culinary from this country. Que milagro.) In the United States, this Neufchâtel is sometimes called farmers' cheese. French Neufchâtel was commonly used in British forms of cheesecake, and American Neufchâtel is perfect for a healthier American cheesecake as it is approximately 33% lower in fat than regular cream cheese. American Neufchâtel is also softer and has a higher moisture content than regular cream cheese.

The cheesecake is one made with American Neufchâtel by my friend Brian, who alerted me to this most noble fromage.

So my friend Brian and I both have trouble finding topics to blog, and when a friend suggested to Brian he use his love of obscure/ sophisticated words as a blog topic, I was immediately taken with the idea, and decided to use my love of the same thing to do the same thing. But in my Robynesque way.

Today's Word Fancy is:

Fractious (adj.)- unruly, peevish, irritable, refractory, readily angered

Ex:A fractious feline does not a fast friend make.

I just thought it was really amazing he could be so benevolent towards the South. I get very indignant and angry with stupid people and the lions of injustice, and if I were a slave or an abolitionist living in those times I might have been kind of angry with Lincoln for being so lenient towards the South. Obviously, mistakes were made on both sides, but still. Still, he is to be commended for his Christ-like attitude.

I really liked that he talked about it being not the North's war, nor the South's war, but God's war, because it really was. I also liked what he said about neither side's prayers having been fully answered, because that was true. That is also a heartening point to remember when something you are praying for doesn't work out. Perhaps your prayers weren't answered, but your enemy's prayers probably weren't answered fully too. It sounds mean, but that could be a pretty comforting thing to think about.

I appreciate his eloquence and the fact that he kept his speech short and to the point. He didn't need a lot of pomp and circumstance and length to get across what needed to be understood. Through his theologically untrained brilliance, he was able to reach across space and time to reach those living then and those living now.

Why was it so hard to stop the international slave trade?

Well, for one thing, America, the great hypocrite of the time, did not get on board with abolition until well after Great Britain did. But at the time this movie shows Great Britain was the greatest empire in the world, and was built upon the backs of slaves. The slave trade was acceptable to all but few, and of these, even fewer were brave enough to speak against it. This made it really difficult, because people in Parliament, although perhaps they personally they agreed with abolition, didn’t want to end people’s livelihood. Many people had heard about the horrors of slavery but didn’t quite believe them or couldn’t or didn’t want to understand the reality of things, didn’t want to be held accountable. It’s like today with the cruelty to animals thing. The beef and chicken millions of Americans eat every day were animals shoved 20,000 into a few dozen square feet, packed with hormones so they couldn’t even stand, lived in their own waste and pecked each other’s eyes out for lack of space… and people don’t want to believe it. People don’t want to watch FOOD Inc. to find out the truth behind America’s meatpacking industry. Who wants to be accountable for their sins?

I have yet to see FOOD INC., but last summer after reading the China Study I, for health benefits as well as my love for animals, am mostly vegetarian, with the exception of fish. I no longer buy any meat that is not free-range, and then only sparingly. I know that I as one person can make a difference, and I think that’s something a lot of people in those days didn’t believe. Indeed, in the movie in a conversation between William Pitt and Wilbur, before Wilbur’s abolitionist political days, Pitt challenges Wilbur to change the world, and Wilbur says, “I would change myself first.” It is as if he didn’t believe he could change the world, but he did, and more people today and then should have/had confidence in their ability to do and be something greater.
Another major problem was that people simply weren’t informed about slavery and the terrors of it, which again can be compared to the importance of food documentaries and becoming informed about where our food comes from and how it is treated. Knowledge is power, and even then it took years and years and years of knowledge dished out by Wilbur and his supporters to end the British slave trade. People also thought that destroying slavery was destroying England, and by destroying slavery the riches of the Indies would be handed over to the French. An argument that was also brought up in the film was that slaves equaled plantations, and without plantations, how were they supposed to fill the coffers of the king? They were worried that the French would step into their place and reap the rewards of the Indies, and I willing to bet France thought the same thing about the British. When the time of the war between Britain and France came closer, people thought that abolition wasn’t loyal to the king, which was weird. The focus came off of slavery and onto the war. Suddenly those men, women, and child slaves weren’t so important when people were afraid for themselves. They lost their compassion through fear. Also, vicious rumors were spread about those propagating abolition, rumors that irresponsible people gladly seized as an excuse to be passive while God’s children were continually violated. Additionally, people thought that there were other issues; they said that conditions were bad for everyone, people right there in England; in this way people were distracted from the issue. I hate that, hate when people say well yes, that’s bad, but what about this thing? I understand the importance of prioritizing, but just because there are multiple problems at hand in the world doesn’t mean we have to wait and figure out the solutions to all of them before we fix one. Also, people were elitist, and really thought they deserved to wring their bread from the sweat of another man’s brow, as Abraham Lincoln quoted in his second inaugural address. Also, Satan himself was of course behind the international slave trade, and his influence was strong over the hearts of those there. Heavenly Father’s loving gospel hadn’t returned to the earth yet, and men’s hearts were weak and bereft of the gift of the Holy Ghost. I mean, it took 20 years of being a slaver before John had a change of heart, repented from his life as a seller of souls, and wrote the song “Amazing Grace”. I wonder how often throughout those twenty years he felt horror at the things he was doing? I wonder what made him decide to end it?

Either way, God triumphed, and the internationally legal slave trade was abolished.

The Second Great Awakening was an important basis for that later theological development, specifically that of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The term Kentucky Ablaze is kind of a misnomer, because the religious enthusiasm wasn’t so much a fire as a religious tsunami, a baptism forever changing American and religious society. America didn’t start out religious; rather there were pockets of religion all over. The Second Great Awakening, in Dr. Holzapfel’s words, churched America. The Smith family was living in an area of revival, and there was religious division in Joseph Smith’s own family. His mom was Presbyterian, and his dad had Universalist leanings, which his eldest brother Alvin shared. His dad does have a number of religious visions though, which was certainly not unheard of at the time. However, the fact that he was Joseph Smith Sr. leads me to believe that at least the majority of his visions were actually truthful and from God. Joseph Smith himself leaned toward Methodism, but when we went to camp meetings he didn’t feel what other people were feeling. Due to the religious fervor of the time, he has quite concerned for the welfare of his eternal soul. After studying out these matters in his mind and in his heart, he decided to go ask God about it.
I’m glad that Joseph Smith got involved in the Great Awakening, and that he got involved in the WAY he did. He didn’t get swept up in the falseties of it, but what did concern him were the truths and questions the Second Great Awakening quested for. He studied scripture and many different religions, making the logical decision to pray to God about it, considering that the ministers of the different religions pulled him hither and thither. It’s a testimony to me, actually, of how important it is to be aware of what is going on in our nation, and the importance of being able to sieve through the good and bad, keep the good in your heart, and exercise that good.

Kay, so the two hours tour got a little long at the end... but it was not as long as I thought it was going to be and the first hour in particular went by really quickly!

I loved the attitudes and funny little jokes of the cute old guys that ran the museum. I really liked how they switched off giving the tour, so we didn't listen to just one person the whole time or even half the time. I've told like seven people about it since I went, and was really impressed by what I learned there.

I had never learned that Gutenberg changed his name from Goosemeat, so I thought that was pretty funny. I also didn't realize there was so much that went into inventing the printing press. It was really cool that we got to see them mold a letter and got to the molten metal set out to cool on the concrete slab. I also loved learning that he had six crews and six presses. I agree that it was inspiration that made him to do that. The fact that we still use today basically the same formula that he came up with hundreds of years ago is awesome. It was also amazing that there wasn't an advancement in the printing press until almost four hundred years after Gutenberg. He really was ahead of his time.

As far as Benjamin Franklin goes, I'm remember learning before that he was a printer but I'd completely forgotten and I thought that was sweet. When I was standing in the room I saw a frame that contained Benjamin Franklin's epitaph in it and it was as follows,

The body of B. Franklin, Printer
(Like the Cover of an Old Book
Its Contents torn Out
And Stript of its Lettering and Gilding)
Lies Here, Food for Worms.
But the Work shall not be Lost;
For it will (as he Believ'd) Appear once More
In a New and More Elegant Edition
Revised and Corrected
By the Author.

I thought that was so beautiful! My heart stirred when I read it. I also loved learning about where the phrase, "Mind your p's and q's probably came from." I am a Spanish Translation major, and am always super interested in word choice and idioms. I thought it was so cool how the Lord must have given strength to the print shop boys to be able to print so quickly, and I really appreciated the testimony born by one of the tour guides about the printing press being a device of the Restoration. I loved hearing the little details about President Monson's visit and playing with the little poodle was fun too. I definitely want to go back with my husband. Oh, and I thought it was awesome that they are hoping to be able to take every missionary that goes into the MTC through there. I think that will be invaluable to their testimonies and a really cool thing to share with people! It'll also be great press for the museum.

Why do you think it took so long before women decided to organize a concentrated effort to receive equal rights? Please make your response 650-800 words.
Well beforehand there weren't very many opportunities for women to speak out. When they did speak out, they were viewed with mistrust and the perspective that that kind of women weren't "proper" or "wholesome". They were shunned in every aspect that before speaking out they were permitted to participate in, so why even try? Since society was everything in those days, I can see why women didn't go against that. Also, it's not like there were many opportunities to organize anyway.
Additionally, a woman's place before the Industrial Revolution was always in the home, and in some countries it was illegal to educate a woman. I found a quote that explains well the attitude, "Women had their responsibilities, none of which required philosophy, biology, rhetoric, and so on to accomplish. So why teach them?" "Why teach them?" or course, was the erring mentality of the ages. The male schoolteacher in Little Women says, “It is as useless to educate a woman as to educate a female cat.”
Additionally, since there was so much to do and because of agriculture farmhouses were so far apart, it made getting organized and speaking in public about ideas difficult. Also, women were very beaten down, along with men. But since they were treated even more unfairly than men were, unfortunately it seemed that white men's suffrage and rights would naturally come into play before that of women's.
Christian Pena, another member of the class, says this, " After years of 'education' (quotations added), many women were essentially trained in the art of being fragile and tender, weak and submissive. While their male counterparts were being to taught to manage money, people, and in some cases, nations, the women were learning to remain oppressed." I totally agree with that. A lot of their behavior was not necessarily nature-centered, but rather imposed on them by men and society. In matters of politics, in matters of money, in matters of philosophy, women's brains were not exercised, but rather encouraged to be feeble-minded. In addition, manner of dress has something to do with it too, as Marmee in Little Women says: "Feminine weaknesses and fainting spells are the direct result of our confining young girls to the house, bent over their needlework, and restrictive corsets." I would look pale and weak too if I never had the opportunity to exercise, be out in the fresh air, and had to wear tight little heels and big huge dresses that were impossible to run in. I wonder how much further along our world and society would be if women had been allowed to partipate fully in life earlier in the life of the world?
Also, the church wasn't restored until later, and the church, besides changing people's lives and perspectives in almost every way, treating women with much more freedom and respect than other organized societies. Joseph Smith turned the keys in behalf of women, by the inspiration of God. As God inspired the founding fathers to bring the Revolution, God was responsible for turning the keys in behalf of women. Inside the church women were able to teach and speak in public, they had experience with leadership and organization. Many of the men of the church were in prison, and while their husbands were in prison, their wives ran the family business. There was no occupation that was closed to LDS women, especially by 1886. In the temple, men and women perform the same rites, and participate equally. This has also a doctrinal implication, in that men AND women have to be together and be exalted. Through the temple clothing, women are dressed in the robes of the priesthood; they administer and receive the keys of the kingdom, given equally to men and women. With the Church and the Gospel as a jumping off point, the women’s rights movement was facilitated.

Amistad and Slavery

I really really enjoyed watching this edited movie. I’m pretty good at being a sympathetic and empathetic person, but this movie really helped me see aspects of slavery I’d never thought of before. For example, at the beginning of the movie there is this shot of a heaving, sweating, heavily breathing something. Because it is so dark and because that something is so dark, it takes a minute or two and a slight change in camera angle to tell that it is actually a person, Joseph Cinque to be precise. This helped me understand the beastlike, wolf caught in a trap attitude that a lot of blacks had to reach in order to survive. I know a lot of white people back then said the blacks were “animals”. Throughout different times in the movie I could see that animalistic behavior. On one hand, the “animalistic” behavior such as keeping the young boy’s body was just unfamiliar and cultural. On the other hand, other behaviors that were also shown in the movie were indeed animalistic, but only because through the white cruelty and circumstances, they had to become in some ways something less than human, something capable of surviving what no human being (or animal ) should have to go through. I know that if I had that happen to me, I would really have to let go of the more human part of me to let go of the pain and to survive. In a strong fashion, acting animalistic is an important reminder of the humanity of the slaves, and of the inhumanity of their circumstances and captors.

Also, the scene where Joseph Cinque is with his family and then gets captured without them knowing just went straight to my heart. The fact that Africans captured and slaves in America were and could be wrenched away from their families at any moment has always been a very somber reality for me. However, now that I am married, I just kept picturing my dear husband and best friend Kevin being dragged away into the underbrush, or I standing at the head of the ship back to Africa, like Joseph Cinque, not knowing what lay ahead, not knowing that my family was not going to be there. This gripping realization and the vivid feelings I had made my appreciation and testimony of the plan of salvation grow so much stronger. I am so grateful that I can be with my family again after I die, and it makes me so happy that Joseph Cinque is with his family again, right now as I write this and you read this.
I also realized, seeing the scars that were still on Joseph Cinque’s skin once the case was won for good and the handcuffs removed, that there was so much emotional baggage that the slaves and the Africans on the Amistad had to deal with. For example, the Mende who interpreted- even though he was a free black, even though he could read and write- what was he losing by being here in the United States and not in Africa? What of his culture and his heritage went slipping away, lost for his whole life? I know there was a least one point in the movie where it seemed from the look on his face while watching the Africans that he felt a keen sense of loss and longing.

Thank you, Dr. Holzapfel, for the opportunity to so poignantly expand my already eager understanding and deep love and respect for African cultures and peoples.

I chose to expound upon Federalist No. 10 because it contains a concept which I found very simple but very enlightening. That concept is that Madison argued that a strong, large republic would be a better guard against those dancers than smaller republics, for instance, the individual states. In taking AP US history in high school we learned about this stuff, but now that I’m smarter (I guess) I understand so much better how much the states were against each other and so concerned with their own interests rather than the common good of America. That’s why a few weeks ago, the name of our country, the UNITED States of America, hit home with me. It really was such a long and laborious accomplishment for these individual states to become united. Madison obviously need to put this Federalist Paper out there so that people would list to sence. I guess this is why Wikipedia reports, “Today, however, No. 10 is regarded as a seminal work of American democracy. In "The People's Vote," a popular survey conducted by the National Archives and Records Administration, National History Day, and U.S. News and World Report, No. 10 (along with Federalist No. 51, also by Madison) was chosen as the 20th most influential document in United States history.” I love that Dr. Holzapfel has us read such relavent readings. Althought these Federalist papers weren’t the most enjoyable out of all our readings, I still read them knowing they weren’t just stupid papers that had nothing to do with our learning, and that knowledge helps me to appreciate the reading that I’m doing.

It is interesting to me that this Federalist paper indicates that the Founding Fathers did not intend for American politics to be partisan. I’ve been witness to many debates about this and read stuff on it and I’m still not sure what I think. I like the thought of voting for a person, not a party, for sure. I would like to be able to vote for someone based on their own individual views, not the views the party has for them. But then again, isn’t it human nature to organize thoughts and beliefs under a specific motto or name or creedo or whatever? Despite that, I do think that a no party system would be a good idea. There, I guess I just decided.
It looks like the Founding Fathers took human nature into account here though too. Yet again, Madison says, let us focus on the effects, because we can’t do anything about the causes of factions, because those are just human nature. Justica Clarence Thomas said, “The Framers (of the Constitution) preferred a political system that harnessed such faction for good, preserving liberty while also ensuring good government. Rather than adopting the repressive cure for faction htat the majority today endorses, the Framers armed individual citizens with a remedy.” This remedy is liberty. This remedy is “giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” I love this idea to because it seems so simple but I’m sure it was very revolutionary at the time. I really appreciate how he embraces diversity.

I also really like this line here, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgement, and not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” I wish I had read this back in my freshman year of high school. The principal of my school hit one of the teachers and threw something at his son (the teacher’s son, who also attended the school), and we had a trial for it, with the principal as judge! It was ridiculous! I wonder why those adults didn’t do anything about it. They should have brought up the Federalist Papers and been like “Behold, the wisdom of James Madison!”

There wasn't really one aspect of this movie that intrigued me enough to write a decent blog post about, so I'm going to write about several aspects.

I found it really interesting that George Washington was so key to everything, and that everyone, no matter what party they were in, liked him so much. It makes sense, but I'd just never realized how crucial he was. I'm glad he actually decided to come to the convention. I didn't really understand from the movie why he didn't want to come. Also, I don't know if this was just because of the movie or what, but there were some parts of the movie where James Madison sounded like John Adams, which I thought was funny but also quite appropriate. I liked how they explained that societies are amde up of warring factions, and that a small republic often gives up to these factions. They said that only in a large government with different people can no one faction gained control. I thought that was really smart, just another advantage a larger nation has over a smaller one. I thought it was sad that John Dickinson kept causing trouble with the whole representation deal because he seemed like a really smart guy and a few posts ago I said I really liked him. But you'd think he'd be smart enough to not make another big error in judgment. I thought it was cool that Benjamin Franklin suggests a prayer and says that God governs in the affairs of men. It surprised me that he did this because I thought he was a Deist who didn't take much to God and religion.

Even though this movie was kinda cheesy and parts and I couldn't get over the actor who played Alexander Hamilton, it was really helpful for me to more internalize the concepts I'd learned in the chapter.

Please discuss, in 600-800 words, the fundamental questions that the Founding Fathers wrestled with before they wrote up the Constitution.
This is the blog topic for this week.
The Founding Fathers had to research all previous governments, ask why they failed, and ask why and in what manner they succeeded. The Founding Fathers had to research all previous governments, ask why they failed, and ask why and in what manner they succeeded. They asked the question, “What does an ideal government do? What are the characteristics of an ideal government?” Well, an ideal government is fair, it protects its people, and it keeps public order. It is a government that has the best interests of the people at heart. The ideal government is wise, reasonable, efficient, compassionate, moderate, and helpful. When he asked us in class about to think about these questions moderate was not one of the adjectives I came up with, but hearing it made total sense. After all, within the Gospel, such as through the Word of Wisdom, we are taught moderation in all things. It only makes sense that the ideal government would be so as well. That word gives me another standard by which to base my judgement of our government today and whereby to construct my political leanings. Although I should remember that moderate in the way of the world and moderate in the way of God are not the same thing most of the time.
They also asked the question, “What about real world experience with governments?” What they were met with there was not so hearts-and-flowersy. Most, if not all of the world’s governments, have become tyrannical, invasive, and aggressive. There has been genocide and ethnic cleansing. Obviously, the ideal government does not match reality. So the founding fathers had to look at existent and previous government. There they found the circle of the human predicament. At the top of the circle is tyranny, then comes revolution, then anarchy at the bottom, and from anarchy comes competing groups, which goes into tyranny again. In studying these governments, they found that even in tyranny some people do benefit, which goes to show that any form of government is better than anarchy. I personally found this to be a very interesting concept. So, of course, the Founding Fathers concluded that they must have a government either way, but, much like the true church, the best earthly government was not nor had even been created on the earth at that time. So the founding fathers had to grapple with these three concepts: Government, Freedom, and Human Nature. The Founding Fathers took into account the humanity of our race, and with that to rein them in, set out to establish the ideal government for this earth. (One girl in the class brought up an interesting theory in her Just and Holy Principles paper: that the United States government as laid out by the Founding Fathers is in preparation for the government of Jesus Christ.) This government would be one that expands freedom, takes into account human nature, doesn’t give government absolute power. As one European author put it: “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” They realized that in order to keep the government officials from having too much power, there had to be the concept of the rule of law, which means that the people are ruled by a law, rather than by a personality. I also thought that concept, although very simple, was very sweet. It’s concepts like that, simple but sweet, that help me to recognize how truly enlightened these men, of different opinions and different backgrounds, were.

Wow, these posting assignments just keep getting longer and longer. I hope next week's post doesn't climb to 700-850 words.

At the dinner table scene (which is the first time we see much of Adams in the film) I liked how Adams was portrayed because even though I'd never imagined Adams specifically it seemed to me that was exactly how Adams was. Paul Giamatti plays him with such naturality you don't even question him as a believable Adams. It made me smile to see Benjamin Franklin's spectacles, and many times throughout the movie he made me laugh. I didn't realize he was such an eccentric chracter, although having known he wanted the turkey. to be the nation bird... I shoulda known. Dr. Holzapfel emphasized many times how the Founding Fathers had to buy their time for independence, and it seemed like Benjamin Franklin was the orchestrator of that. John Dickinson, in his first speech, didn't seem as eloquent and polite as Adams said he was. His accent was also really weird. I don't think the actor they picked for John Dickinson really did him justice, because in reading "John Adams" I really felt a lot of sympathy for him and I could feel how much he was respected and what a great guy he was, even though he did support reconciliation. I also think that he was the one who said the "s" word during a talk in Congress, which I think no one would have said in Congress, much less John Dickinson, being the venerable and eloquent lawyer he was. I was disappointed with that.

I very much appreciated how throughout the film it showed Abigail often, because that was definitely a window onto Adams himself. Abigail was very important to him, and it wouldn't have properly shown the man he was without giving her and the family the screentime she was given. I really identified with her opinions and thoughts. I think she was probably even more frustrated with Congress than Adams was, because she knew all that was going on, but, being a woman, could not have a voice in Congress.

I noticed the camera angles were very real and at first I was bothered by the backs of heads in the frame partially blocking main characters and such, but then I realized they were shooting it like a live, on-the-scene documentary. This really contributed to the reality of the story to me.

It was great to see Adams have such human emotions after he sees the soldiers wounded from Conchord. When you think of John Adams you think of all the lofty words he spoke and the stirring way he spoke and the ideals he stood for, but you don't often picture his face, picture his eyes wet with tears, picture the love in his eyes for his wife and family. It was funny because in watching this movie Adams seemed more human and at the same time greater than before.

Although I'm sure I read it in this class before, I didn't realize exactly how important Virginia was in the negotiations. I also didn't realize how tall George Washington was. I thought his character was PERFECT. His face wasn't good-looking, but his voice was so leadership-filled; he sounded like Liam Neeson, and we all know if Liam Neeson asked us to do something we'd do it right away, and that's probably how George Washington was too. I liked how he said he felt he wasn't equal to the task, because I think all great leaders have though that, which is why they didn't get power-hungry and become corrupted. The interchange between Jefferson and Adams when Jefferson asked him the write the Declaration, and then the meeting of the Committee afterward was very moving and funny at the same time. It felt so real to me, because a lot of the time that's how life is, moving and great one moment, surpring the next, and then totally hilarious the next. I appreciated how they focused on John Adams and how when he was fighting for independence Benjamin Franklin told him that he seemed "quite carried out of himself". It really helps the audience to recognize God's hand in this and to recognize the Spirit's influence on him and on the other members of Congress.

I was very grateful for the chance to blog about this because there were a lot of things during our tour I didn’t get to say.

Putting the tour aside for a moment, I really liked the scripture (Moses 6:63) at the beginning of the pamphlet, which talked about how all things, both temporal and spiritual, are made to bear record of Heavenly Father. I’ve always been a big fan of looking to nature and to natural processes and seeing how nothing but God could have a played a role in their creation. I own the series Planet Earth and it’s just incredible to learn about all the stuff that goes on in nature and all of the beautiful beautiful sights. I don’t understand how there could be such beauty in the world on accident, not to mention how everything works out and how most of nature is so dependent on light, just how we as humanity should be dependent on the light of Christ.

At the beginning of the tour there was a sculpture called “God steadying the Ark”. Even though we didn’t talk about hat sculpture, I had my eye on and it was one of my favorites. I loved the style of the piece and I just loved the tender expression on God’s face and how he cuddled the ark in his arms. The Daily Bread painting was interesting. I liked learning about what the different colors represented. I wanted to ask if there was any specific reason geraniums were used, but then I figured it was because they are a pretty humble flower. In the pamphlet it doesn’t say anything about a geranium being a humble flower but it does say something about fragrance, which I thought was weird because geraniums smell disgusting. I also wondered what the significance was of the woman looking so masculine; her hair was short and she didn’t really have any curves.

The painting by Man of Sorrows by Christopher Young I thought was really beautiful. I was surprised because the wood on the cross actually looked like beautiful wood, and Jesus looked in peak condition,. This surprised me just because a lot of the other paintings of his bare chest show him to be very bony and skeletal oftentimes. I know other members of the class treated his muscles with skepticism, but it is in the Word of Wisdom that we should exercise, and Jesus was a carpenter, so I don’t see why it is unreasonable for him to have a great physique, but I do understand that maybe he wasn’t quite so “modelesque” in real life. Also, before the lady mentioned that a violinist thought that he looked like he was holding an instrument, I thought, “Wow, he looks like he’s holding the cross like a violin,” but I didn’t say it because I don’t actually play the violin and didn’t want someone to think “Uh, actually no it’s not”. But then she said that and I was like, “Sweet”.

My other favorite painting was the one with the red and white fabrics on the chairs. I thought a lot of really good comments were made about it. I liked how it was hard to tell exactly where the floor was and how the lower chair was tipped over. It was beautiful how the white fabric was just illuminated and how the red was reflected in the white fabric. It was just a really cool painting.

I really appreciate us going through the Declaration of Independence in class. My professor, Dr. Holzapfel, or Bro. H as the TAs affectionately call him, was very genuine and powerful when he took us through a discussion and reading of the Declaration of Independence.

We read a draft of the Declaration of Independence and we learned that Jefferson initially wrote it condemning slavery, and blaming Britain for it. Now this is a very interesting thing to me, because Jefferson himself owned slaves and believed in the inferiority of the black race. However, he was always very much concerned with the stability of the nation, and in his mind slavery would not contribute. Although his other thoughts on slavery were flawed, this one was certainly correct. It's another testimony to me that although the Founding Fathers were not perfect, they were inspired to do what they did.

In the final version of Declaration of Independence it is written that all are created equal and all have certain rights. Although individuals having certain rights was not a new concept, the idea that governments should be organized to protect those rights was a new concept. The Declaration says that any government that doesn't protect those rights is wrong. Notice, it does not specify what kind of government, whether democracy, republic, theocracy, whatever. It just states in this document deemed inspired by the apostles and prophets of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that any government that doesn't protect those rights is wrong. The Founding Fathers were inspired to identify principles that could be used in other governments.
The Declaration also states that if the government does not protect those rights, the people have the right, nay, the duty, to rebel. This is interesting to me from a Gospel perspective because even though one of our Articles of Faith says that we believe in being subject to kings, rulers, and magistrates in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law, the Declaration and the Church, by supporting the Declaration and through other mediums, support rebellion when it comes to standing up for one’s rights. For example, those in Nazi Germany who hid Jews and ran underground newspapers and such, although not obeying the laws of Germany at the time, were certainly obeying a higher law. It should be duly noted that it’s not like I needed this knowledge of the Declaration of Independence to legitimize the Resistance for me, but it does reinforce and strength my support and love for those who gave their lives and saved lives throughout the inhumanity of that time.