The 17th Five of 2008

.

I think maybe I'll start introducing these posts as they tend to be long and then you won't have to scroll down if you're not so inclined.

This time I'm reviewing a book about the Fighting Parson and his wife and how they reopened the road to upstate New York for Mormons everywhere, Garry Wills's parsing of Jesus's message (unlike me, he leaves off the s on s-terminating names), a crappy comic, a classic (and excellent Mormon novel) and one of the few scary books for children that actually gots the stuff.

Enjoy!


085) A Lion and a Lamb> by Rand H. Packer, finished September 20

This book has a lot of typos, some amateurish touches, is obviously written by a family member, forgets some of its original theses as it goes along.

But this book is also about a fascinating story from Church history, a pair of wonderful characters, and is charming and delightful in the way I praised Added Upon for.

In 1915, Willard and Rebecca Bean were called to leave their Utah home and move to New York, to live in the home Joseph Smith grew up in and make some friends. Which was tough. The people of Palmyra hated the Mormons and weren't shy to show it.

Lucky Willard was a champion boxer.

But, in pure Almaic fashion, his weekly preaching won over way more people than a couple knocked noggins ever did. By the end of their quarter century in New York, they were among the most respected and beloved citizens of their town and the Church was well on its way to the Hill Cumorah Pageant and a Palymra Temple.

The tale is a lovely and kind look at a lovely and kind couple. (And don't pay the $90 dollars you'll be asked to at Amazon. The publisher has a much better offer.)

Thanks, Mom and Dad. Good Coast Guard Day present.

just over a month

084) What Jesus Meant by Garry Wills, finished September 20

Loved this book. And since Willis has written a couple sequels (What the Gospels Meant, What Paul Meant), you might guess I'll head there next. But that's because you don't know Garry Wills like I know Garry Wills.

My first Garry Wills book, Certain Trumpets, I received from a professor for getting the highest score on a test. (All professors should do this.) Certain Trumpets is a book about types of leadership and it looks at a leader type, someone who exemplifies that type of leadership, and someone who is quite the opposite. For instance, King David was a charismatic leader (someone who comes to power by force of personality) and his son, Solomon, was the opposite --- his kingship was merely inherited and he ran the ship like a dull bureaucrat. Other examples of leadership included JFK and MLK and people known neither by their initials nor in the Bible. It was a great book. I loved it and have been meaning to go back to it since I first read it, about a decade ago.

Wills, at that time, was best known for his Pulitzer Prize-winning Lincoln at Gettysburg. I'm a huge Lincolnphile so that book's been high on my list ever since.

But I saw What Jesus Meant on remainder and picked it up (foreward title: "Christ Not a Christian) and loved it immediately.

He starts by laughing at WWJD? because, let's face it, do you want your kid, at twelve years old, disappearing in the big city? Destroy someone's herd of pigs? Hang out with beggars and prostitutes? Allow himself to be killed only to raise himself from the dead (even if your kid could do that)? Obviously, being a Christian doesn't boil down to doing exactly What Jesus Did --- so what does it mean?

Intriguing start. Cheap price. I bought the book.

As a Mormon aside, yes, there are doctrinal points I disagree with Wills about, but in fact these are very few. Mostly I found his book enlightening, inspiring and instructive. I learned things. Plus its short and fun and a good read. I recommend it to anyone.

So which Wills book do I want to read next? Why I Am a Catholic. Because I had no idea devout Catholics could be so incredibly antipapist. And I got to know how he reconciles that.

Buy your own copy. (It's cheap.)

And then as you read, ask yourself: How Christian am I? Jesus gave with no expectation of return. When was the last time I had someone over for dinner that could never possibly feed me back? There's a Christian goal I could obtain. So why does it seem so hard?

The books posits many opportunities for reflection, self examination, and worship. Because, when you and Garry Wills are gathered in his name, he will be there. I suspect. I might be pushing it, but probably not.

I'll stop talking now.....

just under a month

083) The Lost Ones by Steve Niles et al, finished September 18

So Mr Niles writes the script and different artists draw different portions of the story in different styles. Intriguing idea.

Too bad it sucked.

I mean: really really sucked.

a day

082) Dorian by Nephi Anderson, finished September 17

I think I just had a Jane Austen experience.

You know how Jane Austen fans just swoon over her antiquated but perfect prose and clever characters and still-real situations?

So before I get too slobbery, I'm going to talk about what I didn't like about this book.

Like Added Upon, Dorian could get a bit preachy. Usually this was done via the longwinded but much beloved Uncle Zed. There were moments it went on a little long, but it was never as bad as in Added Upon or, say, Victor Hugo's rhapsodies about the Parisian sewer system.

I hate hate HATE the word "drugged." The book would have been vastly better without it. Thank goodness it only appeared once in the entire volume.

I could write a paper about the three deaths (four, really, or five --- depends how you count --- if you include the ones that occur offscreen, but I wasn't too enthralled with the final one. I can say much positive about it as a storytelling choice, but in the end it may have been just too easy.

And that's about it for dislikes. There are other elements I might not be able to stand in a modern novel, but it's like listening to foreign pop music: Clichés I would detest in American music become delightful if sung in French or Javanese. (Have you noticed this?) Dorian dates to 1921. It's charming.

Some things not directly related to my liking the book but that were fascinating all the same:

how the Sabbath was observed by Mormons in 1921
rural attitudes to education in 1921
vestigial class structure in 1921 Mormon society
et cetera

Anyway, Dorian.

The title character is a big country boy who lives with his widowed mother and has a penchant for books. If you were ever sent to town to buy some decent shoes and came home with David Copperfield instead, this book is for you.

You could, I suppose, reduce this book to "Dorian's Adventures in Love", but that does such disservice to the beauty of this book. I can understand why other people are angry Added Upon's fame has led to Mormons forgetting Anderson's other books.

The first death shocked me. Horrified me! In fact, I was shocked and horrified many times. But these shocks and horrors felt so true, so honest, so lifelike that I only felt more deeply for the characters. I love these characters. Dorian and I don't have an awful lot in common, but I think highly of him as a person and would love to meet him. And he's so well drawn it feels more like "Too bad he must be dead by now" than "Too bad he never actually existed."

I don't have easy access to other Anderson books, but I'll be keeping my eyes open.

And, in the meantime, I'm returning Dorian to the Berkeley Ward Library. It'll be waiting for you.

about a month

081) If You Want to Scare Yourself by Angela Sommer-Bodenburg, translated by Rene Vera Cafiero, with illustrations by Helga Spiess; finished September 12

I don't know who's to blame for this volume's remarkably ugly cover (beyond all people in children's publishing back in 1989), but I really thought this book would be a waste of time. I picked it up off a sidewalk because I was about to see a kid I though might like it, but he rejected it straight out. So it's been in the Lapper since then. Until this afternoon, rather, when the Big O and I got in it to move it to the driveway. He saw it and wanted it and I said, okay, sure, whatever, and we started reading it; I read, holding the book with one hand while batting or pitching with the other hand.

And what a wonderful surprise awaited within! First of all, the interior illustrations were pretty darn great--actually creepy, which was a surprise. In fact, the text itself was creepy, which never happens in collections of "scary" stories for kids. (Maybe because this is a German book?) There were moments of genuine eeriness even for me.



The werewolf story in particular really grabbed the Big O.

He's been interested in scary stories for a while, but this is the first one that really worked for him. I hope that doesn't mean he'll end up in our bed tonight....

So! Recommended! And available for practically free plus shipping!

(Incidentally, this is the first "long" book the O and I have finished in quite a while. In part because even though he likes it, he's not that thrilled about Mr. Popper's Penguins (???) and so we've been working on it for almost a year. Lady Steed just started on Charlotte's Web with him however, and that does seem to be going better.)

about three hours

Previously:

080) Madman Gargantua by Mike Allred with Laura Allred, finished September 9
079) Star Wars by George Lucas, finished September 9
078) Angel Falling Softly by Eugene Woodbury, finished September 1
077) The Night Listener by Armistead Maupin finished August 29
076) Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, finished August 25
075) Added Upon by Nephi Anderson, finished August 24
074) The Last Flower by James Thurber, finished August 19
073) Reinventing Comics: How Imagination and Technology Are Revolutionizing an Art Form by Scott McCloud, finished August 17
072) The Trial of Colonel Sweeto and Other Stories by Nicholas Gurewitch, finished August 12
071) The Dreamer by Will Eisner, finished August 12
070) The Blot by Tom Neely, finished August 6
069) Strange Stories for Strange Kids edited by Art Spiegelman and Francoise Mouly, finished August 6
068) Survival Rates by Mary Clyde, finished July 30
067) A Week in October by Elizabeth Subercaseaux, translated by Marina Harss, finished July 29
066) Lehi in the Desert & The World of the Jaredites by Hugh Nibley, Ph. D., finished July 29
065) A Son Is Forever by various, finished July 29
064) Good ol' Snoopy by Charles M. Schultz, finished July 13
063) Embroideries by Marjane Satrapi, finished July 13
062) A Doré Treasury edited by James Stevens, finished July 12?
061) Slaughterhouse-Five or The Children's Crusade: A Duty-Dance with Death by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.; finished July 8
060) The Enoch Letters by Neal A. Maxwell, finished July
059) Sock Monkey: The Inches Incident by Tony Millionaire, finished July 3
058) The Number 73304-23-4153-6-96-8 by Thomas Ott, finished July 2
057) Chicken with Plums by Marjane Satrapi, finished July 1
056) 300 by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, finished June 16
055) Fox Bunny Funny by Andy Hartzell, finished June 16
054) Where Did I Leave My Glasses?: The What, When, and Why of Normal Memory Loss by Martha Weinman Lear, finished June 15
053) The Mystery Guest by Grégoire Bouillier, trans. Lorin Stein, finished June 14
052) The Legend of Spud Murphy by Eoin Colfer, finished June 10
051) Good Bones and Simple Murders by Margaret Atwood, finished June 10
050) Created in Darkness by Troubled Americans: The Best of McSweeney's, Humor Category edited by D. Eggers, K. Shay, L. Epstein, J. Warner and S. Kleid, finished June 9
049) Bikeman by Thomas F. Flynn, finished June 5
048) Fool Moon by Jim Butcher, finished June 5
047) The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick, finished June 2
046) Sixty Poems by Charles Simic, finished May 30
045) Replay by Ken Grimwood, finished May 28
044) The Age of the Conglomerates: A Novel of the Future by Thomas Nevins, finished May 27
043) W;t by Margaret Edson, finished April 19
042) Halo and Sprocket Volume 1: Welcome to Humanity by Kerry Cullen, finished May 17
041) Storm Front by Jim Butcher, finished May 16>
040) 20th Century Ghosts by Joe Hill, finished May 9
039) I Am the President of Ice Cream by Geoff Sebesta, finished May 4
038) On Chesil Beach by Ian McEwan, finished May 3
037) The Meaning of Everything: The Story of the Oxford English Dictionary by Simon Winchester, finished May Day
036) The Drifting Classroom Vol. 1 by Kazuo Umezu, finished April 30
035) The Complete Peanuts 1965 - 1966 by Charles M. Schulz, finished April 29
034) Nextwave: Agents Of H.A.T.E Volume 1: This Is What They Want by Warren Ellis et Stuart Immonen et al, finished April 29
033) Batman: Hush, Vol. 2 by Jeph Loeb et al, finished April 29
032) Batman: Hush, Vol. 1 by Jeph Loeb et al, finished April 28
031) Chéri by Colette, finished April 17
030) Wyrd Sisters by Terry Pratchett, finished April 13
029) Animal Farm by George Orwell, finished April 8
028) Macbeth by William Shakespeare, finished April 7
027) On the Road to Heaven by Coke Newell, finished April 4
026) The Great American Citizenship Quiz: Can You Pass Your Own Country's Citizenship Test? by Solomon M. Skolnick, finished March 23
025) Long After Dark by Todd Robert Petersen, finished March 23
024) The Lies of Locke Lamora by Scott Lynch, finished March 21
023) Robot Dreams by Sara Varon, finished March 10
022) The Complete Peanuts 1963-1964 by Charles M. Schulz, finished March 9
021) Spoon River Anthology by Edgar Lee Masters, finished March 7
020) Unorthodox Practices by Marissa Piesman, finished March 5
019) Happy Hour at Casa Dracula by Marta Acosta, finished March 4
018) A War of Gifts: An Ender Story by Orson Scott Card, finished Leap Day
017) Watership Down by Richard Adams, finished February 26
016) Old Boy Volume One by Garon Tsuchiya and Nobuaki Minegishi, finished February 25
015) Case Histories by Kate Atkinson, finished February 18
014) Ultimate Spider-Man: Ultimate Collection, Vol. 1 by Brian Michael Bendis and Mark Bagley, finished February 15
013) Trusting Jesus by Jeffrey R. Holland, finished February 11
012) Fables: 1001 Nights of Snowfall by Bill Willingham et al., finished February 11
011) Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife by Mary Roach, finished February 4
010) The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold, finished February 3
009) American Born Chinese by Gene Luen Yang, finished LDotFMotNY
008) Zombification: Stories from National Public Radio by Andrei Codrescu, finished January 22
007) Marriage Lines: Notes of a Student Husband by Ogden Nash, finished January 22
006) Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen, finished January 20
005) The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time by Douglas Adams, finished January 14
004) Lord of the Flies by William Golding, finished January 10
003) Rising Sun by Michael Crichton, finished January 7
002) The Marketing of Sister B by Linda Hoffman Kimball, finished January 2
001) Animal Farm by George Orwell, finished January 1



The First Five ( 001 / 005 )
The Second Five ( 005 / 010 )
The Third Five ( 011 / 015 )
The Fourth Five ( 016 / 020 )
The Fifth Five ( 021 / 025 )
The Sixth Five ( 026 / 030 )
The Seventh Five ( 031 / 035 )
The Eighth Five ( 036 / 040 )
The Ninth Five ( 041 / 045 )
The Tenth Five ( 046 / 050)
The Eleventh Five ( 051 / 055)
The Twelfth Five ( 056 / 060)
The Thirteenth Five ( 061 / 065)
The Fourteenth Five ( 066 / 070)
The Fifteenth Five ( 071 / 075)
The Sixteenth Five ( 076 / 080)

Svithe regarding living prophets

.

Not often in my life have I had occasion to Follow the Prophet when it wasn't relatively simple and already consistent with my intellectual understandings.

But a faith that never leaves the intellect's comfort zone is a faith untested.

And so I have decided to obey.

last week's svithe

The Erotic in LDS Lit Part V: Can there be a “Moral Pornography”?

.

(Reminder: Next week is the final part of this series. In that part I intend to reply to the comments and questions left in the comments section or sent to me through other means. If you've been itching to say something, please do.)

.

If you fear, fear not. If you fear not, fear.
---J. Reuben Clark

.

In this episode, we need to redefine our terms, specifically pornography.

I'm now defining it as something that persistently and continuously displays explicitly sexual actions for the purpose of arousing sexual feelings. I hope that after our previous discussions, we can agree that sex itself is not evil.

So now the question becomes is it possible that art existing solely to appeal to the prurient interest could also be moral? As genitals can be used for holiness or sin, so genitalious art?

My gut reaction is an emphatic NO!, pornography (as just defined) is EVIL!, but as I consider why I feel this way, I have to recognize these:

1. Most pornographic art depicts unholy sex -- barroom encounters, threesomes, adultery, handymen.

2. Most pornography is sold to people whose intentions are far from holy by people whose intentions are far from holy.

3. Most pornography is designed to take people out of themselves and into a world where sex with just about anything is the natural and necessary way. It's all about compulsion and a lack of control over self.

4. Most pornography utterly fails to recognize the greatness of human souls. Instead, people are reduced to meat-rubbing machines: the characters, the producers, the consumers.

5. Most pornography is utterly fails to present sexuality as having consequences.

All of those things are awful, make no mistake, but they are not inherent in the definition I just proposed: something that persistently and continuously deals with explicitly sexual actions for the purpose of arousing sexual feelings.

Let's go through those five terribles again:

1. Pornography (as defined) could depict holy, virtuous sex within a marriage.

2. Pornography (as defined) could exist without the need of evil people. In fact, if created as in #1, it might even make such people uncomfortable.

3. Pornography (as defined) could still allow for sexual responsibility and keep the consumer within the bounds of his or her real world.

4. Pornography (as defined) could recognize the greatness of the human soul. Sex is a gift of God to such souls. Let's not forget that Adam knew Eve, and it was good.

5. Pornography (as defined) could allow for the existence of consequence, whether it focused on said consequences or not.

Now for my next questions: Even if, theoretically, pornography could meet the above criteria, could it in fact then be moral? Is such a moral pornography even possible? If so, should it be attempted?

Before I take a stab at these questions, I want to quote that Jorgensen guy who starred in Part II: "I suggest that any [immoral] 'pornographic event' may involve three elements: a [immoral] porn author, a [immoral] porn text, and a [immoral] porn reader. In fact, it seems to me that the [immoral] porn event seldom requires all three, though it always requires one: just a [immoral] porn reader." In other words, even if we do find room for a moral pornography, it could still be used to evil effect. (Which will beg the question, should one even attempt a moral pornography [if possible]; but one thing at a time, people. One thing at a time.)

So, from now on, pornography is just about sex, without moral judgment. If we want to talk about immoral pornographies, we can refer to them as obscenity, that we may have a distinction.

I view pornography as a sex act. A sex act between brains (that often leads to sex acts of the body). In my understanding of doctrine, sex acts, to be moral, are to be confined to married couples, two people, shared between them. Ergo, a moral pornography would be confined to a married couple, two people, and shared between them.

Scene: the bedroom

Cast: man and wife

Action: taking turns writing an explicit tale about themselves in a notebook as they lounge on the bed (or reading one they had previously written)

Result: horniness

Nonresult: anyone else ever reading that notebook

I think this scene represents a moral pornography. Similarly, I wouldn't see anything wrong with a couple filming themselves for their own enjoyment later. (I think it's crazy just because you never know what could happen to such footage, given enough time, but I don't think there would be anything wrong with it. Two married people and no one else were involved in production or later enjoyment thereof. This is a moral pornography.

So I'm going to say yes: a moral pornography is possible. If written by a married couple about themselves and never passing outside their possession, then yes: definitely moral. The sex act or pornography is being kept within the bounds set by God Almighty and is no less legal than any other two-person sexual activity a couple might choose to pursue.

Well that was easy.

So let's make it more difficult and enter a gray area: are there other pornographies that could be moral?

As mentioned above, most pornography is fantasy-based. Consequence-free sex with impossibly lovely people who are impossibly capable of . . . who knows. Crazy sex stuff, no doubt.

If such pornography were shared between a couple, the result, I suspect, would likely not result in their brains sharing a sexual experience, even if their bodies did. More likely would be their brains floating off to sex with the impossible person. This I would call adultery and decidedly unholy.

You'll remember that in my example above, the couple was writing pornography with themselves as the characters. What if they wrote about some other couple's "holy sex"? The rest of my scenario remains the same, but now, instead of Dick and Tracy writing about Dick and Tracy, they're writing about the made-up Jim and Dandy. Jim and Dandy are also married and have a righteous sexual relationship. They're not real. Are we still within the bounds of a moral pornography?

I'm not going to say from here on out whether a scenario is representative of a moral pornography or not. I will describe a circumstance and you can decide for yourself.

Dick and Tracy buy a book of pornography about a married couple. The story has been personalized (like those kids' books), so although someone else wrote the story, it is about Dick and Tracy, and they read and enjoy together titillating stories about themselves: the beach sex they never had, et cetera.

Dick and Tracy buy a book that is endlessly explicit as it explores a fictional LDS couple's sex life. The fictional couple never does anything inappropriate for an LDS couple to do, but the book was written by a third party and it is that third party's imagination that is arousing the brains of Dick and Tracy.

Dick and Tracy buy a book with short fictional tales of explicit sexuality between married couples for the express purpose of making it easier for them (Dick and Tracy) to have more frequent sex with each other.

Dick and Tracy read more traditional pornography for the purpose of providing them with sexual scenarios to enact.

Okay, that's enough.

I will argue that my original example of a moral pornography is moral. Couples can do whatever they want in the bedroom, so long as it stays between them. My other examples I'm less certain of because they do involve other people, namely the creator of the text their reading and the fictional characters they're reading about. This does not mean I am rejecting the morality of such uses, but I'm skeptical and uncertain.

I've spent a lot of time arguing for sexual inclusion in literature, even LDS literature. But reading something for the sole purpose of sexual arousal is no longer what Levi Peterson called healthy: ". . . treating the broad range of experience . . . in viewing clearly the full spectrum of human act and emotion . . . [including sex]." Pornography necessarily avoids the full spectrum--it's focus is sex. And even if it's an honest and true depiction of holy sex, it's still totally focused on that one aspect of life. But then--no one suggests a book totally focused on charity or kindness or growing your investment portfolio is necessarily evil or "pornographic" (or obscene). And I'm not sure a text focused entirely on sex is necessarily bad either. The books I mentioned in Part IV are a completely focused on sex as any fictional work, but I heartily recommended them.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks is worried about "promotional literature of illicit sexual relations." I want to be clear that when I hypothesize about a moral pornography, I am explicitly rejected that kind of pornography. I think it is evil and dangerous and should be diligently avoided.

In the same talk, Elder Oaks quoted Jacob's speech on sexual morality:

In the second chapter of the book that bears his name, Jacob condemns men for their “whoredoms” (Jacob 2:23, 28). He told them they had “broken the hearts of [their] tender wives, and lost the confidence of [their] children, because of [their] bad examples before them” (Jacob 2:35).

What were these grossly wicked “whoredoms”? No doubt some men were already guilty of evil acts. But the main focus of Jacob’s great sermon was not with evil acts completed, but with evil acts contemplated.

Jacob began his sermon by telling the men that “as yet, [they had] been obedient unto the word of the Lord” (Jacob 2:4). However, he then told them he knew their thoughts, that they were “beginning to labor in sin, which sin appeareth very abominable … unto God” (Jacob 2:5). “I must testify unto you concerning the wickedness of your hearts” (Jacob 2:6), he added. Jacob was speaking as Jesus spoke when He said, “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:28; see also 3 Ne. 12:28; D&C 59:6; D&C 63:16).

If a moral pornography is possible, then, it will be, as all things, recognized by its fruits. If a pornographic work draws a husband and wife closer together sexually, morally, spiritually, physically, intellectually, then it is moral. If if fails, if it brings unholy sexual desires into their sacred space, if it pulls them apart, if it causes them to grow apart, then it is evil.

Which brings us to the third of my original questions: If a moral pornography is theoretically possible, would it then be okay to attempt it?

In terms of our Definitely Moral scenario, knock yourself out. Just make sure you don't leave it at the bus stop.

In terms of our other Possibly Moral scenarios, I don't know. Would it be moral for me to write a graphically sexual tale (of a married couple who treat each other with love and respect, of course) marketed specifically for married couples and no one else? I know such a tale could be turned to immorality by some. I know some unrighteous men may use it to manipulate their wives (and vice versa). But if my intentions were pure...?

Remember the idea that sex, like temple ceremonies, is not secret but sacred? Would it be appropriate for a writer to add his sexual knowledge (no matter how holily obtained) to the bedroom of another? If a writer wrote a short story that would only be appropriate to read while in a Celestial Room, would that be okay? I'm not going to write it!

I don't have a final answer to this question. I will say that a moral pornography seems to be theoretically possible. I will also say that pursuit thereof might be unsafe.

But see, this is a reason I love being Mormon. As Joseph Smith said, "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves."

Among these correct principles is this:

Sex is an important part of human existence.

Sex is for the use and pleasure of married couples.

And so forth. I don't want to belabor any points or answer any questions I don't have answers to. In next week's post (the final one in this series) I will address the questions and comments which have been left in all five posts this far. If you missed one, click the lds-eros tag at the bottom of this post and catch up.

Otherwise, I'm leaving you with a song I dearly love and which is entirely about holy sex: this virtuous married love I've been talking about from the beginning. "Cradle of Love" (written by Paul Kelly and sung by Kelly Willis) is a beautiful example of what can be done when we include the erotic as we sculpt a literature of life.

Enjoy.

Pronunciation question

.

Please comment on the two names below. How would you pronounce them? Do they give you trouble?

Hemn

Djed

Thank you.

Uncle Zed's Svithe

.

"There are three principles in the law of
progress, all of them important: First, there must be an exercise of the
will by the candidate for progression. He must be willing to advance and
have a desire to act for himself. That is the principle of free agency.
Second, he must be willing to receive help from a higher source; that
is, he must place himself in a condition to receive life and light from
the source of life and light. Third, he must be unselfish, willing,
eager to share all good with others. The lack of any of these will prove
a serious hindrance. We see this everywhere in the world.

"Coming back now to the application I mentioned. If it is God's work
and glory to labor for those below Him, why should not we, His sons
and daughters, follow His example as far as possible in our sphere of
action? If we are ever to become like Him we must follow in His steps
and do the things which He has done. Our work, also must be to help
along the road to salvation those who are lower down, those who are more
ignorant and are weaker than we."

Thank you, Uncle Zed. Not exactly PC, you dirty old hick, but probably good advice all the same.

last week's svithe