Thought of the Month

Funny yet enlightening: at what age did cellulite turn from being cute to unfavorable? Think about it, as a baby our dimpled skin was something to be proud of; people would smile and shower us with compliments.  Now we are scrutinized for actually growing into our skin, and obsess about it's dwelling places rather than celebrate the beauty of its existence.  My motto is "if it is something you can't control, let it go!"  This epiphany has caused me to spread the word that I declare today—August 16— as National Cellulite Day.  A  day when every woman (and man) can look in the mirror and be proud of the dimpled cheeks and thighs staring back at them. . . Let's change the worlds perception of cellulite one butt at a time!     

Knowledge

"I have gone about separating fact from fiction, faith from fantasy, and essentials from non-essentials. And I must encourage students to learn all they can about the subjects of their interest, not being fearful of whatever truth they find." 

My adorable cousin Sharisse sent this article to me in response to this semi-battle I think most LDS students face in an academic setting—secular knowledge vs. religious belief.  Can the two co-exist?  Do they always have to create controversial conversations that lead to heated debates?  Does the act of expanding our minds open us up to the possibility of dislocating our faith? 

I would answer no to all of these questions.  As a 90-year old graduate at the University of Washington recently stated to those continuing their education: “get all the education you can”, I too believe that education makes us better human beings, or at least has the capability to do so if we allow it.  I think one of the problems that LDS students face is the fear of “worldly” knowledge shaking their faith.  And yet the Lord asks of us in D&C 88:118-119: “And as all have not ^afaith, seek ye diligently and ^bteach one another words of ^cwisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best ^dbooks words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith. ^aOrganize yourselves; prepare every needful thing; and establish a ^bhouse, even a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God”. 

As this professor eloquently stated, just because someone makes a claim about something “factual” does not mean truth is automatically asserted.  Truth, as my English professor once said to our class in departing BYU, is something you need to push, something you need to continue to search for by asking hard questions, by seeking to understand and by continuing to be a student of learning the rest of your life.  Going back to my previous statement about education making us better members of humanity, I think education can not only bring us out of ignorance but it has the ability to teach us compassion, to give us understanding, and to help us respect those outside of our “community;” those who may not share our religious beliefs but STILL have an equal footing in the eyes of the Lord, for as Peter once said: “Of a truth I perceive that God is no ^arespecter of persons” (Acts 10:34).

Thank you for sharing this with me; I think it was beautifully stated in a way that makes all of us who unnecessarily fear knowledge, exhale a sigh of relief! J

(I bolded parts I personally thought were most insightful).

 (Excerpts from) RUGS AND PILLARS:

How I View Myself as a Teacher at an LDS University.

(Prepared for Sunstone TheologicalSymposium

Panel on "Pillars of My Faith," August 21, 1986)

James B. Allen

If anyone can go from Heaven to Hell and back again in two minutes or less, I did it one day in the mid-1960s during a surprising conversation with a student. That conversation so affected me in its implications that I have never forgotten it. "Brother Allen," I can still hear her say, "I want you to know that in your Church History class you pulled the rug right out from under my testimony--but you replaced it with pillars that can never be shaken!" At first I was stunned, and for a moment my mind could not get past the first half of her statement. What had I done or said? How could I possibly have "pulled the rug" from under anyone's faith in the Church I had worked so hard all my life to support, sustain, and bear witness of?

I dimly heard myself asking the student what she meant, but as she began to answer I still worried. Did the "rug pulling" take place all at once and, for a time, leave a void of doubt? Or, had the pulling out and replacement process proceeded somewhat smoothly and simultaneously? I desperately hoped so, as my mind gradually tuned in again to what my student was saying.

I'm not sure she had the "rug" very well defined in her mind, but I sensed that it consisted of at least two things: a lack of knowledge, and a tendency to place more faith in individuals than in what we in the Church call the testimony of the spirit. The "pillars," on the other hand, were certain intellectual and spiritual tools that I hoped I could help all my students acquire and learn how to use.

Most of these tools were attitudinal in nature. One, for example, was simply the love of knowledge--the thirst for information and understanding that comes as one begins to live the life of the mind and feel the profound pleasure of having a whole new world open up through the process of thoughtful reading and inquiry--especially in the field of history. Another tool, however, was the realization that knowledge of historical facts is not necessarily synonymous with knowledge of "truth." Contrary to popular myth, facts seldom, if ever, speak for themselves. Rather, historians and other scholars constantly sort, analyze, and interpret facts, both old and newly discovered, in an effort to get closer to historical "truth," and my student had begun to understand that all history, including Church history, is interpretive in nature and that no historian's interpretation of the facts is beyond challenge.

Another of her new tools was a mature awareness that people will be disappointed if they expect perfection, even among the Saints of God, and that one's faith in the Church should not be built upon the "arm of flesh," or the assumption that any person, even a prophet, is above human imperfections. The many times Joseph Smith was called into account for his own mistakes soon convinced my student of that. More recently, Elder Neal A. Maxwell commented on the attitude of world-famous LDS scientist Henry Eyring: "Though much of his life was spent in the midst of the ordered world of molecules, practical Henry nevertheless reminded us that, while God and His world are perfect, we are wise to make allowances in our faith for the imperfections in each other."1

A fourth pillar for my young student's slowly maturing faith was an increasing confidence in her own ability to use the power of reason in separating truth from folly and in discovering for herself patterns and principles that would help her make sense from her growing world of both religious and secular knowledge. As a hymnist once wrote:

Freedom and reason make us men;

Take these away, what are we then?

Mere animals, and just as well

The beasts may think of heaven or hell.2

Too often, my student had discovered, people appear to want their faith handed to them by others--they seem afraid to use that wonderful, God-given power of reason that separates humans from animals and is fundamental to our belief that individual salvation is really dependent upon how effectively one exercises his or her free agency. I sometimes remind students of what Elder J. Golden Kimball once said in general conference:

Some people fancy that because we have the Presidency and Apostles of the Church they will do the thinking for us. There are men and women so mentally lazy that they hardly think for themselves. To think calls for effort, which makes some men tired and wearies their souls. . . . Latter-day Saints, you must think for yourselves. No man or woman can remain in this Church on borrowed light."3

Closely connected with this was another pillar: the ability to realize that we will never, at least in this life, have all the answers either to the mysteries of the universe or the mysteries of godliness. If one's faith is based on the assumption that the gospel automatically answers all our questions, then, indeed, it is based on a rug that will slip and slide with every new vibration. My student was beginning to learn the truth of what Brigham Young said as long ago as 1855:

I am so far from believing that any government upon this earth has constitutions and laws that are perfect, that I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principles, as far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities. . . .

The laws the Lord has given us are not fully perfect, because the people could not receive them in their perfect fulness; but they can receive a little here and a little there, a little to-day and a little tomorrow, and a little more in advance of that next year, if they make a wise improvement upon every little that they receive.4

In the world of secular knowledge, some degree of uncertainty is considered necessary to the adventure of learning itself.5 I am not saying, of course, that our intellectual life should be one of total ambivalence--far from it. But we must learn to live with at least some ambivalence for that, it seems to me, only opens the door for the kind of continuing inquiry necessary to the discovery of truth as well as to the development and life of the mind. And, at least for me, it helps make life exciting. In our religious world there are many certainties, but there is much left to be discovered and revealed, and, I try to teach my LDS students, we should be excited with the possibility of helping to discover it.

I also try to teach my students that if, indeed, they succeed in their eager quest for new information, knowledge, ideas, and insights, they must also equip themselves with two more pillars that, at least in my mind, are essential to building an acceptable house of faith: humility in what one knows and charity toward those with whom one may disagree. "In essentials let there be unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity," Elder B. H. Roberts once emphasized during a general conference of the Church.6 How like the spirit of Joseph Smith, who said of Pelatiah Brown: "I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodists, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine."7

In addition to all that, I tried to teach the students in that girl's class that once they gain enough knowledge to make authoritative statements about some topics, they should never let anyone, including themselves, assume that they can make equally authoritative statements about others. I remember hearing Henry Eyring mention an experience with Albert Einstein during World War II. The two of them had been working all morning in a physics lab, and when they went out to lunch they happened to pass one of the "victory gardens" that were planted everywhere during the war. Eyring observed a bean patch and innocently asked Einstein what kind of beans they were. "I don't know," replied the greatest scientist on earth, and in re-telling the story Henry Eyring simply remarked, "You see, Einstein didn't know beans!" The point, of course, is that I may know a lot about a few things, and I can make some fairly authoritative statements on them, but this gives me no right to dogmatize on matters about which I know little or nothing.

Certainly there are many areas where I don't know beans, and I hope my students realize that. "I don't know" is a better answer than giving information that a student may later find to be untrue. If I do know something, however, it is better not to hedge or hide it, even if it seems troublesome, once the student begins to probe. At the same time, I should explain how I have gone about separating fact from fiction, faith from fantasy, and essentials from non-essentials. And I must encourage students to learn all they can about the subjects of their interest, not being fearful of whatever truth they find. I should also teach them about the possibilities of misleading through historical interpretation. Hopefully, all this will help them see reason for sometimes suspending judgement--for not jumping to conclusions whenever a new piece of information pops to the surface of their intellectual milieu.

If students respect me as a scholar, and are convinced I am not trying to hide anything from them, then they will also respect my integrity as a person. This means that when I tell them of my faith they must respect that, too. Hopefully, they also know that the fundamentals I believe in include, but are not limited to, the reality of God, the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the literal reality of Joseph Smith's visions, the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the gospel of Christ through Joseph Smith, and the importance and validity of temple work. These and other doctrinal things are as real to me as anything I may have learned in the secular world, and I try to share with my students the fact that I can no more ignore such realities in my ongoing search for truth than I can ignore the physical artifacts that may be discovered through traditional scholarly investigation.

Finally, and most important, the young lady who talked with me that day was beginning more fully to realize that while all these attitudes were important to a mature faith, even more important was the testimony of the spirit. "If you want to know whether Joseph Smith's testimony is true," I often say to students, "then you must have the same experience he had--and you can." They know, of course, I am not implying that they will see visions or heavenly beings. Rather, I am telling them that the truth of the essential foundations of the faith can be known to them only by the same process Joseph Smith went through. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God," Joseph Smith read as a young man, and when he acted on that challenge, "in faith, nothing wavering," he received his answer. All the intellectual and attitudinal pillars were clearly essential, but this one was central to the structure of the house of faith I was trying to help my students build.

Before coming to this university I had spent several years teaching in the seminary and institute program of the Church. I knew well the intellectual problems often confronted by college students as the world of secular learning literally opened the skies with torrents of new ideas and information. Frequently their newly sharpened intellectual skills led them to see things they had never seen before, and find implications they had never found before, in both the history and the teachings of the Church. At times they also discovered new information about the past that seemed to fly in the face of something they had been taught as youngsters: some weakness or mistake, some heretofore unknown conflict, a change in some Church practice, or a modification in some Church teaching. Some who came with troubled questions seemed to want me to tell them that such bothersome things simply hadn't happened. Instead, I tried to help them understand how both the human and the divine could operate within the Church, and why they should not be surprised to see evidence of both in their study of Church history. I also tried to give them the tools by which they could separate essentials from non-essentials, and some deeper insight into how to gain the testimony of the spirit. No longer, I told them, could they rely on someone else's testimony--it was "do it yourself time."

One example was related to Joseph Smith's first vision. During Joseph Smith's lifetime he actually presented various differing accounts of the vision, and in the late 1960s I was invited to write about this in the pages of the Improvement Era. I was a bit dismayed that some people found it bothersome to their faith to learn that there might be some differences between the accounts. To me, it was only natural to assume that the prophet might emphasize different points as he talked to different people, or had different purposes, at different times. My training as a historian made that seem self-evident. I expected to find differences, but none that would negate the authenticity of the official account the prophet prepared for publication in 1838. Students, however, were asking about it, and I saw my article not only as a chance to say something in print that I believed deeply, but also as a tool that might help students as they wrestled with this kind of new information. "We believe," I wrote, "that Joseph Smith was telling the truth each time he related his experiences," and then I attempted to weave the various accounts into a composite analysis of this sacred experience in order to show their combined value and consistency. "We believe," of course, was an editorial expression, which really meant "I believe." And I could say that honestly because I had studied all of the accounts, and I had received my own confirming testimony of the integrity of Joseph Smith. There were, and still are, a lot of things about the Church that I did not know and did not understand, but on this I was sure, and I could say what I had to say to friends, students, and scholarly colleagues alike, whether they were in or out of the Church. "In the final analysis," I concluded, "the First Vision becomes truly meaningful in a personal way only when one seeks, as Joseph Smith sought, to reach God through private, earnest supplication."8

A few years later I had occasion to publish a different kind of article, that even more directly grew out of the needs of many of my students. In this case I deliberately used a historical event to help students work through their own contemporary problems related to the Church. I had been studying the debates in Utah, in 1919, over whether or not the United States should join the League of Nations. At the same time, I seemed to be inundated by students who were concerned with certain intense political controversies within the Church, and particularly with the fact that even some Church leaders seemed to disagree on political matters. Some of these students seemed to assume that there should be some final, authoritative, Church position even on the political issues of the day. Perhaps ironically, I had discovered that back in 1919 there were not only differences among Church leaders on the League of Nations, but that they did not hesitate to make their differences known. Even the President of the Church, Heber J. Grant, made a public statement supporting the League, but in doing so he made it clear that this was nothing more than a personal opinion, and he would never use the authority of the scriptures, or his position in the Church, to impose that view on others. In short, it seemed to me, what happened in 1919 wonderfully demonstrated the fact that one's testimony of the gospel should never compel a person to take particular political positions. What a golden opportunity, I thought, to use the events of the past to help students wrestle with their own problems of the present. Here was a way to build a pillar. So I wrote a speech, presented it before the Mormon History Association, and was able to get it published where it could become readily available to students and colleagues alike. I didn't mention contemporary political problems, but discussed in detail what had happened in 1919 and tried to draw important inferences from it. Differences of opinion are to be expected, I tried to show, but the important thing is to avoid bitterness in debate and accusations of lack of faith--something that had occurred, unfortunately, among certain unthinking members of the Church, and something that President Grant decried. As he talked to the Church about the controversy, in fact, he quoted something that President John Taylor had said to him when he was a young apostle:

My boy, never forget that when you are in the line of your duty your heart will be full of love and forgiveness. . . . You can know the difference between the Spirit of the Lord and the spirit of the adversary, when you find that you are happy and contended, that you love your fellows, that you are anxious for their welfare; and you can tell that you do not have that spirit when you are full of animosity and feel that you would like to mow somebody down.

"And so the Church went on," I began my concluding paragraph, and what followed was really my personal message to my students:

Perhaps at no time in its history had there been such divergence of opinion among its leaders, but it seemed to have little effect upon their working together in harmony to build the Kingdom. Does this answer the question as to whether they should have been unified? Perhaps not, but at least it demonstrates that, in this instance, those who really wanted to follow the example of their leaders would not avoid debate or the expression of personal opinion, but would refuse to let that opinion stand in the way of good will based on genuine respect for the right and responsibility of each man to think and speak for himself on such issues. In this case there is a moral in history.9

Frequently I think back on that early, unsettling conversation about rugs and pillars, and on my determination to set the example for students in the integrity of both my scholarship and my faith. I'm sure I have not had a perfect record, but my blessing is that I can continue to try, then try some more, then try and try again. For some reason, I keep finding rugs that need replacing, and I sincerely pray that my ongoing efforts to exercise both responsible scholarship and abiding faith will continue to provide some pillars with which to do it.

1 .Kermit Eby, "Education for Sectarians." This address was distributed to

Seminary and Institute teachers sometime in the late 1950s, with the compliments of Ernest L. Wilkinson, Administrator, Board of Education. A copy is still in my possession. Eby was identified as Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Chicago.

2. Neal A. Maxwell, "In Memoriam: Henry Eyring, 1901-1981," Brigham Young University Studies 22 (Winter 1982): 3.

3. "Know This, that Every Soul is Free," by William C. Clegg, in Hymns of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, No. 90. In that spirit, Lowell Bennion also reminds us that “In man’s search for truth the mind palys a leading and continuous role.” Lowell L. Bennion, Religion and the Pursuit of Truth (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1959), 29.

4. Conference Report, April, 1904, p. 28.

5. Journal of Discourses 2:314. Address delivered in the tabernacle by President Brigham Young, July 8, 1855.

6. "For myself," wrote a prominent scientist, "I like a universe that includes much that is unknown and, at the same time, much that is knowable. A universe in which everything is known would be static and dull, as boring as the heaven of some weak-minded theologians." Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain. Reflections on the Romance of Science (New York: Random House, 1974), p. 18.

7. Conference Report, October, 1912, p. 31.

8. Joseph Smith, History of the Church, ed., BH Roberts (Salt Lake City: Deseret News: 1949) 5:340.

9. Proverbs 4:7.

10. .James B. Allen, "Eight Contemporary Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision--What Do We Learn From Them?" The Improvement Era, April, 1970, pp. 4-13.

11. See James B. Allen, "Personal Faith and Public Policy: Some Timely Observations on the League of Nations Controversy in Utah," Brigham Young University Studies 14 (Autumn, 1973): 77-98.

Edifying your belief system

"Believe in yourself! Have faith in your abilities! Without a humble but reasonable confidence in your own powers you cannot be successful or happy."  Norman Vincent Peale
                                                                                                 
I wanted this to be a short blurb about something I think is important for all of us to do once in a while: edify our belief system.  Sometimes we get caught up in getting through the "drudgeries" of life that we forget to recharge our batteries.  It is easy to get lost in the day-to-day things and forget who we are, and why we are here on this earth.

Here are some suggestions to get you started: 

Make a list of things you can do that center yourself:  My list would include listening to Hallejuah by Chris Botti (it soothes me, allows me slow down from the rush of life); have a warm cup of tea; treat myself to at-home spa treatments, and take a warm bath. 

Add to your list things that make you feel better about who you are. My list would include: reminding myself of all the things I have lived through and that, amazingly enough, I am a stronger individual because of those experiences. 

Next add to your list good things others see in you, because frankly, some times our perspective is not always the most accurate perspective (we are a lot harder and more critical of ourselves then others are).  If you don't already know, ask someone who knows you well what they see in you.  Sounds strange? Why? We’ve only been conditioned to think it is strange, that we are coming off as needy, prideful or vain, if we ask someone else.  Funny thing is who conditioned us this way?  Certainly not God.  We call on God, daily, to remind us of who we are, to lift us when we cannot be lifted. Shouldn’t we be using the same principle in our day-to-day interactions with people? Sister Kimball once said: "never suppress a generous thought."  We are here to help each other, we are here to be uplifted and to lift, so ask someone to lift you. 

Here is an example, something I hold dear to my heart, something I treasure and read often to uplift me, written by my wonderful, thoughtful husband:

"I see a strong, driven woman that knows what she wants out of life and is willing to work to get it.  I see someone that isn't perfect but because of that you can understand and relate to my imperfection which allows a deep and personal connection.  I see someone who thinks of others and wants to serve.  I see someone who is willing to give up their Saturday to help their mother in law...even though they just got back home and have been crazy busy and stressed with a million different things.  I see someone that is constantly trying to improve and grow as an individual.  I see someone that has an amazing amount of love to share and that does share that love.  I see someone who is not afraid of failure.  I see someone who puts so much effort into everything she does...from cooking to school...she always does her very best.  I see someone that is not satisfied with a mediocre life but that always wants to do more and be more.  Sometimes that can be a curse because she doesn't see all that she has done or all that she is. :) I see someone that is artistic and creative-from the way she dresses to the way she decorates.  I see someone that loves to learn and will continue to learn throughout her life.  I see someone that is intellectual, someone that will always push me to think of scenarios and life in a way I naturally wouldn't.  I see someone that loves me and serves me.  I see someone that can communicate her thoughts eloquently and effectively.  I see someone that can write and connect with others through her writing.  I see someone who wants to travel and experience the world.  I see someone who is grateful for the world and all the beauties surrounding her.  I see someone that is independent yet not too much to where her husband would feel worthless. :)  I see someone who has faith.  Someone who continues working towards her goals and dreams even when adversity stands in her way like a brick wall.  That takes faith.  I see someone who has a strong testimony and holds on to the iron rod even when times are hard.  I see someone with righteous desires.  I see a talented and overly qualified Mother.  I see someone that won't stand for injustice in any form, someone that is willing to fight for justice.  I see someone that lives with passion.  I see someone that gets back up when she falls. I see someone that can laugh at life, someone with an amazing sense of humor.  I see someone with a quick mind, someone that can remember amazing amounts of information.  I see someone I can grow old with.  I see my soul mate.  I see a wonderful sister, daughter and wife.  I see a beautiful smile.  I see sexy legs.  I see eyes with green around the outside and then a light brown color surrounding the pupil.  I see beautiful white teeth.  I see the most amazing lips on the planet.  I see a neck line that makes me want to kiss her neck all day.  I see a sexy, hot woman.  I see pretty little ears that I love to kiss.  I see a strong and sexy jaw line.  I see thick hair that I love to run my fingers through.  I see soft smooth skin.  I see beauty. I see someone I look up to.  I see someone I want to be like.  I see someone that makes up for my weaknesses.  I see someone who is beautiful, strong, compassionate, loving, kind, gentle, smart, dedicated, focused, passionate, faithful, capable and so much more.  I see my eternal companion.  I see a child of God.  I see someone who has achieved so much and that will achieve all that she desires.  I see Amanda Noel.  I see someone I love with all my heart and soul, someone I will honor, cherish and adore forever."

Could I ever see those things, or come up with that list myself? I think not.  Wouldn't you love to have a similar reminder?  GO ASK SOMEONE :).  


After you've accumulated these lists, read them every day, or the days you feel like your belief system is failing you and needs to be recharged.     

**I am going to include something I think most people should include on their list: Look at this clip (start at 1:00-END).  My only request is that you don’t be afraid to reiterate OUT LOUD, the things in the video— in fact SHOUT THEM! If you could have seen me, when I was all alone in my kitchen, I was SCREAMING them. I can’t describe how envigorating it felt! Try it, you’ll be surprised at how empowered you feel as an individual!  

Everyman after 1485

This has probably been one of my favorite pieces of literature I have read this semester in my British Lit class.  It’s visual representation—through the personification of it’s “morals”— has powerfully impacted my view on the accountability I have to God in this life.  I can’t express, enough, how transformational this brilliant piece of literature has been— reminding me how fragile life is, what my heart should be desiring to aquire, and broadening my perspective on so many fundamental concepts essential to salvation. 

“This is a late example of a kind of medieval drama known as the morality play.  Morality plays . . .  have a primarly religious purpose, but there method of attaining it is different.  Both mysteries and moralities addressed questions of the ultimate fate of the soul” (Norton 463).

If you have time I strongly recommend reading it.  It is one of those works you really can’t put down because it is so visual.  I even recommend reading it with your children (if you start out young they can begin to understand the significance of such works—they may not understand the literature but they will definitely understand the visual representation).  Among many other wonderful literary works, this is definitely one I will incorporate into my child’s reading.

Here is a link to the actual play:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/everyman.html

This is the plot summary, to get you interested, provided by Wikipedia:

The play opens with a messenger speaking to the audience. He tells them to listen and watch the play and learn the lesson within. Then God is the next to speak giving a monologue about his troubles. He complains about how humans have become too absorbed in material wealth and riches to follow Him. He feels taken for granted, because He receives no appreciation for all that He has given them. God summons Death, His messenger, and tells him to go to Everyman and summon him to heaven to make his reckoning. It is then that he will be killed then judged.

Upon hearing this, Everyman is distressed as he does not have a proper account of his life prepared. Everyman tries to bribe Death and asks for more time. Death denies this request but tells Everyman he may find a companion for his journey, someone to speak for his good virtues.

Fellowship, representing a person's friends, happens along and promises to go anywhere with Everyman. However, when Fellowship hears of the true nature of Everyman's journey, he immediately refuses to go. Fellowship says that he would stay with Everyman were they having fun, but will not accompany him on such a journey. It is here established that Fellowship is a personification of the "fair weather friend."

Everyman then sees Kindred and Cousin, who represent family, and asks them to go with him. Kindred flat out refuses, saying he'd rather go to parties and Cousin says, "No, I have a cramp in my toe," so he can't go either. Cousin also presents a fundamental reason why no one will accompany Everyman: they have their own accounts to write as well.

Everyman realizes that he has put much love towards Goods, so Goods will surely come with him on his journey with Death. Goods will not come with Everyman; he says that because Everyman concentrated so much effort on Goods during his life, Goods' presence would make Everyman's case even worse.

Everyman then turns to Good Deeds. Good Deeds says she would go with him, but she is too weak as Everyman has not loved her. She sends her sister Knowledge with Everyman, and together they go to see Confession.

There, Everyman repents for all his sins, and punishes himself with a scourge. Confession gives Everyman a jewel called Penance. Everyman is now absolved of all sins, and Good Deeds becomes strong enough to accompany Everyman on his journey. Knowledge gifts Everyman with a garment made from her own tears, called Contrition. Good Deeds summons Beauty, Strength, Discretion and Everyman's Five Wits to join them. They all agree to go with him, after he goes to a priest to take sacrament.

Again, when Everyman tells them where his journey ends, all but Good Deeds forsake him. This is because beauty, strength, discretion, and the five wits are qualities that leave a person as they get older. Knowledge cannot accompany him beyond the point where he leaves his physical body. Everyman gets into his grave. Everyman and Good Deeds ascend into heaven, where they are welcomed by an Angel. A Doctor, representing a scholar, then explains the moral of the story: that in the end, a person will only have his Good Deeds to accompany him beyond the grave.

My thoughts: 


**To provide but mere “clues,” because literature is mainly what YOU get out of it, these might help transform your reading: remember that “Everyman,” represents “every man,” so this play, through the personification of the main character, represents us all.  It is, visually, more impacting to remember this; it makes you feel as though you are the one accountable, you are the one in the play.  Other good thoughts to chew on— as already mentioned in the summary— we don’t believe, as LDS, that we don’t take our knowledge with us when we die; this was a belief back in this day and age, and is a belief still held by some today.  People believed that knowledge wasn’t universal (not everyone had the chance to receive an education), and salvation was universal, thus the reason knowledge could only lead Everyman to the grave and not to heaven.  Another, simpler, way of looking at it: If Everyman was to represent every man (especially when the plays were being performed live—the morality play being something everyone could be influenced by) everyone had to be on the same footing, equal playing field, if you will.  I also thought it powerful to see that Five Wits, Discretion, Strength, and Beauty are things the Lord gives us to help us in THIS LIFE, but they are of no value to our immortal soul; yet how many of us place emphasis on them?  The only thing that went with Everyman to heaven: Good Deeds—something that was buried in the earth because of Everyman’s neglect, something he had to resurrect in order to receive his salvation. And it is only through her sister, Knowledge, wherein Everyman learns the ordinances important to his salvation: repentance, contrition, baptism, partaking of the sacrament (Christ's blood/body), and marriage (although the play never reveals Everymans marriage). 


A pretty profound, pretty brilliant, way of putting life in perspective.  

The Savior

D&C 87:77 And I give unto you a commandment that you shall ^ateach one another the ^bdoctrine of the kingdom.

78 Teach ye diligently and my ^agrace shall attend you, that you may be ^binstructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

 79 Of things both in ^aheaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must ^bshortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the ^cnations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a ^dknowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—

80 That ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to ^amagnify the calling whereunto I have called you, and the ^bmission with which I have commissioned you.

Lately I have been reading about the 14-15th century writers, particularly women writers, such as Julian of Norwich and Margery Kempe. 


To give a little background: “An anchorite or anchoress is a religious recluse confined to an enclosure, which he or she has vowed never to leave.  At the time of such an enclosing the burial service was performed, signifying that the enclosed person was dead to the world and that the enclosure corresponded to a grave.  The point of this confinement was, of course, to pursue more actively the contemplative or spiritual life” (Norton 311).

It struck me, as I was reading the literature how desirous these women were to follow Christ.  Unlike us, the didn’t have the fullness of the gospel, in fact they only had the Bible as their reference, and yet they were blest with many visions and many powerful experiences that increased their testimonies of the Savior.  I then thought about the history in between the medieval time period up to our faithful pioneers.  A powerful feeling came over me: Christ is the one person that has continued to exist throughout the ages.  His life has been known consistently since the beginning of time.  Oral traditions of peoples various cultural beliefs have changed, or even been lost, throughout the ages, and yet Christ’s story/gospel has always existed.  I also began to reflect on the realization that God loves every single person that was born into this world; they are his children—he wants to edify them, teach them, help them, love them— no matter their religion, no matter if they have the fullness of the gospel, no matter the mistakes they have made, no matter their status or station in life. 

Pondering these writings increased my personal testimony of the Savior.  I am so grateful for wonderful people, throughout the ages, whose writing has the ability to teach, move, and edify others.  I don’t think I have ever been so moved, till I read these excerpts about Christ’s understanding about our trials and the necessity of them; about his love for his mother Mary and her relationship to him; and about his love for every living soul—a love that fills the immensity of space.

I hope you can be edified by these passages as I have.

Julian of Norwich (speaking of the vision she was given about our trials and why we have to walk through hard times):

“And thus in my folly before this time often I wondered why, by the great foreseeing wisdom of God, the beginning of sin was not letted [saved].  For then thought me that all should have been well.  But Jesu that in this vision informed me of all that me needed answered by this word and said: ‘Sin is behovely [fitting].’  For we be all in part troubled, and we shall be troubled, following our master Jesu, till we be fully purged of our deadly [mortal] flesh which be not very good.  And with the beholding of this, with all the pains that ever were or ever shall be, I understood the passion of Christ for the most pain and overpassing [exceeding pain].  And for the tender love that our good Lord hath to all that shall be saved, he comforteth readily and sweetly, meaning thus: It is true that sin is cause of all this pain, but all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well. Then were it great unkindess of me to blame or wonder on God of my sin, since he blameth not me for sin.  In which knowing we shall verily see the cause why he suffered sin to come, in which sight we shall endlessly have joy” (Norton 377). 

Excerpt from another vision she had regarding travail:

“And yet after this he suffereth some of us to fall more hard and more grieveously than ever we did before, as us thinketh.  And then suppose that all were nought that we have begun.  But it is not so, for it needeth us to fall, and it neededth us to see it; for if we fell not, we should not know how feeble and how wretched we be of ourself, nor also we should not so fulsomely know the marvelous love of our maker.  For we shall verily see in heaven without end that we have grieveiously sinned in this life; notwithstanding this we shall verily see that we are never hurt in his love, nor we were never the less price in his sight.  And by the assay of this falling we shall have an high and a marvelous knowing of love in God without end” (Norton 381).

Prior Julian describes a concept, unfamiliar to us, of the Savior being our Mother as well as our father, which I won’t explain here, but it is a fascinating concept.  And then she says the following:

“The mother (our earthly mother) may suffer the child to fall sometime and be diseased [unhappy] in diverse manner of peril come to her child for love.  And though our earthly mother may suffer her child to perish, our heavenly mother Jesu may never suffer that be his children perish, for he is all mighty, all wisdom, and all love, and so is none but he, blessed mote he be.  But oft times when our falling and our wretchedness is showed to us, we be so sore adread and so greatly ashamed of ourself and scarcely we wit where that we may hold us.  But then will not our courteous mother that we flee away, for him were nothing more hateful to him; for then he will that we use the condition of a child.  For when it is diseased and afeared, it runneth hastily to the mother; and if it may do no more, it crieth on the mother for help with all the might.  So will he that we do as the meek child, saying thus: ‘My kind mother, my gracious mother, my dearworthy mother, have mercy on me.  I have made myself foul and unlike to thee, and I may not nor can amend it but with thine help and grace.’

*“The blessed wounds of our savior be open and rejoice to heal us.  The sweet gracious hands of our mother be ready and diligent about us; for he in all this working useth the very office of a kind nurse that hath not else to do but to be busy about the salvation of her child.  It is his office to save us, it is his worship to do it, and it is his will we know it; for he will we love him sweetly and trust in him meekly and mightily.  And this showed he in these gracious words: ‘I keep thee surely.’

Julian speaking about the love of God:

First she had a vision of a hazlenut lying in the palm of her hand (representing the world).  She says of this vision: “And I was answered in my understanding: It lasteth and ever shall, for God loveth it; and so hath all things being by the love of God. In this little thing I saw three properities.  The first is that God made it, the second that God loveth it, the third that God keepeth (or looks after) it.  But what beheld I therein? Verily, the maker, the keeper, the lover.  For till I am substantially united to him I may never have full rest, nor true bliss; that is to say that I so fastened to him that there be right nought that is made between my God and me . . . For this is the cause why we be not all in ease of heart and soul, for we seek here rest in this thing that is so little, where no rest is in, and we know not our God, that is almighty, all wise and all good, for he is very rest.  God will be known, and him liketh that we rest us in him; for all that is beneath him suffiseth not to us” (Norton 375).

*Thus was I taught, that love is our Lord’s meaning.  And I saw full surely in this and in all, that ere God made us he loved us, which love was never abated nor never shall.  And in this love he hath done all his works, and in this love he hath made all things profitable to us, and in this love our life is everlasting.  In our making we had beginning, but the love wherein he made us was in him from without beginning.  In which love we have our beginning, and all this shall we see in God withouten end” (Norton 382). 

Margery Kempe (after receiving a vision left her family and journeyed through the Holy Land, where she received many powerful visions about the life of Christ).

This is a vision she had of Mary, the mother of Christ, at the time of Christ’s death.  This is probably one of the most moving texts I have yet to read about this amazing woman, the mother of the Savior.

“Then she (the author) beheld in the sight of her soul our blissful Lord Christ Jesu coming to His passionward, and ere He went, He kneeled down and took His mother’s blessing.  Then she (the author) saw His mother (Mary) falling down in swooning before her Son, saying to him, ‘Alas, my dear Son, how shall I suffer this sorrow and have no joy in all this world but thee alone.’ ‘A, dear Son, if thou wilt in any case die, let me die before thee and let me never suffer this day of sorrow, for I may never bear this sorrow that I shall have for thy death.  I wolde, Son, that I might suffer death for thee so that thou shouldst not die, if man’s soul might be so saved.  Now, dear Son, if thou have no pity of thyself, have pity of thy mother, for thou know full well there can no man in all this world comfort me but thou alone.’

And then listen to the Saviors sweet reply to his mother, listen to the promises he gives her upon his death (it brings tears to my eyes every time I read it; I can honestly envision it was as such):

“Then our Lord took up His mother in His arms and kissed her full sweetly and said to her, ‘A blessed mother, be of good cheer and of a good comfort, for I have told you full often that I must needs suffer death and otherwise should no man be saved nor never come in bliss.  And mother, it is my Fathers will that it be so, and therefore I pray you let it be your will also, for my death shall bring me great honor, and you and all mankind to great joy and profit which those who trust in my Passion and work thereafter.  I pray you, dearworthy mother, ceaseth of your sorrowing, for I shall not leave you comfortless.  I shall leave here with you John, my cousin, to comfort you in stead of me; I shall send my holy angels to comfort you in earth; and I shall comfort in your soul mine own self, for mother, ye know well I have promised you the bliss of heaven that ye are sekir [secure] thereof.  A dearworthy mother, what would ye better than there I am king and ye for to be queen, and all angels and saints shall be obedient to your will.  And what grace ye ask me I shall not deny your desire.  I shall give you power over the devils that they shall be afraid of you and ye not of them.  And also, my blessed mother, I have said to you before time that I shall come for you mine own self when ye shall pass out of this world with all mine angels and all mine saints that are in heaven and bring you before my Father with all manner of music, melody, and joy.  And there shall I set you in a great peace and rest without end.  And there shall be crowned as for Queen of Heaven, as for lady of all the world, and as for Empress of Hell.  And therefore, my dearworthy mother, I pray you blesseth me and let me go do my Father’s will, for therefore I came into this world and took flesh and blood of you’ (Norton 396).

And then Margery, with Mary, witnesses the Saviors crucifixion, and makes a few last remarks, which I think are so profound:

“And He went forth meekly afore them, all mother-naked as He was born, to a pillar of stone and spake no word again but let them do and say what they would.”  Later Christ says to Margery, as she is sorrowing for the Saviors death, in a vision: “Daughter, these sorrows and many more suffered I for thy love, and diverse pains, more than any man can tell in earth.  Therefore, daughter, thou has great cause to love me right well, for I have bought thy love full dear” (Norton 397).

Comments

People have been emailing me about being unable to post comments on the blog; sorry about this! I don't know what is wrong, but I will see if I can get this resolved by the weekend.  In the mean time if you have a comment you want to submit, email it to me and I would love to post it for you: eastmanamanda@hotmail.com

Thanks for all the feedback!

Education

Posting 3:

"A mind once stretched by a new idea never regains its original dimensions."  Anonymous

I love learning, and it is my hope that I can continue learning (whether academically, through life experience(s), or self-taught subjects) the rest of my life.  As mentioned in my earlier post: I am a thinker.   Mike would probably tell you I absorb him and myself in random discussion (at times lasting for hours) that spawn from the collection of ponderings and wonderments innate to my nature.  Thus, my reason for starting this blog: a way to archive some of the many thoughts about life, love, literature, the world, politics, family, values, morals, etc., that excite my curiosity. 

This blog will most likely start as my own journal of thoughts and opinions, aspirations, and experiences; however, it is my hope that it will generate into a community of those who wish to share their thoughts and opinions, to engage in learning; to “aspire to inspire.”  I believe it is within each of us to do so—each has a wealth of knowledge to share; thus it is my hope we can share, grow, and inspire collectively.     

Moving on to post #3 (the “official post”):

“You are a product of your environment. So choose the environment that will best develop you toward your objective. Analyze your life in terms of its environment. Are the things around you helping you toward success - or are they holding you back?”  W. Clement Stone

In my Literary Theory class we discussed Stanley Fish’s essay, “How to Recognize a Poem When You See One.”  

(Accessible here: http://academic2.american.edu/~dfagel/Class%20Readings/Fish/HowToRecognizeAPoem.htm).  The counter essay (what would a theory class be without reading both sides right?) was: “Do We Write the Text We Read?” by Reed Dasenbrock. 

For the sake of time (I am after all a college student), I am going to write a few of my thoughts, and the thoughts discussed in class by my professor and fellow students, on Fish’s essay.  I hope that my neglect in talking about the opposing essay doesn’t show my lack of desire to employ my mind to any and all theories on this subject; rather, it is my desire to open peoples mind to a probable way of looking at something, as I have, and also to spark interest for further self-research, exploration, and opinion. 

I am not going to do Fish’s essay justice; I would suggest your read it if any of this finds you intrigued.  I will give an overview of some of the things he discusses and tie the thoughts I developed while reading the essay.

Fish opens his essay by stating the following:

“Last time I sketched out an argument by which meanings are the property neither of fixed and stable texts nor of free and independent readers but of interpretive communities that are responsible both for the shape of the reader’s activities and for the texts those activities produce.  In this lecture I propose to extend that argument so as to account not only for the meanings a poem might be said to have but for the fact of its being recognized as a poem in the first place” (Fish 1).

An anecdote is given, of which he draws most of his arguments/theories from (I will paraphrase):

He lectures two courses: 1) the relationship between linguistics and literary criticism, and 2) English religious poetry of the seventeenth century.  Fish posted an assignment on the board for his first class:

Jacobs-Rosenbaum

            Levin

            Thorne

            Hayes

            Ohman (?)

There was nothing significant about these authors, other than they were linguists assigned to the previous class (Ohman and the question mark—purely a matter of unsure spelling).  When the second class came in, the assignment was still on the board.  The professor decided to do an experiment with the class, an experiment he has performed at many universities around the nation—all resulting the same.  He told the class what they saw on the blackboard was a religious poem and asked them to interpret it.  The students quickly started finding symbolisms (mainly Christian in nature; for example, they assumed Jacob represented “Jacobs ladder” in the OT, which allegorized the Christian ascent into heaven; it being on the top of the list also created the assumption.  Another said the means of ascent is not a ladder “but a tree, a rose tree or rosenbaum, which was an obvious reference to the Virgin Mary who was often characterized as a rose without thorns, itself an emblem of the immaculate conception”) (4).  The students continued to dissect, as English majors do, the poem in its entirety, coming up with legitimate/compelling interpretations of the “poem.”

Leaving the story, Fish asks the reader:

“What source is the ability [the ability for them to interpret the poem]? How is it that they were able to do what they did?  What are the distinguishing features of literary language?  Or, to put the matter more colloquially, how do you recognize a poem when you see one? (. . .) Some claim you know a poem when you see one because its language displays the characteristics that you know to be proper poems.  This, however, is a model that quite obviously does not fit the present example.  My students did not proceed from the noting of distinguishing features to the recognition that they were confronted by a poem; rather, it was the act of recognition that came first—they knew in advance that they were dealing with a poem—and the distinguishing features then followed” (6).

To recap, briefly, Fish says: “Skilled reading is usually thought to be a matter of discerning what is there, but . . . [really] a matter of knowing how to produce what can thereafter be said to be there.  Interpretation is not the art of construing, but the art of constructing.  Interpreters do not decode poems; they make them” (272).

I will write only briefly, because I realize how lengthy this is becoming (although I thrive on this kind of stuff), Fish also argues that everything we learn derives from our “interpretive community” (i.e. we are a byproduct of our society; we can never look at the world objectively). 

Although I do see the flaws in Fishes work (they are many), I agree with him in many cases, and have had the fortunate experience (or not so fortunate, depending on how you look at it) of witnessing many occasions that support his theory. 

Amanda’s thoughts (drum roll, please):

I laughed when I read the story; I found it quite humorous that a bunch of intelligent English majors were conned into thinking this was in fact a poem.  But that is Fish’s point right?  The students constructed meaning that wasn’t there to begin with, so in a way, a poem isn’t a poem unless we first assume it is.  My question is, who first “assumed” poetry? What is poetry?  This question easily leads to Fish’s second argument: we are conformists (is that too bold or too out of context? Sorry).  The truth of the example: the students looked for the meaning and ambiguities of the poem, the alliterative and consonantal patterns, once they knew it was a poem.  They couldn’t assume it was a poem without being told prior, in which case they were able to draw from their knowledge bank, i.e. interpretive community, and apply the techniques necessary for it to read like a poem. 

A personal example regarding the problem with living within an “interpretive community, especially academically:

I had to write an in-class essay in English 314  (prior to reading Fish for my theory class).  The instructions were as follows:

1.     Read through the poem carefully

2.      Identify its form

3.     Explain what the form reveals about the poem

4.     Use a literary theory to interpret the poem

I am going to speak candidly now: first of all, what is interpretation to you?  Is it restrictive? Is it something pre-defined?  Is it something open? In this case, if I assume interpretation as open, as in my OWN interpretation (i.e. how the poem moves me, what it symbolizes to me, how I extract meaning), I would be wrong, correct?  Clearly this is the case, because first I had to a) identify the form, b) use the form to reveal meaning, c) use a literary theory (am I supposed to know what those are in the first place???) to extract meaning.   Let me pose this question: what if I didn’t know any of the aforementioned?  What then? Would I be classified as “illiterate” by way of poetic codes/norms? 

The problem with this established “poetic interpretive community” is it restricts, and frankly scares people away from reading poetry; it becomes intimidating when one is made to feel there is ONE interpretation, or rather a “pre-defined,” or  “more right,” way of interpreting the text.  SIDENOTE: Why didn’t I use this “literary theory” as my theory for my in-class essay??? What a riot that would have been—to show the academic world supports Fish, in ways, by saying, “interpret this poem but under these standards/restrictions;” thus, we are being made to conform to the academic literary standards.

Poems should be open to interpretation; why place a standard with form?  Well, I can critique my own question.  Being an English major I see the relevance in form, the meaning in structure, scansion, etc.  There are rules (linguistic and otherwise) one must be advised by, and follow, when reading a literary work (i.e. the outside influences that influence a text—tradition, culture, history, political movements, social/economic movements, industrialization, technology, etc.) All of these things effect and define literary patterns and movements.  These must be adhered to, in most cases, when looking critically at a literary work, or else we look past the author’s intention/meaning: discrediting him in sorts.  (This raises yet another question: “Is literature for the reader or the writer?” Isn’t this fun, we could rebuttal theories all day—thus the purpose of theory J).

And YES it KEEPS going; if you are bored, it isn’t my problem, you’ve been conditioned to be bored J. 

Continuing with my thoughts on Fish’s second argument:

Fish gives an example of a student raising his hand in class.  He asks the other students what the student is doing, what he wants?  Everyone assumes this an easy answer: he has a question and is waiting for the professor to give him permission to speak.  Fish asks the reader the question: how did they not know he had a question verses needing to ask permission to use the bathroom?  Case in point: “in the absence of a specific context we are authorized to take the words literally” (i.e. we know certain things because we have learned them from our “interpretive community;” society taught us that when a student raises his hand in class he either wants to say something or ask a question).  I couldn’t help but stop and wonder, recently taking Poli-sci, if Aristotle had something going when he claimed that outside the polis (“interpretive community”) human nature didn’t exist;  “The way of seeing, whatever it is, would never be individual or idiosyncratic, since its source would always be the institutional structure of which the ‘see-er’ was an extending agent” (Fish 335).

Also tying my political science, in modern political thought, to Fish’s argument, I learned that we can never look at different ways of life or thought objectively; we will always come from a western perspective.  It is impossible for us to break free of our heritage.  **The western perspective is the gateway for us in understanding life and thought but we can never fully be objective.  An example was given of anthropologists, whose career and life study it is to examine other ways of life— often living in a different culture, studying education, traditions, political systems, etc. They are supposed to look at culture objectively; however, it has been proven that when they return to collect their data, to formulate results, they are unable to break free from even the process in which they collect data—using modern social science, which is rooted in western intellect. 

Back to the class discussion: we got into the particulars of Fish’s argument, assuming they were correct, and how this theory effected our religious beliefs about the scriptures and revelation.  (Again, I haven’t even touched on the opposing essay, but he basically said Fish stands incorrect, for if we are merely our interpretive community, how can we ever learn anything new?).   The discussion commenced with the question “do we interpret the scriptures? Do we, as Fish would claim, give them meaning (in other words without us constructing meaning no prior meaning would exist)?   SIDENOTE: these are moments I feel bad for the professor—ha-ha—especially teaching theory at a Christian university, of which he wrote an essay about—quite interesting. 

The class, of course, re-iterated the “Mormon answer:” we can read the same verse over and over again and get something new out of it each time; also, someone could read the same chapter and yet learn something totally different; thus, Fish stands correct: we extract meaning from texts (prior), even the scriptures.  However, and this is the BIG problem with the theory: does that mean the scriptures have no valid meaning or purpose outside of, or prior to, our interpretation of them?  Of course the answer is no (believing this is the case, leads to apostasy, i.e. “philosophies of men, mingled with scripture”).  So, drum roll— the theory is not without fault, and so it is meant to be, as my professor stated, if a theory professes to stand correct about something, be leery of it; consciousness is complex—always changing, never fixed. 

One last thought: I asked my teacher the following question after class, “do you see the dichotomy in this theory?  More specific in relation to the Church and the outside world?” And then I gave him examples: In the church we have a right way and a wrong way; we have authorial figures that govern the laws of God.  Yes, scripture/revelation is personal (open to interpretation, to a degree); however, most of what we believe in doesn’t create any room for interpretation.  So the interpretation seems subordinate to the authorial.  However, even in the church, as well as other communities (i.e. academia, our jobs, families, etc.) we are asked to be individuals, be different, stand for what is right, extract your own meaning from things (i.e. don’t believe something because someone else believes it, or write the way someone else writes—have your own voice).  Thus, we are asked to interpret things on an individual bases. (This example showing the dichotomy, of which the professor agreed). 

The question I then posed to him was “do you feel we can ever be individuals?  Do you feel we can ever stand outside our “interpretive community” and see things objectively?  I gave him an example of an earlier experience I had in my English 291 class:  A group was asked to look at the symbols in Beowulf and report their ideas to the class.  A lot of these ideas were based on Christian symbols they found in the text (i.e. Beowulf having characteristics of Christ; triumphing over evil, etc.).  The interesting thing about that discussion was, as the teacher explained, Beowulf was an epic text written during the time when the Anglo Saxons occupied England.  Later, a Christian, by the name of Bede, translated the epic.  It is assumed, by many scholars who read the epic, that Bede inserted many of the Christian references that weren’t initially in Beowulf.  This only makes sense because Christianity didn’t exist during the time it was written; the Anglo Saxons were pagan.  Thus, we can see Fish’s argument again—Bede took an epic text (intention being to show heroism, to defy all odds against supernatural things, etc.) and extracted meaning from it (coming from his own “Christian, interpretive community”).  This is the translation we have today; the translation Christians extract symbolisms from because of their own “interpretive community/conditioning.”  I asked my English 291 professor after class if the statistics of those who are Christian look at Beowulf as a Christian epic verses those who are atheist. for example, look at the authorial side of the text—the pagan/original meaning?  She didn’t know the exact statistic, but could say that the original work didn’t have Christian references.

My theory professor said, without giving his own opinion, referring me back to Fish (was I to expect anything less?), that Fish would say even if we were to stand “outside our interpretive community,” and look at things objectively, the ideas we derived would have already existed in a prior “interpretive community,” or in other words, we would be constructing meaning from an already constructed meaning.

WHEW! That was arduous but fun! Good things to chew on—good food for thought!