John Stuart Mill's Astonishing Reading From Age Three To Eight

I believe in being circumspect about the use of superlatives.  For example, I rarely use the word “astonishing.”  But this morning’s reading astonished me.  Sydney Harris in one of his essays which I finished reading the past week or so suggested there were very few really good autobiographies.  He mentioned two, one was by John Stuart Mill.  On Harris's recommendation, I located a used copy available online and ordered it.  It arrived yesterday, so I started reading it last night and again when I was up at an early hour. Mill says he wrote the story of his life primarily because the education he received at the hand of his father shows what can be done with children when done properly and he thought his example could benefit the world.

I was astonished at several things, such as the fact that he began learning the Greek language when he was three years of age!  (Incidentally, Mill was an exact contemporary of Joseph Smith, being born in London in May of 1806.)  He began the study of Latin at age 8! But what really astonished me was his recital of all that he read as a young boy.  I was so astonished that I read it to my wife at our morning breakfast, and then decided to share it with you.  Today’s blog will reproduce only what he said about his reading from age 3 to 8. Tomorrow I will give you his reading from age 8 to 12.

Ponder two things as you read: First, was Mill able to do all of this because of his extraordinary intellect, or did he have an extraordinary intellect because of all that he did in those early years?  Second, consider what a wonderful gift his father gave to the world by the effort he put forth to educate his son.  I confess, when I consider this compared to my own paltry efforts to assist with my children’s education I am ashamed at the low standard I set for myself and for them.

****

“I have no remembrance of the time when I began to learn Greek.  I have been told that it was when I was three years old.   ... I faintly remember going through Aesop’s Fables, the first Greek book which I read. The Anabasis [of Xenophon], which I remember better, was the second. I learnt no Latin until my eighth year.  At that time I had read, under my father’s tuition, a number of Greek prose authors, among whom I remember the whole of Herodotus, and of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia and Memorials of Socrates; some of the lives of the philosophers by Diogenes Laertius; part of Lucian, and Isocrates ad Demonicum and ad Nicolem.  I also read, in 1813 [at age 7!], the first six dialogues (in the common arrangement) of Plato, from the Euthyphron to the Theaetetus inclusive: which last dialogue, I venture to think, would have been better omitted, as it was totally impossible I should understand it.  But my father, in all his teaching, demanded of me not only the utmost that Icould do, but much that I could by no possibility have done.  What he was himself willing to undergo for the sake of my instruction, may be judged from the fact, that I went through the whole process of preparing my Greek lessons in the same room and at the same table at which he was writing: and as in those days Greek and English Lexicons were not, and I could make no more use of a Greek and Latin Lexicon than could be made without having yet begun to learn Latin, I was forced to have recourse to him for the meaning of every word which I did not know.  This incessant interruption he, one of the most impatient of men, submitted to, and wrote under that interruption several volumes of his History and all else that he had to write during those years.

...  But the lessons [in arithmetic] were only a part of the daily instruction I received.  Much of it consisted in the books I read by myself, and my father’s discourses to me, chiefly during our walks.  From 1810 to the end of 1813 we were living in Newington Green, then an almost rustic neighbourhood.  My father’s health required considerable and constant exercise, and he walked habitually before breakfast, generally in the green lanes towards Hornsey.   In these walks I always accompanied him, and with my earliest recollections of green fields and wild flowers, is mingled that of the account I gave him daily of what I had read the day before.  To the best of my remembrance, this was a voluntary rather than a prescribed exercise.   I made notes on slips of paper while reading, and from these, in the morning walks, I told the story to him; for the books were chiefly histories, of which I read in this manner a great number: Robertson’s histories, Hume, Gibbon; but my greatest delight, then and for long afterwards, was Watson’s Philip the Second and Third.  The heroic defense of the Knights of Malta against the Turks, and of the revolted provinces of the Netherlands against Spain, excited in me an intense and lasting interest.  Next to Watson, my favorite historical reading was Hooke’s History of Rome.   Of Greece I had seen at that time no regular history, except school abridgments and the last two or three volumes of a translation of Rollin’s Ancient History, beginning with Philip of Macedon.  But I read with great delight Langhorne’s translation of Plutarch.  In English history, beyond the time at which Hume leaves off, I remember reading Burnet’s History of his Own Time, though I cared little for anything in it except the wars and battles; and the historical part of the Annual Register, from the beginning to about 1788, where the volumes my father borrowed for me from Mr. Bentham left off.  I felt a lively interest in Frederic of Prussia during his difficulties, and in Paoli, the Corsican patriot; but when I came to the American war, I took my part, like a child as I was (until set right by my father) on the wrong side, because it was called the English side.  In these frequent talks about the book I read, he used, as opportunity offered, to give me explanations and ideas respecting civilizations, government, morality, mental cultivation, which he required me afterwards to restate to him in my own words.  He also made me read, and give him account of, many books which would not have interested me sufficiently to induce me to read them of myself: among others, Millar’s Historical View of the English Government, a book of great merit for its time, and which he highly valued; Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, McCrie’s Life of John Knox, and even Sewell’s and rutty’s Histories of the Quakers.  He was fond of putting into my hands books which exhibited men of energy and resource in unusual circumstances, struggling against difficulties and overcoming them: of such works I remember Beaver’s African Memoranda, and Collins’s account of the first settlement of New South wales.  Two books which I never wearied of reading were Anson’s Voyage, so delightful to most young persons, and a Collection (Hawkesworth’s, I believe) of Voyages round the World, in four volumes, beginning with Drake and ending with Cook and Bougainville.  Of children’s books, any more than of playthings, I had scarcely any, except an occasional gift from the relation or acquaintance: among those I had, Robinson Crusoe was preeminent, and continued to delight me through all my boyhood.  It was no part however of my father’s system to exclude books of amusement, though he allowed them very sparingly.  Of such books he possessed at that time next to none, but he borrowed several for me; those which I remember are, the Arabian Nights, Cazotte’s Arabian Tales, Don Quixote, Miss Edgeworth’s “Popular Tales,” and a book of some reputation in its day, Brooke’s Fool of Quality.”

John Stuart Mill, Autobiography, edited by Jack Stillinger, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1969), pp. 5-8.

Lets think together again, soon. [Tomorrow’s blog–Mill’s Reading from age 8 to 12.]

The Importance of Principles In The Life Of A Mature Person

[Today's column is given over to one of my favorite, but now defunct publications--The Royal Bank Letter--for a few thoughts about the importance of "principles."  Enjoy!]

The mature person need not be a confirmed conformist. He may be a rugged individualist, but he will be as rugged in his adherence to basic principles as he is in self-reliance. He will recognize, but he will not be afraid of, the fact that there are three great questions in life which he must answer over and over again: is it right or wrong? is it true or false? is it beautiful or ugly?

In answering these questions a man will find principles of far more value to him than a library of books, or a den decorated with diplomas. The principles contribute to his maturity by enlarging his thinking, by helping him to avoid confusion, by rescuing him from prolonged debate. They give him a base for decision and action. They are like the north star, the compass and the lighthouse to a sailor: they keep him on his course despite winds and current and weather.

Some people confuse principles with rules. A principle is something inside one; a rule is an outward restriction. To obey a principle you have to use your mental and moral powers; to obey a rule you have only to do what the rule says. Dr. Frank Crane pointed the difference neatly: "A rule supports us by the arm-pits over life's mountain passes; a principle makes us surefooted."

“On Being a Mature Person,” Royal Bank Letter, 37, no. 12 (December 1956), p. 3.

Why I Believe: Evidence Seven: The Book Of Mormon And Baptism As A Covenant

101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith Was A Prophet

Evidence Seven:   

The Book of Mormon And Baptism As A Covenant© 

Today’s evidence brings together separate items from ancient scripture and modern scholarship to yield another insight reinforcing my contention that Joseph Smith was God’s prophet.  Stephen Ricks, professor of Hebrew and cognate languages at BYU recently published an extension of his work first appearing in print in1996-97, about ancient religious cleansing practices among Jews, Essenes (Qumran community), and Christians.*  The Jews at the time of Christ and before immersed people in font-like basins called miqveh or miqvaot. The people of Qumran did something similar. The purposes of these immersions was generally for ritual cleansing or purification of the physical body which had become polluted in some way. Christians of course, practiced baptism, which was to cleanse the soul from sin, with the added purposes of it being an initiatory ritual and according to Paul for the complete transformation of the individual.  

According to professor Ricks, the Book of Mormon is unique in two respects regarding baptism. First, it is a record which “provides a continuity of the rite over a thousand-year period.” (p. 166.)  Most importantly, the Book of Mormon is apparently the only ancient Israelite, Essene, or Christian document that characterizes baptism as a covenant between God and man. (See pp. 165, 166.)  Mosiah 18:10,13 which come from about a century and a half before Christ reads:

10) Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you? 

13) And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body.... 

To modern Mormons this only makes good sense; it is something we have grown up with. But it is especially important to realize that the available records of the ancient Israelites, the Qumran covenanters who were probably the Essenes, and the earliest Christian scriptures do not portray baptism as a covenant.

Why is this important?  It just so happens that this information dovetails nicely with two other passages in the Book of Mormon.  Four hundred and fifty years earlier than Alma at the Waters of Mormon, Nephi was taught by an angel about the future of his people.  He saw a book would come among them which “contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel” (1 Ne. 13:23), but it would pass through the hands of a great and abominable church.  One of the things that made that “church”  worthy of that characterization was that “they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.   (1 Ne. 13:26)

Even more remarkably, many centuries before all of this, Joseph who was sold into Egypt was permitted to see down through the history of his people.  He saw a “choice seer” come among them.  We know today he was speaking of Joseph Smith.  The ancient Joseph spoke of the modern Joseph’s mission.  In part he said:

Thus saith the Lord unto me: A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins.  And unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren, which shall be of great worth unto them, even to the bringing them to the knowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers.  (2 Ne. 3:7, emphasis added.)

This turned out to be one of Joseph's most important contributions to our religion. He did indeed bring us knowledge of the covenants of the Lord.  It started with the translation of the Book of Mormon and the fact that baptism was a divinely given covenant.  This is consistent with the book’s title page which states that one of its purposes is that the House of Israel “may know the covenants of the Lord....”  Thus, the missions of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith become as one on the matter of restoring a knowledge  of the covenants of the Lord.

The seemingly minor detail unearthed by brother Ricks that the Book of Mormon is apparently the only ancient text that characterizes baptism as a covenant takes on great significance in light of these additional facts.  But, it was only the beginning of the knowledge Joseph would bring to the world about God’s sacred covenants, of which we will have occasion to speak more in the future.

I frequently shake my head at the marvelous way in which these disparate facts coalesce together to provide luminating insight.  My wife calls such “coincidences” “celestial mechanics.”  You gotta love celestial mechanics like this!

Thank God for Joseph Smith.  Lets think together again, soon.

*Stephen D. Ricks, “The Doctrine of Baptism: Immersions at Qumran and the Baptisms of John, the Earliest Christians, and Book of Mormon Peoples.”  In By Our Rites of Worship: Latter-day Saint Views on Ritual in Scripture, History, and Practice, edited by Daniel L. Belnap, 153-172.  Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2013.

Matthew McConaughey: Giving A Man The Benefit Of A Doubt

Matthew McConaughey has taken it on the chin quite a bit since his Oscar acceptance speech a couple of nights ago.  Some did not like his reference to God.  Some were offended that he might have even implied that man is a god. Some did not like his reference to himself as a hero.  They thought he was arrogant.  Some were put off because he didn’t give due deference to the AIDS victim he portrayed whose story made possible his opportunity. For them it should have been a speech promoting one of the darling causes of Hollywood, similar to the first one we heard that night. Some thought the speech was practiced and insincere. Yet others thought it was just another expression of his selfish self-centeredness. All made their cases by reference to various things he said in his brief remarks.

In an attempt to give the man the benefit of a doubt I located a transcript of what he said. A close reading, if accepted at face value, meets most of the criticisms.  Which would suggest to me that his critics had their own agendas to promote, or they just don’t know how to read very well. Many are so busy reading “between the lines” they forget to read the lines too.  

First, it should be noted that he was giving the audience a small insight into what is important and what motivates him in life.  He said, “There’s a few things--about three things to my account--that I need each day. One of them is something to look up to, another is something to look forward to, and another is someone to chase.”  Those may not be my motivations, they may not be your motivations, or those of his critics, but he acknowledged they are his.  When you think about them, they aren’t bad.  He looks up to God, he looks forward to his family, and he chases his dream of what he could be in the future.  The problem is that in some ways these identify him as a step-child of Hollywood.  They separate him in a couple of important ways.  Few among his audience or his critics look up to God. Many of them have rejected the traditional notion of marriage and family for a more “enlightened” and “liberated” view of sex as recreational, marriage commitment as inhibiting their individuality or the pursuit of their own version of “the dream,” and children as burdens.  

He said two important things about God, which few in the “artistic community,” “the beautiful  people,” the avaunt guard of society who were his audience in the hall the other evening wanted to hear.  He acknowledged that God had given him his opportunities and that God responds to our gratitude.  One might quibble with the way he worded his sentiments, but what exactly do people find troubling about the sentiments themselves? Well, for non-believers it goes against the grain to think that they didn’t get to the top on the basis of their own talent; therefore, gratitude to some unseen super power is not important to them.  In fact, gratitude to many may be passe.

The third thing he said about God was cryptic and I don’t pretend to know his mind as to how he meant it.  I leave it to the critics to wrangle over.  Perhaps McConaughey will explain further some day.  Based on the first two things he said, I’m willing to give him the benefit of a doubt.  I doubt that he had some sinister subliminal message.

What’s the big deal about thanking his family?  I heard nearly every recipient that night thank some portion of their family.  He thanked his mother for demanding that he and his brothers respect themselves, and thereby he learned to better respect others.  Some of his critics could have used that lesson from their own parents. His wife and children were praised and thanked because of the courage they gave him to go out each day to his work and to do it well. Is not that what families are supposed to do? Why criticize the man because he loved and missed his deceased red-necked dad?

I suppose the most strident critiques came in reference to his hero–the one he chases.  He said that he dreams of being a hero someday down the road ten years and he chases that dream.  But, when he gets there he hasn’t succeeded because his hero is still out ahead of him ten years. “Well,” huff the critics, “the man just said he is his own hero.  What an arrogant &@#!”  I have yet to see, hear, or read where any of these thought police have quoted what he said at the end of that little story: “ I’m never gonna be my hero. I’m not gonna attain that. I know I’m not, and that’s just fine with me because that keeps me with somebody to keep on chasing.”  

In this imaginative way McConaughey captured two things that have been part of the “American Dream” that has been at the heart of Hollywood since its beginning, but which in their now elitist-liberal-agenda driven and insular world, they have forgotten or abandoned. First, that is the “American Dream”–to continue to chase it, to not be satisfied with one’s present achievements and victories.  Second, the fundamental idea of competing against yourself–of continually striving to become better and better at what you do.  But because he cast that in the rhetoric of “hero” he is lambasted because heroes are supposed to be somebody else we admire.  He admires only himself, they shout to us.  But in making a man an offender for a word, they missed his point entirely.  

I’m for giving Matthew McConaughey the benefit of a doubt, and wish him every success in the future, if Hollywood will only be broad minded enough to let him have one after so grievously offending them.

Lets think together again, soon.

Why I Believe--Evidence Six: The Range Of Joseph's Teachings And The Inherent Wisdom And Power Of His Ideas

101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith Was A Prophet

Evidence Six:   The Range Of Joseph's Teachings And The Inherent Wisdom And Power Of His Ideas© 

As you will see many times over, my testimony of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith has been bolstered by the research and ideas of others.  This is particularly true of those who have spent the necessary time and effort to come to understand and appreciate the Prophet. Those who have studied his life and thought and have learned to love him often have great insights that can bless the rest of us.  Let me give you an example today from the work of two BYU professors, Larry Dahl and Don Cannon.  Some years ago they prepared a new version of the teachings of Joseph Smith.  The result of their work appeared in 1997 under the title The Teachings of Joseph Smith [It is now titled Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith’s Teachings.] 

A decade ago Don Cannon wrote an article about some of the things he learned and the feelings he experienced while researching and preparing this book.*  In many ways, his experience parallels my own, as I spent many years teaching a class on “The Life and Thought of Joseph Smith.”  Preparing for that class has kept me studying Joseph Smith to this very day.  So, when I read Cannon’s article I frequently found myself saying, “Amen.” 

Cannon begins by discussing the sources they researched and the topics that were most prevalent in those sources.  He asserts that the best source for Joseph’s teachings is still History of the Church (7 vols.)  Most of Joseph’s teachings which ended up in their book came from 370 Sabbath addresses, 136 editorials in the Times and Seasons and 110 conference addresses.  Of course there were many other sources but these three dominated. What interested me and I want to pass on to you is a surprise about which subjects he discussed most frequently in his teachings.  Number five on the list is the “Devil.” (p. 80) That interests me because I believe that one of his missions was to testify of the reality of Satan, his power and influence. Associated with that mission he also received from God and his messengers the keys to know how to detect old Scratch when he tries to deceive people. That will be the subject of another of these blogs in the future.

Cannon’s essay is undoubtedly not comprehensive about the things he learned, but here are the highlights. [A heads up to readers.  I intend to address many, if not all of these subjects one way or another in future blog posts.]

• “I found it especially fascinating that the Prophet Joseph taught most about the subject of revelation.  Since the work of the Restoration is centered on the concept of revelation, this is entirely fitting and appropriate.”  (p. 81) 

• “The Prophet Joseph Smith had a marvelous understanding of the principle of obedience.” (p. 81)

• “...Joseph had a sense of humor.  He employed humor in his teaching because he understood that humor is helpful in reaching one’s audience.”  (p. 81)

• “...Joseph tried to incorporate colorful expressions that people could relate to and understand.  He wanted to talk their language to help them comprehend his message.” (p. 82)  [I would add that he also tried to elevate them and as frequently spoke in lofty, uplifting language.]

• “...it became evident that he was a patriot in the best sense of the word.  He frequently expressed his loyalty to the United States of America and often praised the government and especially the Constitution.”  (p. 82) 

• “Joseph Smith believed that women had an important contribution to make to the building of the kingdom.”  (p. 83)

• “Feelings of charity came easily and naturally to Joseph Smith.”  (p. 83)

• “Joseph Smith sincerely believed that he had a special mandate to set things right in matters of religion.  He had an overwhelming desire to correct false doctrine and proclaim the truths that God had revealed to him.  This was his mission and his purpose as a prophet of God–a theme that runs through much of his teaching.  In fact, there are at least thirty separate settings in which the Prophet discussed his mission as a proclaimer of precious truth to a world that had lost it.”  (pp. 83-84, emphasis added.)

Cannon concludes with this testimony, a part of which I highlight as being the point of this recital:

“This encounter with Joseph’s ideas has deepened my understanding and strengthened my testimony of him. ... Engaging in this project has reinforced my own personal conviction that Joseph Smith was indeed a true prophet.  He was actually what he so boldly proclaimed.  The range of his teachings and the inherent wisdom and power of his ideas testify of his divine calling.”  (p. 84)

My most hearty “Amen,” while reading this article was evoked by the last sentence. That has been my thinking also. I am greatly interested in probing the depth of meaning hidden away in a generalization such as, “The greatest temporal and spiritual blessings which always come from faithfulness and concerted effort, never attended individual exertion or enterprise.”  (TPJS, p. 183.) There are scores and scores of such gems on as many substantive issues, which tell us much about the mind and heart of the Prophet.   In such a study, it seems impossible to miss Joseph’s incomparable ability to interpret and give insight into scriptures in his teachings. The examples seem almost inexhaustible. Add to this the numerous religious and spiritual questions he resolved, his teaching about the character and nature of God and Jesus Christ, and as Brigham Young said, that “he took heaven, figuratively speaking, and brought it down to earth; and he took the earth, brought it up, and opened up, in plainness and simplicity, the things of God; and that is the beauty of his mission.”  My own work opened my eyes to his ability as a teacher, the depth of his spirituality, and his humility.

These, and two dozen more like them, are among the things that have repeatedly impressed me over the last 50 years and which I intend to address here.  I hope the Lord will grant me the time, energy, wisdom, judgment, and skill to be able to continue this project that I may add my witness to you that the range of Joseph’s teachings “and the inherent wisdom and power of his ideas testify of his divine calling.”

Thank God for Joseph Smith.  Lets think together again, soon.

*Donald Q. Cannon, “Insights into the Mind and Personality of the Prophet Joseph Smith.”  Religious Educator 4, no 1 (2003): 79-86.

Not To Know History Is To Forever Remain A Child

[I am pleased to turn today’s column over to a fellow teacher for an excellent argument about the importance of learning history.]

The great Roman statesman, orator, and philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote: Nescire autem quid ante quam natus sis acciderit, id est semper esse puerum. “Not to know what happened before you were born, that is to be always a boy, to be forever a child.”

In a sense, historical understanding—knowledge of what happened before you were born—is primary to all realms of knowledge. Science is the study of the great discoveries of the past in our knowledge of the natural world. Literature is the study of the great writings of past cultures that embody human experience in the form of story and poem. Mathematics is the study of how great minds of the past have ordered for us the use of abstract numbers and symbols in relation to the physical world. The arts are the studies of the varied and diverse cultural creations of the past. Historical understanding in all these areas humanizes, matures, and uplifts the soul.

Too many citizens of our country today are, in Cicero’s terms, forever children. If knowledge of the past matures the soul, it is not something we can afford to marginalize or sideline. Unfortunately, the hard work of gaining knowledge, eloquence, and wisdom is all too often skirted by teacher and student alike. Because we have neglected knowledge of the past and the great tradition of historical understanding, we live in a culture of Peter Pans, flying free in Neverland with no past and no future, only the ever-present game, the mock battle against pirates or Indians. Wendy’s stories, with their plot of real challenges to be overcome, only reveal to us our immaturity, the fact that we are forever children who won’t grow up.

In my short professional tenure as a teacher, I have had the privilege of seeing students mature through coming to know the past. After numerous classroom discussions about the virtues and vices of historical figures, making charts and lists on the board as my students came up with ideas, they have written profoundly of their desire to mature in their own lives, discerning their own weaknesses and taking steps to improve. After discussing and chuckling at the social dynamics of Jane Austen’s Emma—expressing distaste for Mrs. Elton’s haughty manner, admiration for Mr. Knightley’s gentleness, good-natured exasperation at Emma’s silly lack of self-awareness—I have witnessed the change in my students’ relationships with one another: a more mature thoughtfulness, a deeper sensitivity. Nothing is more satisfying for a teacher than seeing how interaction with the stories of the past matures the souls of his students.

As G.K. Chesterton said in another context, the great tradition has not been tried and found wanting; it has been tried, found difficult, and duly abandoned.

Jason Barney, “‘We Live in a Culture of Peter Pans,’” Imprimis 42 (January 2013), pp. 4-5.

You can see the entire article here: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp 

Why I Believe--Evidence Five: Joseph Smith Excelled At Answering Spiritual Questions

101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith Was A Prophet

Evidence Five: Joseph Smith Excelled At Answering Spiritual Questions© 

I like reading graduation or commencement addresses.  Recently I read one by a self-proclaimed “non-believer” who teaches piano at the college where he was giving the commencement address.  He said the following:

“For one such as me, as for my secular siblings, the doubt is my reality, the need to accept the answerless questions of ultimate importance.”* 

He did not say what the “answerless questions of ultimate importance” are, but he implied they had to do with the existence of God and of the meaning and purpose of life.  This, of course, is a fairly common notion on college campuses and among intellectuals.  His attitude was that those religionists who claim to have answers are self-deceived and deceivers.  For Mr. Mayerovitch, it is a given that some questions of ultimate importance are answerless. He was in reality justifying his “otherness” and arguing his case that those with certainty should be more accepting and tolerant of people like him.  I didn’t sense a great deal of tolerance on his part for those who have fewer doubts than he does.  Rather, I came away from reading the speech, and I suspect there were those there that day who had the same experience, thinking that I should feel like a fool because I am a believer.  Any really educated and intelligent person knows better than to believe in God and Heaven. 

One of the things that I greatly admire and love about Joseph Smith are the many superlative spiritual gifts he possessed in super abundance.  One of the best was that he excelled in answering spiritual “questions of ultimate importance.”  There are many examples, but today lets consider just three plus one.  They are the questions many people have asked through the ages.

During our service in the California Roseville Mission, I read one well-read general authority who advised Church members to read some poetry regularly.  Poetry has always been difficult for me and I have tried it many times throughout my life without a great deal of success.  However, upon his advice I decided to try it again.  I learned that a poet named Edwin Markham, someone whom President David O. McKay quoted occasionally, was once the poet-laureate of California.  So I found one of his books in an online used book consortium.  In it I found this eloquent example of asking the unanswerable in a poem titled “Man the Questioner”:

The cattle never look before nor after,
Nor have they moments of immortal laughter.
Man is the Thing that knows he has a tomb,
Explores the secret out beyond the hearse,
And probes the mystery before the womb:
Man is the searcher of the universe.**  

In thought provoking verse he verbalized two of the three great questions: 1) Where did I come from?  2) Why am I here?  3) Where am I going?  Markham did not ask the second of the three.

Well informed Mormons know that the answer to these questions are the core of the message of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and are among the early things missionaries teach investigators.  I am not going to burden readers of this column with a recital of those well-known answers. I will simply point out that in what we refer to as the “fulness of the Gospel” we have more detailed and complete answers to those questions than any religion on earth– far transcending and more satisfying than the answers that Christians typically give to them.

I suggest, however, that there is another question which should be added to these “top three” and here too Joseph Smith excelled in answering it.  The question is, “Now that I know where I am going, how do I get there?”  I give but two answers among many that can be found in the scriptures produced by Joseph Smith and in his personal teachings.

First, is the simple but profound Third Article of Faith:  "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."  I have spent the last six years studying the question: "Why ordinances?"  I am not exaggerating when I say that in that simple Article of Faith lay the seeds of a doctoral dissertation or two.

Second, the same morning that I read Markham’s poem I also read Alma 42 in the Book of Mormon which Joseph translated when he was 24 years old.  I recorded these reactions in my journal:

“I had an experience that reaffirmed my testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and the Book of Mormon is the word of God.  During the reading I became aware that the concepts in the chapter were deep and profound.  I found myself asking how Joseph Smith at age 23-25 could have known some of the detail he put in that chapter, how he could have written so deeply and profoundly [at his age].”

That single chapter of scripture deals with the following:

• The Fall of Adam.
• An explanation of temporal and spiritual death.
• How the plan of mercy can satisfy justice through the atonement of Jesus Christ.
• The role of repentance in the plan.
• The relationship of law to sin, justice, mercy, punishment and blessing.
• The resurrection brings man back into the presence of God for judgment.
• Agency is given to man; we are not compelled to come back to God.

When I compared in my mind Alma 42 with Markham’s poem I wrote:

“The Spirit of the Lord again rested upon me and testified that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is true.  Alma 42 is as masterfully woven together as Edwin Markham’s poem, but infinitely more profound. Markham was not unique in asking the deep questions he did.  They have been asked by many before him, and many since.  He was original only in the language in which he formulated his questions.  Alma 42, insofar as I know, is totally original.”

Thank God for Joseph Smith.  Lets think together again, soon.

*Robert Mayerovitch, “The Challenge of Otherness,” Baccalaureate address, Baldwin-Wallace College, 7 May 2006, in Vital Speeches of the Day 72 (June 2006), p. 552, emphasis added.

**Charles L. Wallis, Poems of Edwin Markham, (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1950), p. 5, emphasis added.