Zane K's Response to "What I Now Believe"

I agree with the author on many points. Too often we put so much focus on what our grade will be, and we lose sight of the eternal, spiritual perspective of education. We worry so much about doing well that we don’t get much of anything from the experiences we have. I do think the author made grades sound too unimportant. They do have importance; that scholarship is important, and that career is important, but we cannot let those divert our attention from what is truly important. As the author said, we will not be asked to show our transcript when we are judged, but we may be asked how we served the Lord.

One of the other points that the author made is the “classroom King” hierarchy. Most of the time, I do not think of my teachers this way, though I can’t say I have never had a teacher like that. If anything, I think of them as wiser and in charge, but rarely do I find them tyrannical. Usually they are nice, and, well, a teacher. We tend to be afraid of our teachers. We don’t ask them questions, we try to suck up to them for extra credit, and we do all we can to avoid their bad side. I find it interesting how normal and how human teachers can be if you just have a friendly chat with them. Some of the best discussions I have had in High School were with my teachers. There is rarely a real reason to be afraid of a teacher.

Matt L's Response to "What I Now Believe"

Oh the irony.  I love how I get to respond to this big, grand finale type RFIW article all about how to make the best of our BYU educations and be the best students we can be when I, the grandsire of all procrastination and goof-offery, am scrambling to write this blog response the night before and with a fully lackluster attitude.   I just can’t defeat the thought that none of you could give a crap what I’m writing and will only be reading this response because you’re required to.  Frankly, I don’t care either, and I’m kinda playing the same game as you folks.  In fact, I intend to use this blog post as a kind of experiment more than anything. See, I’m hypothesizing that people leave the most comments on the responses that are the shortest/ most skimmable because none of us really care about any of these articles or our peer’s responses and once a week we just go online and choose the path of least resistance.  So I apologize: even though this article would persuade me to do otherwise, I’m going to try to keep this brief in the name of science. And also in the name of my unfinished Great Works responses.

            So as revealed before, I am no one to expound on Richard’s words here.  I would be such a dirty hypocrite, and I can’t afford to be defamed like that or have you lovely people hate me, oh no no. So instead, I thought I would write about ways you and I fail at making the best of our stays at BYU, because I’m definitely a credible source when it comes to failure.

Ready? Follow

                        Meeee

                               eeeeeeeeeeee

                                                  eeeeeee!!!

Richard’s first belief: We should view our education in an “eternal context” in order to make the best of our mortal and post-mortal lives.  This means we work with goals and have a sense of mission and spirituality within our learning.

A Failure’s interpretation:  Psych!  To be honest, I pretty much work assignment to assignment and think of nothing but finishing so I can sleep.  I am the natural man if there ever was one, and although I like learning stuff, I don’t exactly view my homework as any kind of channel for learning.  Everything just seems like busy work to me.  Things like this, for example, I’m doing just because I have to.  And I know I’m not alone in this.  We all have an imperfect perspective of learning because it’s far easier to jump through hoops than to actually stand back and refine our knowledge.  To paraphrase Richards, “Knock it off, Matt”

Belief # 2:  Our professors are there to help us.  They’re in the same boat as we are, just trying to perfect themselves and others and share their knowledge with us to promote our eternal well being.

Failure says:  Our professors are our friends? LIARS!  They are the enemy, just waiting to trap me with some kind of knowledgeable trickery and expose all my well disguised dumbness.  I try to look at my professors as friends, but in certain cases they seem more like crazy people than anyone I want to look to for help, which holds me back in a big way from getting the most out of my education.  I need to stop competing with them, figuratively, and practice learning for a change. 

The Final Belief:      Richards finally suggests that we “consecrate [our time at BYU] unto Him” (21) and, somewhat reiterating his first belief, never let the world’s standards replace or supersede the higher standards of a “consecrated” people. 

I’m Special:  Finally! One area where I don’t completely suck.  Personally, and I think about everyone is with me here, I manage to keep my standards in place at BYU.  You’ve pretty much got to try to commit any major sin here, and because we live as students live apart from the carnal influences outside of this place, we can grow and progress in ways that seemed miles away a couple months ago.  It’s so much easier here to get in a spiritual zone, and from there it gets a lot easier to lace spirituality in with your academics.  While I do suffer from “academic bulimia” (20) as I’m sure many of you my fellow peers/adoring fans do, I still do learn a lot, sometimes against my will.  Richards did an excellent job of picking me up and brushing the dust off of me in this section after those guilt trips in the first two sections.  After coming to BYU I feel like I stand for something, and I have a reputation and a mission larger than myself to uphold by studying here.  I expect more of myself, and so does the world, and I do feel like I’m learning how to be the best representative of Christ as I can.  In a world that belittles Christ repeatedly, it feels good to know that I’m at least preparing myself to do what is right in a secular world, and let my secular side complement my religious one at the same time.

And that’s all I can really say about this article.  Dang good speaking is what it is.  I wish I could have been at the devotional for this one.  I need a good kick in the pants every once in a while, and this article caught me off guard.  Good for you, Richards.  Hopefully I’ll catch on before it’s too late.      

Miriam J's Response to "What I Now Believe"

     It was in high school that I first began to enjoy learning. I realized, what I was learning was actually kind of interesting. That was one thing that I loved about A.P. classes; the students actually cared about what they were learning. They cared overly much about their grades, too, but at least they weren’t too cool to discuss what they were learning about. However, I still cared more about my grades than anything else, and I didn’t bother to remember anything I had learned after the A.P. test was over. I suppose laziness won out over sounding smart.

    

   Now that I’m in college, I’m still having a hard time caring more about what I’m learning than about my grades. But reading what A. LeGrand Richards had to say about education helped to put things into perspective for me. He talks about how a lot of students view school as a game, as something to get through with as little effort possible. But school isn’t about getting good grades; it’s about learning. And not just learning for a career, but learning so that we can fulfill our mission in this life, whatever that may be. The more learning we have, the more we will be able to serve the Lord wherever we are. Any type of learning can be helpful – music, languages, business, even car repair. We should be excited and eager to learn. 

      

 There really is a lot to learn in this world; no matter how hard we try, we’ll never be able to learn it all in this life. We all know how important serving is; that alone should be incentive to learn more. Anything we learn can be used to serve others, even if we can’t see how right now. For example, if I have never stuck with piano for 13 years, I wouldn’t be able to serve as the sacrament meeting accompanist right now. If we just have a good attitude about learning and are actually interested in what our professors – and anyone else, for that matter – has to teach us, it will make our lives so much more fulfilling.

Holly H's Respose to "What I Now Believe"

Haha. Funny I should be assigned to read this article. I really struggled with my decision to come to BYU. When I visited campus the summer before I applied, I remember the admission counselor I spoke with talked at length about the unique learning environment available at BYU, particularly the opportunities for spiritual growth. When I returned home, my dad repeated much of what he said verbatim, emphasizing the wonderful spiritual experiences I would have here (all the while telling me I could go wherever I wanted, no pressure). It was only half-heartedly that I finally sent in my acceptance of admission to BYU, after weeks of putting off the action that would commit me to spending four years of my life in Provo. I was not excited. I took a very cynical approach to the whole idea of church-school integration. I did not want to hear about our divine American heritage; I wanted to learn the “real” version of history. I didn’t want to have the overlay of some psycho religious professor’s personal reflections imposed onto every subject I studied.

In this article (transcript of a devotional address, really), Richards puts this concept differently. He says that what we practice here is “learning the temporal in the context of the eternal.” Well, that’s an idea I can deal with a little bit better.

As it turns out, for the most part, I’ve enjoyed any religious connections my teachers have cared to make to their subjects. In Astronomy, for instance, Dr. Hintz often shares scriptures about the heavens and stars, etc. Far from offending my sense of academic legitimacy, these additions have elevated my studies this semester. I’ve been able to ponder my life from an eternal point of view more than I ever have, and I know that that is due, at least in part, to the spiritual environment I am in pretty much 24/7. My religion class, which I’d been dreading most, has miraculously turned out to be my favorite class. This is possible to some extent because I’ve been able to separate it from the “game of school” and focus on learning all that I can from the scriptures.

As your typical perfectionist/over-achiever student, I’m definitely acquainted with the “game of school” that Richards talks about. Over the past couple of years, I’ve gotten a lot better at recognizing what is important and what doesn’t matter, but the tendency to give undue importance to grades and prizes is still something I wrestle with. Richard’s message here is to set aside the competitive, prideful attitudes we have toward school and instead focus our energy on learning as children of God trying to better themselves. One quote I really liked was his response to “But we have to play the game to survive!” people. He said, “The reality is, however, that you are not on this earth to maintain a scholarship, enter prestigious graduate schools, or beat someone else in the marketplace. You have a much higher standard.” That lends some great perspective to the subject.

So, though BYU’s religious nature has its quirks, there really is a rich environment here, all geared towards enabling us to expand our minds and grow in the Gospel. Yep, that’s right, I’m pretty much repeating what the admissions officer told me, and what my dad told me, and what my grandparents and all those other adults told me about BYU. So do I feel silly for my antics in the spring? A little. But there’s nothing like knowing something for yourself, and now that I have a better grip on the advantages of a religion-oriented education, I can appreciate and begin to make the most of the opportunities BYU offers me.

Sean K's Response to "What I Now Believe"

Brother Richards spoke at a BYU devotional back in 97. He talked about his personal experiences with devotionals back when he attended, I find that we have a similar outlook on devotional attendance; I find that when I attend devotionals I get blessings, sometimes they come subtly through the speaker but oftentimes, just being in such a spiritual setting just helps me through the day. A friend once told me he planned to attend all the devotionals because he needed the blessings that come from attending them. I feel the same way now.

Brother Richards highlighted three beliefs of retrospective prominence for him. First off he said, "I wish I had placed my education in its eternal context." I don't think its really helpful for me to be re-telling the material so I'll just tell you another story. I have  a friend who likes to talk about "deep stuff". He literally called me thap one day and asked if he could talk about deep stuff with me because he was scared he might scare off his new friends by being so forward about deep subjects. So on a particular night we started talking about our futures. We both aspire to be medical professionals so he went off on his big plans he made for every year of his life for about the next fifteen years. His eternal perspective on this situation was through the parable of the talents. Basically, he believes that if we slack off, that is a waste of our educational capacity, therefore we'll be punished at the last day. My life hasn't quite been planned as well as his was. My perspective contrasted his because I believe that even if we aren't constantly learning in an academic sense, most everything else we do with our time, we are gaining experience in some way. Which to me means that I'm still learning something even if I take it easy and take longer getting to the career field, I can still be learning things and still be progressing. Just food for thought.

His second belief was that: "I wish I had believed that m professors were nothing more and nothing less than my brothers and sisters." I triple dog dare (oOoOOO) someone to address SWILUA as her royal highness. (although, I suppose If we constantly addressed her as She Who Is Like Unto Aphrodite, we'd get a similar response anyways). I just find this example so stunningly true. Back in high school, I had the system down. I knew how to make teachers like me, I knew what would press their buttons and what would make them believe I was worthy of their concern. Many times I felt as if they were tyrants and I was playing the game trying to please them and stay out of their angry tantrums. Brother Richard's belief is really insightful, I think too many students separate their church and school-life; so people in their wards might be brothers and sisters, but teachers in school suddenly become absolute, power-hungry tyrants.  I don't mean to preach, but I think its important to remember that every person is a brother or a sister, some just have more experience than others and it is the opportunity for the less-experienced to learn from the more-experienced people.

The final retrospective wish was that: "I wish that I had believed that the standards of the worlds were not sufficient for a consecrated people." When I asked one of my cousins from out of state, why they wanted to come to BYU, they said, "I just don't want to deal with any of the worldly things that are on every other campus than this one." And although I haven't had much experience outside this "Provo Bubble" I still do feel blessed to be going to such a campus where I can keep my standards with people around me who have similar standards.

I can't say it any better than the way he put it. "The reality is, however, that you are not on this earth to maintain a scholarship, enter prestigious graduate schools, or beat someone else in the marketplace. You have a much higher standard. You need to please the Lord God Omnipotent. I promise you that if you please him, with an eye single to his glory, your life will not be without GREAT OPPORTUNITIES" (emphasis added)

Jason R's Response to "Zeal Without Knowledge"

“What are you thinking?” People ask me this question sometimes, or a variation on it, and I usually discount it as an an unimportant filler question, just a way to begin a conversation. However, Nibley holds that there is no more important question. What we think about is vital, not just very very important but vital to our salvation.

This raises an important question. What should we think about? And are there things we should not think about?

The answer to the second question is most definitely yes. Prophets in every age have counseled us against thinking about certain things, things that are morally degrading and defiling—the prophet Jacob condemned the Nephites not just for their actions but for their thoughts. I won't go into what these thoughts are, I'm sure you are as familiar with the list as I am.

We have also been commanded, time and time again, not to think about riches, wealth, the honor and praise of men, the things of the world. It is our natural tendency—or perhaps not a natural tendency but a structure drilled into us by the society we live in—to aim to be rich, powerful, influential, comfortable. However, riches and worldly power are not God's priority nor His wish for us, and it is important for us to remember this.

Instead, we should use our precious, priceless time to think about the things of eternity. This leads to a very important question: “What exactly are the 'things of eternity'?” Though I could list a few—and you probably could, too—I will leave this question open ended for, as Nibley says, this is the first question we must ask, and its answer will be our next step.

Jessica N's Response to "Zeal Without Knowledge"

Wow. This article was exactly what I needed to hear. As I read the closing line of “May God help us all in the days of our probation to seek the knowledge he wants us to seek,” a lot of the things I’ve been thinking about fell into place. Mostly the fact that I have no idea what I want to choose as a major and that thought has been bothering me lately. To get somewhere I need to have a goal, and being without a major sometimes feels like I’m working hard…but to what end? What is it I am trying to accomplish in this life, why was I sent here at this time to BYU, what do I want to gain from my time here? I could go on and on about the questions I have, but instead I will say what this article answered for me.

First off that I am here to gain knowledge for the eternities. Not for a job, not for money, but for the eternities. What is a job for money compared to knowledge for the rest of eternity? As Hugh Nibley says “If you’re so zealous in such matters [things of the world], why can’t you take your eternal future seriously?” Of course, being a college student money gets tight and I want a profession that will pay the bills- but is that what will most benefit me? While reading I understood that if I have the faith to choose a profession that will help me grow the most eternally, then things will then work out temporally. That may mean choosing a career that won’t be glamorous or pay in the sight of the world. The short time of probation on this earth is a time of learning and growth, and in the eternal scheme of things as long as I choose what I feel will most benefit me and others in this world and the world to come, I will be making the right decision.

Secondly, I was hit hard by the section stating that how I spend every moment of my short probation on earth is a test of my character. What am I doing with my time? Am I spending it in the best way possible? When I look back on my short time of probation, will I say I spent it after worthwhile things? I’ve come to realize the important things, what really matters, are not always what I spend time on. Those few minutes on facebook, watching youtube, television, all those things that take up my time that are not necessarily “bad” are taking away from my potential. I can be so much more: I just have to put the time and effort into becoming so. The friendships I make, the knowledge I gain, the spiritual growth: those are the things that matter. Everything else is well and good, but not necessarily imperative to my eternal progression. There is so much knowledge out there, knowledge that I thirst after, and that is what I should be spending my time on.

The last thought from this reading that answered some of my questions was when Hugh Nibley stated: “If we try to settle for a milder program at lower stakes and safer risks, we are immediately slapped and buffeted by a power that will not let us rest.” I’ve lately felt that need to push myself, to do more and accomplish more. I think when I hit a plateau of learning that is the only way to go: upwards. As I push through a difficult time and make it through, my options are to stay where I am or keep pushing onward. And there’s the part of me that wants to keep pushing onward, to become better and do all I possibly can in my time here on earth. I think that is the zealous portion of learning. The knowledge part? The knowledge part I think is accomplished by actively seeking after learning.
Learning is a lifelong process; it’s not something that we will be finished with after college. Learning is a part of our entire lives. We are potential Gods, and staying on a safe level is not characteristic of a potential God. We are continually tested because we have so much potential. We have to earnestly seek after knowledge, and as we do so, we will be given it. As we learn new knowledge, we will be able to learn more knowledge that was before unavailable to us because of our lack of knowledge. As we gain more knowledge, we are able to learn more, and more, until we learn things we didn’t think ourselves capable of when we first began learning. I compare it to the knowledge I had as a child to the knowledge I have now, and compare it to the knowledge I have now to the knowledge I will someday have. I could not comprehend as a child what I know now, and I can’t comprehend now what I will one day know in the future.

The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know. As I learn, I realize how much there is to learn. And how much human beings don’t know. There is so much to learn out there and as both zeal and knowledge is applied, we can progress onward to gain even more knowledge in this life, which will help us in the next.

Ariel P's Response to "Zeal Without Knowledge"

Knowledge can be seen as something that is critical, or necessary to obtain in order to progress in this life time. There are many different types of knowledge; however, only true knowledge is worth knowing. Being members of the church we have access to the truth. It’s extremely hard to tell someone that what they know is not correct, but the fact is they just do not have the full truth. Nibly discusses the importance of knowledge because it is really the only thing we take with us to the next life. He tells us that zeal and knowledge should work together. Knowledge can be useless if you don’t apply it in some way. I enjoy learning because there is always something new to know, but that is when zeal comes in and drives us to desire to learn and expand our knowledge.

Having zeal is important and can act as the motivation or drive to learn but we need to be aware that there is false information out there. I agree with Nibly that there is so much information out there it can be hard to know what the real truth is and what isn’t. It’s harder to find solid truth that is unwavering and therefore it’s important to control your drive for knowledge. I think of the media and all of the false advertisements. They will pretty much tell you anything you want to hear if it means they will be making money.

I had never really thought about everything that constitutes sin. Sin does not always mean doing something bad and doesn’t have to be big. Not doing anything at all makes up sin as well and Nibly really described that well. I know I definitely sit around way more than I should and should be more focused on being as productive as I can with the limited amount of time that I have. If we do that then we should never feel bored. Knowing the importance of knowledge makes me want to learn the most I can but also make sure I am learning truth and not false information.

Matthew G's Response to "Zeal Without Knowledge"

I think that there were valid statements and principles in this article, but I also feel that Hugh Nibley was a little bit extreme. Yeah, people do tend to take the path of least resistance, which can often include things like denial of truth and self-delusion, but I don’t think that most people are mad men gallivanting about without brains in their heads.

Most members tend to know what is in the scriptures, but they lack the faith and the determination (zeal?) to study it and find out what they need to do to use it in their own lives. I don’t think that we have too much zeal, I think we just tend to use it in the wrong ways. As he said, people focus way too much on the things of the world. They set their hearts on the things of men and fail to give up their vain desires to learn how to become truly Godlike (no one is exempt, I include myself). We put so much effort into learning what we need to know to make a great career for ourselves so we can have 3 cars and a garage full of junk and really live “the American dream.” If we were humble, meek, and submissive as to the things of the world, but had the zeal to go forth and seek the words of God and testify of their truthfulness with much boldness, maybe this world would be in better shape.

I also think that this ties in with the idea of getting a C for the experience of it. We focus so much on doing exactly what we have to do to get an A that we really let the knowledge we could glean from the course slip past us. We
sacrifice opportunities for growth in order to obtain gold stars and sleepless nights full of stress and anxiety. The lessons we learn best are the ones that we learn not because we are enticed, but because we either want to learn and we seek it out, or God eventually drops it in our laps with some huge crisis that makes us panic and fret because we’ve lost the “control” over our lives that we thought we had. Maybe if we just sat down and listened to see what God has to say, we wouldn’t end up stuck in the ridiculous situations we find ourselves in so often.

I think zeal is a great thing. It has led men to do heroic things that they would never have been able to do without it. The key is channeling that zeal like Nibley says, so that is causes us to seek more knowledge, which will then give us greater zeal. Our zeal should flow in this cycle. If we interrupt this cycle, we damn ourselves with a sinful, prideful zeal instead of a zeal that gives us determination to bring light into the world.

Nibley said that universities are nothing more or less than a place for people to show off, which I think is also rather extreme. This is only true when people are filled with the prideful zeal. Universities can be filled with people whose greatest desire is to learn and enrich their lives. People learn how to be wiser, hard working, and knowledgeable people when they use their zeal appropriately in the university setting. We should embrace our zeal, but make sure that we don’t create a zealous culture that does nothing to move society forward, but squanders itself in pride and boasting.

Lindsay C's Response to "A Crime of Compassion"

I do not believe Barbara Huttmann to be a murderer in any way. What she did was what the patient wanted—who had the right to deny him his release from suffering? If a man before you is writhing in agony, wasted away into a skeleton, lost the strength to move or eat, and is asking to die, what makes you want to keep him alive? I find the TV audience who accuses Huttmann of murder for her ‘crime’ of compassion to be absolutely wrong. No man or woman should have to live in that state.

The audience says, “What gives you the right to play God?” I say, what gives them to keep a dying man pleading for death alive? I agree with the author, do we not have the right to die?

Reading this article pulls at my heartstrings—I would be willing to lose my job just to save this man from the agony of lung cancer that has eaten away at his body and life. It’s an act of such compassion, such selflessness that I view as Christ-like.

Where do we draw the line in keeping someone alive as right or wrong? Many do not see a line—keep a person alive at all costs, the TV audience in the article seems to say. I see the line exists where the patient wishes to be let go—where ‘saving’ the patient means letting him die. Death is not always a horrible thing—‘saving’ a man, in this case, means giving him over to death. If the author had not released the man from his agony, then she would just be condemning him to a longer life of nothing but suffering at the hands of lung cancer.

This woman did the right thing. No matter what the media may say about her, she is protector, not a murderer. She saved that man by letting him die while his heart failed him. She did not take that man’s life—she set it free to be at peace.

Instructions for the MOA Scavenger Hunt

On Blackboard there's a list of art terms.  Look under "course materials" and then the Great Works aids.  Have someone in your peer review group print off a copy for you. 

With your p.r. groups, proceed quietly (no running, no yelling, no jumping, no being crazy people, etc.) throughout the museum. Look for an example of each of the terms on the list. Find as many as you can within the 50 minute space of class, but don't stay longer than 50 minutes. The group with the most might get a prize.

Bring your list of art/term matches to class on Wednesday in case we need it.

ps: no need to comment on this post

Kerri S's Response to "Mother's Choice"

“I suppose I only really learned about choice when I chose to devote more of my time to a life I had previously misunderstood and undervalued: that is, when I became a mom.”

Anna Quindlen shares her thoughts on the value of being a mom, a role that many of us in our religion and culture highly esteem. However, that’s not the prevailing view in the rest of the world. With the Women’s Movement recently, the view of women has changed, and their roles are looked at differently.

Many women now view success as having a high-paying career and being high up in a company, or just having their own life and career without relying on others, especially a man. The family unit is valued less, and the role of a mother is looked upon as unimportant, unrewarding, and un-enjoyable.

I love how Quindlen talks about being a stay-at-home-mom as being “The Noble Thing”, as seen by women in the world. I think there’s truth in that – being a mom is a noble and important role. But what I especially love about this essay is that it talks about the enjoyment of being a mom. Yes, motherhood is difficult and demanding, and like Quindlen says, includes a lot of cleaning up of messes, but it is enjoyable and fulfilling. That is the message that needs to get out to women. Being a great mom is the absolute best thing a woman can do with her life, not just because it’s a required and noble role, but because the best things in life will come from family.

Travis M's Response to "Mother's Choice"

This article opened my mind to the idea that a woman can still be a feminist even if she chooses motherhood over a working career.  While I was reading this article I couldn’t help but think of “The Family: A Proclamation To The World.”  I know a few people who have almost nothing to do with raising their children.  I know of some situations where the mother is so caught up in work that she ends up having a nanny raise her own children.  I actually have friends who are just as close, if not closer, to their nannies as they are their mothers.  I think this type of circumstance is wrong and far too extreme.

I really liked the way that the author explained that the reason she chose to be a stay at home mother had nothing to do with her obligation to her children.  She mentions that many other feminists would say that she was doing the “noble thing.”  I couldn’t agree more with the author’s argument that it is ok for a feminist to choose a life of motherhood. 

My mom actually quit her job after my younger brother was born.  After seeing some of the situations some of my friends have grown in I'm very grateful that she quit her career to be a mom.  I couldn't agree more with the author's arguement.

Tasha M's Response to "Mother's Choice"

Sometimes, the thought of being a mother sounds like it would be the most amazing thing in the world.  You get to have some of the best years of your life, with the best experiences that you can.  You get to have that joy of looking at a little face and knowing that you are raising them to be the best that they can be.

            But at other times, the thought of being a mother can be down-right frightening.  I agree with the author, Anna Quindlen, about being a mother–to a point.  I personally am happy that women are given more freedom in today's world; that we can have a job and be looked upon favorably, that we can choose to have a career, that we can live our lives in the way that we choose and dictate.  However, I do not agree with the idea that being a mother is just as good as your career. 

            You have to understand though, I am a very adamant believer in Women's Rights–but not when it means that being a mother is not our greatest goal in life.  Motherhood is and always will be the greatest thing that we, as women, can do in our lives.  Nothing can change that.  Although I am only a freshman, and the thought of getting married at 18 seems very frightening, I still am living my life to prepare for being a mother.  Obviously not by picking out RM's and seeing which one is the most eligible.  That is disturbing.  I am preparing now for being a mother in the best way I see fit–by living the Gospel the best that I can and by getting the best education that I can through my studies here at BYU.  By doing this now, I won't have to drastically change my lifestyle for when I am trying to be an example to my children.

            I still want to have a career and to be successful in my own right.  But that does not mean that I have to give up my career in order to be a mother.  I can do what is right for me; whether it be a career, children, or both, I know that I can make my decision and live as the Lord would have me live.  And in doing so, I can be a "freakin' amazing" mom.  An LDS, BYU graduate, goes to church every Sunday, reads her scriptures and says her prayers every day kind of mom . . . Hopefully.

Tanner E's Response to "Mother's Choice"

Hi.  My name is Tanner.   And it has been 15 hours since my last Facebook stalking experience.

 It’s Missionary Week in Heritage Halls, as you all well know, and my main goal for Missionary Week is no Facebook all week.  Starting today.  So naturally, I spent a healthy amount of time soaking up the blue and white screen last night.  And naturally, I stalked a few people.  

Did you know that Marissa* was a kitty cat for Halloween?  Let’s just say her costume was not exactly Honor Code appropriate.  College has definitely changed her.

Or do you know this girl named Maddie whose friend claims she met you but you have never seen her in your life?  Yeah.  Me neither.  But she listens to Sufjan, so she’s definitely cool.

These are just two examples of a typical experience on Facebook for me.  Judge me if you want.  Forever remember me as “the Facebook stalker.”  Honestly, I don’t really care.  Because I know who you are.  I know who your roommates are.  I know what kind of music you like.  I know what quotes really make you swoon.  I know about your boyfriend (or lack thereof).  I’ve got you pegged.

And this, my friends, is my problem.

My name is Tanner, and I stereotype.  But I am learning.  Before coming to BYU, I Facebook stalked all my roommates because that is just the necessary thing to do.  Anyway, I had them all pegged.  Antonio (still fake names here) was really into himself because he went to a prestigious arts school.  Francisco loves Andrew Bird, but he looks hyperactive.  Shane was your typical California kid: stuck up and too cool.  And Orangellomanickaniqua was definitely going to be sheltered.  I thought I knew them from a couple of pictures and a status update, but I was completely off.

These roommates—who I thought I knew—turned out to be completely different.  In fact, I can happily say, they turned out to be some of my very best friends.  And the funny thing is, they pegged me wrong too.  

And the saddest part is, I still do this!  I should really learn from my past, but instead, everyone I meet is categorized.  Potential freshman fling.  Hard core jock.  Immature band geek.  Wedding ring hunter.  Library addict.  The list goes on.

So let’s talk about Mother’s Choice by Anna Quindlen.  I promise I will tie these things together.  First and foremost, I love feminists.  That’s why I picked this article.  For some reason, I am always really really good friends with feminists (and vegetarians).  So if you are either of those (or if you listen to Sufjan and/or Andrew Bird) find me on Facebook.  

But the thing about feminists, as Anna Quindlen explains, is that they love to stereotype.  (Incidentally, the feminists that I do know also love Facebook stalking.  Go figure.)  Like Quindlen explains, feminists typically have all these misconceptions about motherhood.  Even more, they look down on these “sell-outs” who choose motherhood over careers.

Clearly, most feminists and I have a problem, as does most of the world probably.    We love to compartmentalize people.  Once we think we know them, we put them in a category and assume all the other character traits will align with the stereotype.  But guess what, they don’t!!

I, for one, am more than a English major.  I am more than a Mormon.  I am more than an cello player.  I am more than the music I listen to or the clothes I wear or my Facebook profile picture.  Everyone is.  And Anna Quindlen gets that.  It took her a few years and a heck of a lot of experience to learn it, but people are more than just a stereotype.  Quindlen so beautifully states, “I wanted to be somebody, and now I am—several somebodies, to be exact” (RFIW 132).  And these stereotypes, these compartments that we try to force people into are nothing more than misunderstandings.  If we, like Quindlen, take to time to see both sides, then (and only then) can we truly judge a person.  And more often than not, we will love both sides.  If we get to know the people behind the Facebook profile pictures, more often than not, we will love them (see roommate backstory above).

I’ve learned a lot by coming to BYU.  I’ve learned that making friends is predatory business.  In a matter of sentences, people will write you off as not good enough.  It’s pathetic, really.  But everyone does it!!  So here’s my challenge to you (and me) from Anna Quindlen: understand people.  Get to know them beyond hometowns and majors.  Sure, Facebook stalk.  It’s fun.  We all love it.  In fact, Facebook stalk me.  But if you do, really get to know me.  Don’t judge me by my wall posts and my interests, judge me by the conversations and experiences we will potentially have.

(But really...let’s be Facebook friends.)

* Names changed to protect Facebook identities.

Chloe L's Response to "Mother's Choice"

This article would be assigned to me.  Me- the mia-maid who when asked to draw her life in ten years was still in grad school and single, while every single other young women’s picture involved a kitchen and at least two toddlers at her feet.  It’s not that I think my own mother’s life is bad – that’s not it at all.  I’ve just never been the type to believe I’m getting an education “just in case” my dear husband dies or becomes incapacitated or leaves me and suddenly I’m handed the pants.   I don’t consider my womb to be my greatest asset.  A lot of the time I forget I even have one at all.  I’ve always based my self-confidence and identity first and foremost on my mind; my wit and intellect have always been more important to me than my looks or my domestic skills. 

 

My parents always tease me about how for at least three years when anybody would call me cute or pretty or adorable as a kid, I would scream “NO! I’M NOT! I’M SPECIAL!”  Although I roll my eyes when it’s told, I think this story accurately describes the way in which I think- which is likely my favorite thing to do.  Why would I give that up?  Well, the thing is, I won’t.  I’m not going to.  And I don’t have to.  Raising a family and pursuing intellectual enrichment are not, as some Mormon women mistakenly believe, mutually exclusive. 

 I am not at BYU to get married.  I am not at BYU to further my education while hoping to meet my husband as a plus.  And once again, I am not here to learn a trade so that I can be self-sufficient in fear of the terrible chance that my husband can no longer provide for me.  I am not even here so I can become employable.  I am here to learn.  I happen to love learning, just for the sake of learning, no strings attached.  So no, children are not constantly in the back of my mind.  I’m not educating myself for them.  I’m not searching for their future daddy either. 

 I’m not averse to children.  I would be lying if I said I didn’t see them in my future.  But I’m pretty sure I’ll raise my children in a similar fashion to Anna Quindlen, particularly if I have boys.  I really appreciated this article.  It is by far my favorite one that I have read.  After our environmental science major debate in class, I can perfectly imagine the collective groan uttered when that hated word feminist was read.  Feminism: of or relating to or advocating equal rights for women.  Positively deadly.  I am a feminist.  I believe in sexual equality.  GASP!  As a heretic, I shall blaspheme on this blog with the opinion that men and woman are both great.  However, just like Anna Quindlen, I do think women do sort of win when you count up all the points.  I mean, we do have that one thing that they don’t.  What is it again?  Oh yeah, womb. 

Jonathan M's Response to "Mother's Choice"

Mother's are a very important thing to us as LDS folk. We don't take their role lightly at all. A mothers calling is the highest calling anyone can receive. God is putting his trust in there mothers to raise the children in the manner he would have them. That is a big responsibility.

Anna Quindlen points out that moms aren't noticed unless they are "in a Third World country or do it while running a  Fortune 500 company and the New York marathon." I found this funny but also very true. Moms don't get awards and they aren't recognized at all. In society today the focus is never on the woman as a mom but instead the focus is on what else they have accomplished like being independent and showing that they are capable of doing what the men are capable of doing. I like this notion, but I also like giving praise to the role of the mom. I agree with that thought and I like seeing that women prove themselves capable of what men are capable of. This is good. Men are not superior to women at any degree and if anything the males should be looking up to their wives because they are the ones that are doing the behind the scenes work. I'm just joking. The relationship between a husband and wife should be equal, but the thought of being superior to the male just to get back at them for the past and still present treatment in some areas of the world sounds so fair to some of ya'll, right? :) Too bad God's ways aren't the old law and today we live the new law. You could have gotten lucky and have taken an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth had you lived whatever thousand years ago that was- I don't feel like thinking too hard at the moment.

Anna saw motherhood as a kind of cage while growing up. Her reasoning for this is because the moms had more children they they wanted, they weren't able to make the spacing between the children the way they wanted and "as soon as you started throwing up in the powder room at parties and walking around in those horrible little pup-tent dresses your life was over." Now with the i-phone you can get an app to solve the spacing of children flaw- or at least I've heard there's some sort of app for babies. Idk. Whatever. The other two the i-phone won't cover, but you future wives can definitely control you husbands so you don't end up with more children than you want. I think it was Elder Scott that said the husbands better be listen to their wives anyways, so just use that to your advantage. Quoting one of the current prophets on the earth is always a quick way to put an end to a potential epic battle between your husband. Just saying.

I don't mind feminists, but I love joking with them. This one girl in my ward had a poster of what's her name? She's the woman that's got her sleeves rolled up and she's basically the propaganda for getting women to go into the army. Haha. Just messing. It's not propaganda at all. Just a simple poster. Anyways... I was planning an attack where I cut out a huge face of Dwight Shrute and paste it over that ladies face, but I still have not executed that plan. It just one of those funny thoughts you have. I would feel really bad doing it, because who knows how they would respond. They might kill me. :)

Hope you enjoyed my little speel about nothing but mothas! Who are in fact the best thing ever created! Who doesn't love a sandwich :). haha Just ignore me. My roommates keep using that line and it just popped out of no where. When I put on my serious face, which I am right now, mothers are vital. Without them men would fall.

McKenzie V's Response to "Feed my Lambs"

This story is about a well educated white women going to an area that has gangs, shootings, and prejudice. In this personal narrative, Marni Asplund-Campbell comes to a school with teenagers that live underprivileged lives. She had three questions: why, how, and what to teach. With each question, Asplund-Campbell came experienced change with the students and within herself.

What became her first concern. What to teach? Knowing the circumstances of the lives of students she decided on intolerance. Many of the students that she teaches have seen and dealt with intolerance. Having intolerance towards others, and other being intolerant of them.

How to teach them? How can I ask students who work graveyard shifts to pay the rent, whose mothers and father are crack addicts, who know that there is a better than good chance they will be dead by twenty-one, to care about literature, about writing? Clarifying the motives for the teacher and the students.

Why? She has the students read Night, which is about a man's experience in a holocaust camp. She knows that the things that the students have seen and experienced have felt similar and unjust. The students find similarities with intolerance. Afterward, the students thanked the teacher. It helped them open their eyes and think more about their lives.

This is story is similar to the movie Freedom Writers. A well educated Caucasian woman enters a culturally diverse high school filled with many students who suffer from prejudice and intolerance. Then the teacher presents materials that the students relate to. Then the students began to change and become more attentive and they participate more. The teacher finds reason for her job and through some internal conflict, so finds her reasons why. 

Carlie H's Response to "Feed my Lambs"

It’s so easy to read this and expect an inspiring story about how a young teacher changed the lives of disadvantaged youth. That’s the stereotype. Hollywood promotes it, and according to Asplund-Campbell, so does Harvard. We all expect it, but the reality is that it doesn’t happen like Hollywood. In fact, most times, it doesn’t happen at all.

So why do it? What’s the point of even trying at all? Why face such a challenge? I chose to write on this article because I didn’t get it. She struggled so hard for practically nothing as a result. I had to read this over and over. What was the point? The students were the same as before. Didn’t her fancy Harvard education teach her anything?

Then I got it. It wasn’t about her Harvard education or her students. It was about her. This was her personal essay, so it was about her internal change. Her internal change wasn’t about how she overcame the struggle. She didn’t. She even said that she ran away from it all in the end. Her personal discovery was why she even struggled at all.

That was her message: discover why you struggle. At first, she struggled without reason, and it caused her to despair. Gradually she found a reason, even if she didn’t know it yet. She loved her students and found a connection with them. Her struggle became meaningful to her when she realized why she was trying so hard.

I think it’s that way for any struggle we face. At first we don’t get it, and we can’t understand. We rage against it saying, “Why does this have to happen to me?” Sometimes we get through it but never really discover why we struggled so hard, and in the long run, it doesn’t make much of a difference. We forget it and move on. Sometimes though, we get an epiphany, and our struggle becomes something deeper. It gains meaning, and we connect with it. Those are the struggles that make a difference, maybe not to the world but to us personally.

So now I get the point of “Feed my Lambs.” Asplund-Campbell didn’t make as much a difference to her students as she did to herself.

Sven W's Response to "Feed my Lambs"

Reading this article reminded me of the movie Stand and Deliver where Jaime Escalante teaches high levels of math to some undereducated and underprivileged kids in some inner city high school.

            Reading this story reminded me of hearing about how in other schools people can’t go to the bathroom because they get attacked there. In my school the worst thing that happened in the bathrooms was people turning the light off. I don’t know if I ever appreciated the safety of my school as much as I should’ve.

            She says that on the test she gave them difficult essay questions and that the kids mostly answered with insights she had given them two days earlier but she seemed pretty content with that. This reminded me of a test I had on The Great Gatsby in high school where I kind of knew what the essay questions would be and I ended up using a lot of information for multiple questions and I think I was faking it a lot or maybe even “b.s.ing” but I got 50/50. I think I either took advantage of my teacher’s methods or it was just graded easily. I find it interesting that the teacher didn’t really seem to have a problem with it. I think she must’ve felt that even if they had simply learned something by almost copying and pasting then that was good enough, at least for these inner city kids. If this were a higher quality school she may not have preferred that.

Niles W's Response to "Feed my Lambs"

Frankly, this sounds a lot like freshman physical science back in high school. That year, my school began offering one AP class to freshman, Human Geography. While it did not count towards graduation, I still took it anyway for the experience (good thing too, because it exempted half of my social science GE requirement here at BYU). Because of the added workload, I decided to play it safe and take regular physical science rather than join the other honors kids in honors biology. Originally, I was torn between leaving my friends and having an easier workload, or staying with them and possibly getting slammed. Fortunately, it turned out that I would have been slammed if I had gone the bio route, so it was a prudent decision.

As it was a regular class, the dregs of society came together into one huge melting pot of bad coffee. I was one of 7 white kids, in a class of thirty-five. We stayed together much like the description in “Feed My Lambs”. The other kids were insanely distracted/distracting during class and made it hard to concentrate. I wasn’t a nerdy-study–all-the-time type either. It was that bad. I have to admit though that the distractions were often hilarious and totally worth it.

Basically, I know exactly how Asplund-Campbell felt during her time teaching there. We had a student teacher assisting in our class as well. He always made a good effort, but never really seemed to make too much progress. That’s where my story and Asplund-Campbell’s differs. Mine has less of a happy ending. I wish I could say everyone passed and we all owe to that student-teacher, but that was not the case. In his defense, only six people failed and not by much.

As for Night, I read it for 10th grade English as well, just like the kids in the story. It has always been a powerful reminder to me about not only Nazism and the Holocaust, but for the consequences of action and inaction. One of my favorite quotes of all time from Sir Edmund Burke “All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” In the case of night, that is exactly what happened. The good men of Germany did little to nothing to stop the evil men of Germany. It was only when the Allies had Germany on the ropes that anyone moved to stop the atrocities. Thus, we should all look out for what we can do and not look out for what we can avoid.

Anna S's Response to "Feed my Lambs"

Ever since I was about seven years old I’ve wanted to be an elementary school teacher.  As I’ve gotten older my dream has been to teach at an underprivileged school.  I am well aware that 99.9% of the time it does not end up like the movie “Freedom Writers”.  I am well aware that there will probably be days that I come home crying for these kids and there’s absolutely nothing I can do about it.  I am well aware that most kids in those situations don’t have people who care about their education and college is usually out of the question.  Despite all of that or maybe because of it, I really want to teach those who don’t have a chance. 

This article was honestly probably the best one for me to read and respond to, even though I didn’t pick it.  I loved the part at the end where she talks about how she thought she was going to come “empower” these kids, but she was so disillusioned about it.  I see myself doing the exact same thing.  She had to get off her high horse a little bit in order to face those kids at the eye level of humanity.  Literature really can unify people in ways that nothing else can.  There is just something about the book Night that everyone can relate because it exposes human nature at its very best and very worst.  It makes people wonder, “What would I do if it were me?”  I don’t think any of us can honestly answer that question until we’re put in such a situation.  It is when Asplund-Campbell reaches this common ground that she can effectively communicate with her students.  We’re all human, no matter where we live or our situation in life.  The emotion in Night is something everyone understands, even if they can’t describe it.  Will I be able to get off my “empowerment” high horse long enough to relate to my students?  I don’t know, but I hope I remember that humanity is a universal language.

Brandon W's Response to "Feed my Lambs"

My first reaction to “Night: Feed My Lambs” was “Oh. Another one of these stories.”  Inexperienced young white teacher teaches a rowdy class of inner-city minority kids that are unresponsive and dangerous, yet in the end you know they’ll come to love her and feel better about themselves.  Lovely.  That isn’t cliché at all.  I swear there’ve been a billion movies and books about this already.  Why do we need another one? 

That was my initial reaction until I saw the subject material that they covered.  Marni Asplund-Campbell illustrated her unit on intolerance with Night by Elie Wiesel.  That made all the difference.  Night is a powerful work, a memoir of a survivor from the death camp of Auschwitz.  I had to read Night my freshman year of high school.  I really have never forgotten it.  I remember feeling nauseated at the descriptions of the atrocities in there, wondering if I was going to make it through the in-class reading without making a mad dash to the garbage can.  It totally shocked me how human beings could be so vile.  I knew about the Holocaust, from earlier lessons in school and outside learning, but to read a survivor’s account was just…awful.  Yet I’m glad I read it.  I highly recommend it to everyone I know.  It’s the kind of thing everyone who’s old enough should read, even if they really don’t want to, so that it will never be forgotten.  A thing like that should never happen again. 

I think it was Night, more than any teaching technique put forth by Asplund-Campbell, that made the students sit up and take notice.  I can certainly identify with the statement put forth by one of the students after she had read the book: “It certainly made me think.”  The students most likely felt empathy at reading Night, as they are the ones society looks down upon.  They can also identify with the death and destruction seen in Night, as many die extremely young and live in poor conditions.  Nothing on the scale of a death camp, naturally, but the students perhaps gained an appreciation for the conditions they live in after reading about what they could live in. 

Asplund-Campbell states that giving the disenfranchised students empowerment was a false illusion.  Perhaps that is so, but I think she succeeded in giving them perspective.

Catelyn G's Response to "A Rose for Emily"

I can identify very well with Miss Emily. She was the oldest member of a small town, living in the past but unwilling to be fooled by the present. I was the oldest girl in my tiny branch, daydreaming in sacrament and yet somehow remaining young women class president every year. We were both subject to circulating gossip because of our odd actions in usually predictable situations. Miss Emily and I were often on the receiving end of questioning stares and curious glances.

My fictional companion was the enigma that gave the town’s inhabitants a good story to chatter about. By becoming uninvolved with anyone in the town, she became the life of the very establishment she shunned. Her lack of participation in the gossip became the very generator spilling out “She will kill herself” and “She will marry him”.

In my branch, I was the girl who cut off all her hair and wore skull gloves in the chapel.  While everyone else was skipping off to combined activity, I drug my feet and scowled the entire time. People would laugh at my lack of sociality and I found out later that they would regularly ask my mother “what is wrong with poor Catelyn?”

People thrive on rumors. Excitement builds as we reach the climax of a conversation spinning around gossip. We’re very interested in finding fault in others as it helps pull the focus away from ourselves. And we also like a good story that surprises us at every turn.

Just like the townspeople finding the gray hair in the pillow, as readers, we like to imagine the worst and then jump in surprise when the writer can take a completely different turn-or at least I like that. While I read, I partake in a mental, one-way gossip of sorts. I automatically assume that the protagonist is no knight in shining armor (because what good character is?) and is eventually going to catch me off guard in one big shebang.

If I reach the end of a book with not a single “Wow, wasn’t expecting that” moment, I get as disappointed as my roommates when they find out that so-and-so didn’t really participate in “recreational kissing” with the boy in building 8. And just as let down as the people in my branch were when they realized that I was only a rebellious teenager and didn’t have a mental malfunction.

Faulkner realized this while he was writing “A Rose for Emily”. The rumors that make a small town go round will also dig into a reader’s brain and drag them further and further into the storyline.

Tori F's response to "A Rose for Emily"

First off, I actually really wanted this one; because 1. It's Faulkner. and 2. I'm from the South.  Southerners need to be represented for this one.  Period.  Why?  Because Yankees and Westerners don't know what they are talking about when they refer to the South and when they discuss this short story.  Why?  Because they don't know a thing about us (they just think that they do).

Now that that's out of the way...  when I think of Miss Emily I think of my great-grandmother.  Why?  Because she held to the old South and old Southern values, etc. until she passed away at age 93.  She would always talk about those [insert old South word here] that lived down the street and how this (before she was put in a nursing home) used to be a good white community, but those [insert] seemed like pretty fine people (though she'd never talked to them, of course).  Did I mention that we called her Great-Grandma Davis?  Because we did.  You wanna know where the "Davis" part came from?  Yup, that's right.  Jefferson Davis is my who-knows-how-many-greats-uncle.

Miss Emily represents the old South in many ways.  Her dad dies (the Confederacy loses the war), and she becomes anti-social, isolated.  A bunch of carpet-baggers come and pump up the blacks.  She leads Homer into a false sense of security, and then poisons him.  I could go on, but that would get very long and annoying (I think I would even put myself to sleep).

So the real question of this story is why is it so important?  Why has it lasted so long?  Why do people still talk about it even though it was written before we were even born?  It's because it's true--in so many ways.  To the new generation, the old South is a "contemporary" and a nuisance.  It is something we pretend to understand, though we know nothing of it.  It is something we will always remember but never come to terms with.  "It" is Miss Emily Grierson, a woman true to her values even when her values destroy her and poisoned by her past yet fearful of her future.  "We" have killed her.

Okay, now that that's over.  Let me explain some things to you Yankees/Westerners that you may or may not know.  First off, we do in fact still call Northerners Yankees.  Secondly, only hard-core hicks say things like "the South will rise again" and ride around with the Confederate flag on their truck (they also wear a lot of camouflage and go "huntin' and muddin'" frequently).  I could keep saying "next," etc. but I'm lazy.  When I see the Confederate flag, all I think of is Georgia and how a bunch of black people got together and had them change the state flag because they were convinced that it was the Confederate flag (even though, in my opinion because I haven't actually had time to look this up and many people also agree with me on this one, the Georgia flag was created before the Confederate flag (duh!) and the Confederate flag was probably based off the GA flag!).  I get very heated when people pronounce Georgia like they've lived there and actually know what they're talking about... even though they do not (we do not say Georgia like that!).  Also, Tennessee is, in fact, in the South.  Texas is not (unless you are from Texas and think that you are, when in reality you are not... the same thing goes for Florida).  We do not (as a whole) like country music.  We have actual trees.  It's humid, which means that the actual temperature and what you feel like the temperature is are two different things (i.e. it feels hotter in the summer than the temperature and it also feels colder than the temperature in the winter... it's the type of heat/cold that shoots straight though you).  We can actually breathe the air.  We have trees in our mountains (instead of "trees" i.e. twigs i.e. sticks, etc.).  We don't have to water our yards, and we are not all baptist.  Sweet tea, fried chicken, green beans, mashed potatoes, etc. are general staples of the South (i.e. KFC and Chick-Fil-A make bank).  We (in general) do not have that "southern drawl" or talk like "hicks" (only people who live in the boonies and whose parents have likewise lived in the boonies for most of their lives really have an accent).  We do say "y'all" and frequently (it comes naturally, so it doesn't sound as weird when we/Texans say it vs. when Yankees/Westerners say it).  And we all have Southern pride (unless you weren't born in the South... then, if you have any at all, you have "mock" Southern pride... because you're still a Yankee... unless you're from the West, because then we don't have any problems with you).  We also make fun of Yankees who move to the South, but in a loving way not a I-hate-you-because-you-beat-us kind of way (kind of like a "they've seen the light" kind of way ;) ).  I could go on, but I don't feel like it.

Amber S's response to "A Rose for Emily"

An old lady lived a pathetic life with little happiness and then died alone, just her, her servant, and her dust-covered house. That was my immediate impression upon reading this short story. But upon further thought, I realized that Faulkner had not written a mere social commentary, but a horror story. I reviewed the story, putting the pieces together. First, Emily’s father dies leaving her depressed. Second, she falls in love with Homer Barron, but he appears to be losing interest. Third, she purchases some arsenic with no explanation. Fourth, Homer disappears and Emily rarely, if ever, leaves her house. Finally, after her death, investigators find what she made into a bridal room, complete with her dead lover on a bed. The pillow next to his head is indented and upon it rests one of Emily’s hairs.

She poisoned her man with arsenic. And then stuck his body in a room where she would lay next to it. This is not normal, and rather disturbing – and thus it is a horror story.

I thoroughly enjoyed Faulkner’s visual descriptions. He described Miss Emily as “bloated, like a body long submerged in motionless water….her eyes, lost in the fatty ridges of her face”. Latter, when purchasing the arsenic, she stared “with cold, haughty black eyes in a face the flesh of which was strained across the temples and about the eye sockets as you imagine a lighthouse keeper’s face ought to look”. Faulkner’s word choice and descriptions create a marvelous mood and leave little space for the reader to even remotely desire the company of Miss Emily.

Throughout my reading I was trying to figure out the title’s meaning. There is no rose in the story, although the word “rose” is used several times, both as a verb and an adjective. Eventually I decided that the story itself is like a rose for Emily. Faulkner’s story is a sign of pity for a dead woman, a tribute to her life – despite how pathetic it was. The story is a sympathetic rose for a woman who lived a tragic life. 

Amy C's response to "A Rose for Emily"

I have grown up some since the last time I read “A Rose for Emily.”  My views of people have changed.  That said, one would think I would like the story more.  LIES AND SLANDER (yes slander, this is written)!  I found this story exactly as dull as I did the first time through.  It would seem I have more brain growth to undergo before I understand why English teachers make students read this story.  For the time being I will make up reasons as to why I have read and reread “A Rose for Emily” and perhaps by and by I will agree with one or more of them. (A few words of caution: the following probably is not what most people get from this short story nor is it necessarily true.)

First, there is a lesson to be learned from the story.  Society needs to stop trusting people.  Everyone who seems nice is, in reality, a terrible family member who will turn their posterity into crazy people who murder homosexuals then sleep with their dead bodies.  Proof: had Emily’s neighbors looked beyond the successful and respected status of her father and had courage to stop the domestic violence, Emily might not have turned out as messed up as she did. 

Second, stories don’t have to be good to be famous.  They only need be disgusting and controversial.  Proof: the plot of “A Rose for Emily” is unbelievably blegh (and by blegh I mean boring).  A post-colonial girl was oppressed by her father as post-colonial girls usually were.  She didn’t handle it well.  The oppressive father died.  The girl grew into a woman and fell in love with a gay man.  She killed the gay man.  She slept with the gay man’s body.  She grew old and died.  The town found out she slept with the dead gay man.  I have shivers of excitement just thinking about it…not.  There’s no good plot however the story has three things going for it: 1) female oppression.  We females love to complain about being oppressed and will read anything that paints us as victims.  2) homosexuality.  This is less controversial now but we know that it was unheard of in the story’s setting so we are interested.  3) sleeping with dead people.  Ew.  But ew is good.  We like to be disgusted.  Because of the controversial and disgusting things discussed the story is famous.  I’m guessing that’s because society thinks anything controversial and disgusting is important.

Third, and perhaps the most important reason why I have been assigned this story multiple times, is because I need to learn how to do things I don’t want to do.  Proof: fine I don’t have any proof for this.  It’s just a hunch. 

I am a better person for having read “A Rose for Emily.”  I have no clue why or how, but I’m sure I must be.  And if in the future I become an English teacher, I will probably make my students read this story so they can feel the same things I felt and learn the same lessons I learned and waste the same time I wasted…then again, maybe by then I will realize that the time wasn’t wasted.  We shall see.

Aaron C's response to "On 'A Rose for Emily'"

I will be thoroughly honest when I saw the title of my RFIW as stated on the blog “A Rose for Emily” two thoughts popped through my mind; oh crap not you again, due to weeks spent on reading and analysis of the short story in my AP Literature class in high school, and I thought we were learning people’s thoughts on concepts or other’s writing not reading short stories. I was pleasantly surprised first when I turned to the correct page in the book and saw it was titled “On “A Rose For Emily” “ by Cleanth Brooks and not “A Rose For Emily” by Faulkner.

Cleanth Brooks introduced a new concept of Faulkner’s story.  I always believed “A Rose For Emily” was a representation of his view on the decaying Southern aristocracy. But as Brooks revealed Faulkner was indeed really writing about people in his short story.

I found it interesting how we can take the story of “A Rose for Emily” as a warning. Many warnings are seen from her as a “lighthouse” but the most pressing one would be the danger of pride and isolation.  She stated she believed that it was to show that pride and isolation lead to insanity but I would not go as far to say that. But I believe that pride is what would lead to isolation do to the fact that you push others away from you. This isolation will lead to an emptiness in our life and leave it lonely and void of meaning. 

Whether the insanity of isolation and pride captures us is up to us. The key to keeping at bay is to continually care for the other individual whether in friendship, love, or service. Even the smallest gesture of actually stopping and listening to a person’s response to our, “Hey how are you?” when we see them. This will build in us the knowledge of the value of individuals and how we treat them permanently filling it with purpose.

Jamie R's response to "A Rose for Emily"

While Faulkner had many themes in A Rose For Emily, I found decay to be quite prevalent throughout the story. The town of Jefferson, the house, and Emily all grew old. Emily lost her mind and her looks. The house lost the beauty it once had due to old age, and the town of Jefferson changed from what she once knew. Faulkner wrote a really good but sad story about an old woman who loses her mind. A Rose For Emily shows the way in which we all grow old and decay. It’s really quite the bedtime story.

Emily is a traditional woman, staying the same over the years despite many changes going on around her. She represents traditions and honor. Emily lives in a timeless world of her own making. Life as she knows it is gone along with her sanity.

Emily’s house, like Emily herself, is a monument, the only remaining emblem of a dying world. Emily’s house also represents alienation, mental illness, death and decay. It is a temple to her living past; the past which she refuses to let go of.

This story made me think of haunted houses because Emily has the typical haunted house. She is the only one to ever walk in or out and no one ever sees, or hears anything from the house. It used to be the house on the block that everyone envied and now it is falling apart.

Emily resembles Boo Radley of To Kill a Mockingbird and Willy Wonka of the Chocolate factory. She is a characterization of the girl who is acclaimed for her beauty and allure in much literature. Or how her one love, Homer Barron, which the town believed had left her, was actually poisoned and left in her bed. No one knows the Emily that exists beyond what they can see, and her true self is only visible to them only after she dies and the secrets of her life are revealed.

Tygan S's Response to "How to Argue Effectively"

Remember that your job as a missionary is to convince others that they're wrong. The more others disagree with you, the more argumentative you should be. They will only give in if you are more forceful than they. This may escalate to yelling or even violence. Therefore, never try to convince anyone who has a physical advantage over you.

Regrettably, the church prohibits alcoholic consumption. Fortunately there are other means of increasing your competitive edge. Staying up late, drinking lots of sugar, and watching or listening to one-sided political commentary are all very effective.

The following story is an ideal example of convincing others that you're right.


Imagine my companion and I are in an investigator's home teaching him the Restoration. I usually don't take a companion, but my current companion agrees unquestionably with everything I say. This particular investigator has been eagerly taking lessons from another companionship, so we decided to come in and seal the deal.

“How can I know if the Book of Mormon is true?” he asks.

“Let me put it this way,” I begin. “A total of six-hundred fifty-four million, three-hundred and twenty-one individuals know the Book of Mormon is true.”

“Really? But, I thought—”

“Yep. That's from the Granger Institute's Worldwide Religious Statistical Report. Very reputable. Did your other church use it?”

“Uh, no, I don't think so—”

“They probably aren't mentioned.”

I allow for a moment of silence to let that to sink in.

“So, do you believe the Book of Mormon is true?”

“What? Well, no, not yet.”

“Why not? What reasons could you possibly have for not believing it? As it were, I quote, 'it's the best book on Earth.' Gordon W. Tanner said that, e.g. President Gordon W. Tanner.”

“Uh . . . .” Our investigator looks confused for a second. “I'm having problems accepting that Joseph Smith was really a prophet.”

I burst out laughing and my companion sniggers. “Wait, you're serious?” I shake my head, smiling. “Do you believe the Bible?”

“Well, I'm not sure . . .”

“You're begging the question. In terms of biblical personas who reference the Book of Mormon vis a vis, not to mention the cross-implications to Joseph Smith as the prophet, per se, 87.3% indicate that Joseph Smith is, as we say, a prophet, and the remaining 22% indicate that those references are, in fact, indicative, Q.E.D.”

I can tell I'm being very successful because our investigator is starting to look defensive. When they look defensive, that means they're intimidated.

“You know, this really isn't a good time for me—”

“It never is.”

“I'm sorry, but this just doesn't really feel right, would you mind if—”

“You're being defensive.”

“Could you please . . . leave right now? I have—”

“Really? You know who else didn't listen? Hitler.”

“I'm asking you to leave. I'm going to call the cops if you aren't out of my door in thirty seconds.”

My companion and I back away, out the door. “Hitler. Hitler didn't believe the Book of Mormon was true!” The door slams. “HITLER DIDN'T BELIEVE JOSEPH SMITH WAS A PROPHET!”


That's the secret to missionary work: get the words out. It's the words they're going to remember.

Josh H's Response to "How to Argue Effectively"

This article left me amused and confused. In Dave Barry’s article, “How to argue effectively,” he sarcastically explains 5 different ways for a person to win an argument. When I started reading this article I couldn’t help but laugh at his theories and suggestions because of his sarcasm. I enjoyed reading this because it really has nothing to do with actually winning the argument or arguing effectively, but instead on how to get people to think you are smart. He suggests that in order to win an argument you should drink liquor, make things up, use meaningless words and phrases, use snappy and irrelevant comebacks, and compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler. At first, I was quite confused at my response because the article does not realistically show what it claims to, about, “How to argue effectively.” Instead of learning from the article, I ended up laughing at the material and its cynical tone.

After pondering the article, I realized it represents the worldly point of view of arguing because he only shows how to impress the opponent and fool them about how much you actually know. He first suggests drinking liquor because it urges you to be more outgoing and argue about something that you would not know like, the economy in Peru. He says, “If you drink several large martinis, you’ll discover you have strong views about the Peruvian economy. You’d be a wealth of information.” (Barry) Although he makes a point about getting into conversation, I do not believe that drinking liquor is an “effective” way of arguing. He goes on to advise people to lie and use exact prices and dates whenever trying to prove a point and if challenged, respond with weighty sounding words or snappy comebacks. To me, it seems that Barry does not really care about effectively arguing but instead throwing the opponent onto its back in shock of his knowledge and poise. If I were his opponent, I would think he was a tool for trying to be somebody he isn’t and an idiot for thinking that it works.

All together I find myself being a hypocrite about the whole thing because I am probably one of the easiest people to argue with because half of the time I don’t know what to say, and have no guts to say what really comes to mind. I’m one of those guys who cannot put their thoughts into words even if their life depended on it. You see, every single time I get in the situation, I can never think of a comeback but instead, I think of the BEST, DIRTIEST, MOST CRUEL comebacks a few hours/days later. I give credit to Barry for his ideas about engaging in conversation and staying composed during the argument but find his other points pretty radical. My favorite part about the article was when he recommends, “When your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong… subtly say: ‘You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler’” How can they come back from that? All I know is next time I can’t think of anything to say, I’m going to use the Hitler line.

Cara G's Response to "How to Aruge Effectively"

Initially after reading Barry’s article, I dismissed the advice as humorous sarcasm and assumed none of it was really meant to be useful. But as I was thinking about what to write in my response, I realized something. The “advice” Barry gives is, ironically, actually how most people argue. Take political commentators and politicians for example. Glenn Beck’s arguments have been criticized for excessively comparing Obama and his tactics to Hitler and the Nazis. Almost every politician uses “meaningless but weighty sounding” words and phrases on a regular basis. Facts and quotes given in speeches or debates are often cited incorrectly and taken out of context, which is essentially making things up.

But politicians aren’t the only ones who use Barry’s techniques.

Think about the last time you were in an argument. Unless you’re a champion debater or something along those lines, I’m sure you did at least one of the things Barry listed in his article. I know I have. When I argue with family members, I make stuff up, use big words that don’t even make sense in the context of the argument and exaggerate the facts. We all argue fallaciously at times. That’s why Barry’s response is so hilarious.

Obviously, the main objective of this article is to be funny. But they wouldn’t put it in RFIW if that was its only purpose. Sometimes the best way to teach someone how to do something is to tell them what not to do and I believe that was Barry’s intent; to teach us sneakily.

But, I believe there is one theme of Barry’s definition of “arguing effectively” that is actually effective, and that is arguing with passion and confidence. Humans are driven by emotion. So even if your argument is logically ridiculous, if you put enough of your heart into what you’re arguing, people might actually believe you.

Even though the article was relatively short, I believe it packed a punch. I’m definitely going to try out the word “parameters” the next time I get a chance.