alice off wonderland- A Lesson on How to Analyze Scripture

I absolutely love this leaflet. My parents got it while they were in Passau, Germany, and on top of it just being beautiful, what can we gather from this advert to go and see a stage production of "alice off wonderland?"

Well, to be cynical, it's pretty because they want you to be intrigued, and go see it so they can get money. But even this answer gives us more information than you might think judging from face value. Even though you are answering cynically and as a joke, for no other purpose than not to answer, you give us more to analyze. It intrigues you.

Why, yes, it is very pretty, and a very intriguing photo, but why? What captivates us? Here a nonanswer begins to become more useless and petty. The woman, Alice, one assumes, has her back turned to the camera, not a usual choice for the subject of a photograph, especially an advertisement, and especially an advert for something on the screen or stage. Not to show her face, but to look away and down? This is clearly the mark of good artistic directing. You see, her downward glance and her facing away from the camera give us an idea that she is thinking. Perhaps not what she is thinking, for with what we have determined so far, she could be thinking intently, daydreaming, or even just admiring the beauty of the forest floor, the latter of which is often thinking through an absence of thought. Maybe she's just shy.

Her hands are behind her back, and the source of the light is behind the camera. Her hair hangs over her face, blocking us further from getting any clue of how she looks. Here, a nonanswer is able to be applied. "Perhaps she is ugly, and the artistic director did not want us to see her." While rude, it does give us another clue. The artistic director did not want us to see her face. If she was meant to exhibit the appearance of daydreaming, perhaps she would have been better posed looking into the sky, for we also notice she is in a clearing, or otherwise where would the light be?

Just as we can look into this picture, and find what we can see (I have so much more I could say about this picture), the same rules apply to the scriptures. Take it at face value, and make an observation. Even a cynical observation allows you to learn things.

Alma 56:52 And it came to pass that the Lamanites took courage, and began to pursue them; and thus were the Lamanites pursuing them with great vigor when Helaman came upon their rear with his two thousand, and began to slay them exceedingly, insomuch that the whole army of the Lamanites halted and turned upon Helaman.

In the context of the chapter, Helaman has sent an epistle to Captain Moroni, and it is a direct reading of it. However, the cynic in me gives me this nonanswer when prompted to find what I can from it: "Well it was written by someone else obviously." The nonanswer in this case is what I am looking for. A less cynical answer would be "Helaman is a good strategist," but that's about all you can get from a straight answer in this case. However, the nonanswer gives us information.

The nonanswer is more useful here.

Once we realize that it's been written by someone else, remember once again the context. It is the whole of a letter to Captain Moroni, written completely in first person. So it wasn't written by somebody else. It was rewritten. Abridged. Here, in this little verse summed up only as a nonanswer, we have direct proof of Moroni and Mormon having edited and abridged the Book of Mormon.

So, my point in this, consider more than just the good answers. Always keep in mind the nonanswers. Each deduction here was started by using a nonanswer. So use both, and you might just arrive at different conclusions differently.

And My Father Dwelt In A Tent

2 Nephi 2:15
And my father dwelt in a tent.

This is one of those scriptures that a load of cynical teenagers, like myself, tend to pick whenever we're chosen to memorize a non scripture mastery scripture, because it's both so short and found so early in the Book of Mormon.

But let's think for a second. What do we know about Lehi, Nephi's father? He was a prophet in ancient Jerusalem. He was rich, he was powerful; he had a huge house and many pricey possessions. And because the Lord requested it of him, he abandoned the city, leaving all his wealth and possessions there in the city, to go dwell in a tent.

We live in Katy, and I'm sure none of us are, well, poor or not well off. Would you really be willing to leave your home, your friends, this city, and go off into the wilderness to "dwell in a tent" if your Father in Heaven asked it of you? It takes a great deal of faith and Christian courage to follow through with a request so- as Laman and Lemuel viewed it -pointless and inane, even if it had been sent from God.

Compare it to asking Noah to build an ark. Noah had no idea what an ark was, how large it should be, or what to build it out of. But, upon being prompted and instructed, he followed through, and built an ark. This might be a bit more of a seemingly ridiculous request out of context, but it was just as necessary. Through Noah and his family's survival, the human race was preserved.

How do I justify this comparison?

Through Lehi and his family's survival, the line of Manasseh was preserved, the Book of Mormon was eventually written, the church was restored, and here we are today. If Lehi didn't have the faith necessary to follow God's commandments and go "dwell in a tent," our religion would still be lost.

So, my friends, do you have the faith necessary to follow God and go "dwell in a tent"?

What I Believe

I am a Christian. In fact, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

My church believes in one, singular God, as do I. Christ is His Son, as evidenced by the scriptures and quotes by him (Christ) and Him (God) throughout the Bible. My church believes that the Holy Ghost is part of neither, but a separate individual, as do I. Having felt the presence of the Holy Ghost many times, I must say, I definitely agree. My church, and I, both believe everyone in existence, from the devil and his demons, Christ and the angels, and the people of Earth and myself, to be spirit children of our Father in Heaven (i.e., God), whom we refer to as our Heavenly Father (go figure).

Though I may be doing this for my early morning Seminary class, believe me, what I am saying here is true. If it wasn't, I'd lose purpose in my life, and experience a heavy lack of direction.

Being an artist and a writer, I tend to think of everything and everyone in those terms. People are characters, scenery is background art, color is pastels, paint, crayons, anything, and most importantly, life is love; for if an artist or author does not love his work, it can not be and should not be either complete or good, but done shabbily and with a lack of effort.

God loves His children (i.e., us), and if He didn't, He wouldn't have bothered putting in the time and effort to make such a gorgeous canvas for us to paint our choices onto and weave our lives in such a magnificent tapestry. He wouldn't have written out a plot outline if He didn't love us already.

If He didn't love us, we ourselves would be wholly incapable of love. It would be terrifying. What motivation would we have to do anything, if we could not love?

People, on occasion, have asked me about my religion (well, more than just "on occasion", but still), and more specifically, how I can justify my belief in a God (this one actually more of just "on occasion"). My efforts to prove my beliefs usually fall back to emotion and prayer. Against atheists, I try not to utilize a lot of spiritual argument, because they try to take it apart and in their mind, they manage to render it unarguable and beaten simply by denying it whenever brought into an argument, but prayer is key to my testimony, and I simply cannot live without it.

But back to emotion. Against such questions, I respond back with the simple answer, "Love."

Ladies and gentlemen, since a young child, I have been an avid Beatles fan, and, truly, all you need is Love. Love answers so many questions, solves near every non-curricular/not work-related problem (i.e., loads of personal problems), and has worked as a grand and great defense against persecution. For, if no God was present, wouldn't emotion be a highly useless and negative step in the evolutionary chain? And, if no God was present, in times of distress and grief, why on earth is there this satiating feeling of love that comes over you, even if, in your depression, you shoo it away immediately, it cannot be denied if you take the time to realize it.

To falsify a quote (not) by Spock, what merely seemed logical was merely what was wrong.

But now, I digress, and go to bed. My sleep deprived testimony might be edited when I am more rested.

Andrew Beckstrom