Religion 122H- Book of Mormon
Winter 2010
Clyde J. Williams
Joy Prior
Supplementary Reading
I read the first 201 pages of An Approach to the Book of Mormon by Hugh Nibley. On the first day of Class Professor Williams said that every time he reads the Book of Mormon he learns something new. I raised my eyebrows. How can someone learn something new every time they reread that short book. From what I remember in seminary scripture reading is like brushing my teeth, consistent and a little monotonous. After reading Hugh Nibley’s book I realized that unlike toothpaste my perception of the scriptures can change making my daily scripture study seem less monotonous. As I read An Approach to the Book of Mormon I appreciated Nephi’s hunting talents and Lehi’s involved life prior to wondering through the desert more. That is when I realized that, fortunately, unlike toothpaste my application of the scriptures can change.
Nephi learned to hunt in Jerusalem, and was able to use his talents for a practical purpose. There is more to Nephi hunting in the wilderness then him breaking his bow. As I read An Approach to the Book of Mormon by Hugh Nibley I learned how much hunting was involved while Lehi’s family wondered through the desert. The book mentioned that Nephi is the only member of his family and Ishmales family mentioned having a metal bow. Hugh Nibley emphasizes how his brothers had wooden bows, and their wooden bows had lost their spring. His point was to show how the entire family knew how to use a bow. I realized that Nephi is the only one who has a more expensive and longer lasting metal bow. Lamen, Lamuel, Sam, and all of Ishmales children could have forgotten their more expensive metal bows when they fled out into the wilderness, possibly they lost their metal bows on their excursion, or maybe Nephi was the only one who had a metal bow in the family because back in Jerusalem he enjoyed hunting so much that buying a metal bow was worth it for him. I prefer thinking that Nephi had a metal bow because he had a passion for hunting in Jerusalem. Hugh Nibley mentions how unique a hunter was to the Jewish culture, but that Nephi seems know not only how to hunt, but how to hunt well enough to provide for his entire extended family. Thinking about Nephi’s talents caused me to wonder about my own talents. What talents do I have that can help my family? I hope that God does not expect me to travel across the desert and feed my family with my archery skills, because I don’t know much about archery. I am not simply talking about talents that would help my family cross a literal desert though, because I don’t think God expects that of us (then again I doubt that Nephi ever expected God to send his family across the desert either). There has to be something that I can add to my family to help us make it through this life. Suddenly my “sweet skills” such as shooting pool, playing Nintendo, and winning at the board game Risk seemed meaningless compared to being able to talk my mom through downloading family pictures over the phone, typing for my dad when he has a business letter, cleaning my sister-in-laws house while she runs her five-year-old to Kindergarten, and even cooking something for my family besides a boxed cake appeared to be talents worth spending my time on. Nephi’s example of developing his talents to bless those around him helped me to realize that I want to develop talents that qualify me to help those around me.
An Approach to the Book of Mormon by Hugh Nibley emphasized that Lehi was an ambitious and hard working man before he began his journey into the wilderness. When I used to think of Lehi I imagined a wrinkled and hunched over man wrapped in stripped robes wondering through the desert with a knobby staff. Now, I don’t think that this description grasps the true character of Lehi. If I have ever wondered (which I doubt I have) about the life Lehi lived before “I Nephi…” I must not have wondered enough because in my mind he was locked into one age, the old and weathered age. Hugh Nibley points out that Lehi there is more to Lehi than just him being a father, and purposes that he was an educated traveling merchant. He supports this idea with support that it appears as if Lehi was familiar with the rout that his family was traveling on. Nibley mentions how nether Lamen or Lamuel complain of their father’s lack of direction. They complained rather about why they were leaving, and what they were leaving, but not once did they complain that their father was going to get them lost in the wilderness. If Lamen and Lamuel had faith in their fathers sense of direction that is saying something. Had Lehi traveled across the desert before? Did he have a map? Did they even have maps of the desert in those days? Or were there special markings throughout the desert that helped travels cross? How would Lehi know about the special desert markings? Well I guess I would have to know if there were special marking in the desert before I can ask how Lehi knew about them. So many questions about Lehi, and every time that I formed another question there seemed to be five hundred that branch of from it. I still don’t know much about Lehi besides the fact that there is more to him than just an oversized striped robe covering a wrinkled old face, but I bet that if I read the Book of Mormon I would learn something new about him.
Reading An Approach to the Book of Mormon answered many of my questions about Nephi, and Lehi- questions I did not know I had until I started reading the book. More important it confirmed to me that reading the Book of Mormon is not as monotonous as squeezing out a dab of toothpaste and brushing, because I have the power to change what I think about the Book of Mormon. While I am brushing I can not think to myself peppermint and change my bubblegum toothpaste to peppermint. When I read the Book of Mormon I can think to myself Lehi’s perspective and change my scripture reading to something different and unique.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
economy first draft
Joy Marie Prior, February 4, 2009, Sociology 112, Section 4, Article Essay
Adam Millard-Ball’s thesis is that rent gap and value gap theories do not sufficiently illustrate how gentrification occurs in Stockholm, Sweden. Some key terms that he uses are ‘Gentrification’, which he defined as the social and physical upgrade of a residential neighborhood; ‘rent gap,’ the property-specific prediction that rent prices increase as housing prices increase in a specific neighborhood, typically resulting with the displacement of the poorer class who once rented there; ‘value gap,’ a less place-dependent and more time-specific idea that individual property value can increase as the value of adjacent properties increases; ‘Post-industrial economy’ the economy that enabled many to improve their social status resulting in the gentrification of the inner city; ‘utility value system’ or ‘rent control,’ is laws that prohibit private landlords to charge more rent than a set price negotiated between municipal housing companies and tenants’ association typically resulting in little variation between rent prices across a given area (such as in the case of Stockholm, Sweden); and ‘co-operatives’ when residents own property collectively (typically one or two tenement buildings) and occupy a certain flat which can be traded at market price. Adam’s empirical research is a quantitative outline of the tenure change in inner-city Stockholm, and an examination of the social changes resulting from that tenure conversation from private rent to co-operative ownership. Adam’s line of argument is that rent and value gaps theories which traditionally are credited for gentrification does not apply to Stockholm, Sweden. There is not a free housing market in Stockholm, Sweden but a utility value system. Adam suggests that because of it’s mixed-market economy gentrification in Stockholm can not be explained resulting from rent and value gaps theories based on free housing market economies. Although gap theories apply to free market systems, they do not describe gentrification in mixed-market countries. The conclusion is that researchers should expand their theoretical framework for gentrification to something more universally than simply rent gap and value gap theories.
I agree with Adam Millard-Ball’s opinion that a variety of cities and their economies should be considered before concluding that the rent and value gaps are the only possible explanations of gentrification. Adam explains how Stockholm, Sweden’s economy differs from London, England’s. The brief overview of both the cities helped me understand how many economical variables there are from city to city. In a free housing market (which is the economical system of cities that the rent gap and value gap theories evolved from) such factors as co-operatives, luxury renovations, or tenure would never be considered components of gentrification simply because they are not apart of free market economy. These elements are apart of Stockholm’s economy, because it has a rent limit and different regulations. Just as the authors of the rent and value gap theories based their explanations of gentrification on factors specific to London’s economy Adam based his assumptions of gentrification in Stockholm on factors specific to Stockholm. To me it is logical that a city’s unique economical factors will be the components of gentrification for that city, and not a cookie cutter theory. I believe there are many points (specifically in Stockholm) not considered in the rent and value gaps theories that can contribute to gentrification, and I agree that a variety of areas should be studied to determine what those specific point could be.
Adam Millard-Ball’s thesis is that rent gap and value gap theories do not sufficiently illustrate how gentrification occurs in Stockholm, Sweden. Some key terms that he uses are ‘Gentrification’, which he defined as the social and physical upgrade of a residential neighborhood; ‘rent gap,’ the property-specific prediction that rent prices increase as housing prices increase in a specific neighborhood, typically resulting with the displacement of the poorer class who once rented there; ‘value gap,’ a less place-dependent and more time-specific idea that individual property value can increase as the value of adjacent properties increases; ‘Post-industrial economy’ the economy that enabled many to improve their social status resulting in the gentrification of the inner city; ‘utility value system’ or ‘rent control,’ is laws that prohibit private landlords to charge more rent than a set price negotiated between municipal housing companies and tenants’ association typically resulting in little variation between rent prices across a given area (such as in the case of Stockholm, Sweden); and ‘co-operatives’ when residents own property collectively (typically one or two tenement buildings) and occupy a certain flat which can be traded at market price. Adam’s empirical research is a quantitative outline of the tenure change in inner-city Stockholm, and an examination of the social changes resulting from that tenure conversation from private rent to co-operative ownership. Adam’s line of argument is that rent and value gaps theories which traditionally are credited for gentrification does not apply to Stockholm, Sweden. There is not a free housing market in Stockholm, Sweden but a utility value system. Adam suggests that because of it’s mixed-market economy gentrification in Stockholm can not be explained resulting from rent and value gaps theories based on free housing market economies. Although gap theories apply to free market systems, they do not describe gentrification in mixed-market countries. The conclusion is that researchers should expand their theoretical framework for gentrification to something more universally than simply rent gap and value gap theories.
I agree with Adam Millard-Ball’s opinion that a variety of cities and their economies should be considered before concluding that the rent and value gaps are the only possible explanations of gentrification. Adam explains how Stockholm, Sweden’s economy differs from London, England’s. The brief overview of both the cities helped me understand how many economical variables there are from city to city. In a free housing market (which is the economical system of cities that the rent gap and value gap theories evolved from) such factors as co-operatives, luxury renovations, or tenure would never be considered components of gentrification simply because they are not apart of free market economy. These elements are apart of Stockholm’s economy, because it has a rent limit and different regulations. Just as the authors of the rent and value gap theories based their explanations of gentrification on factors specific to London’s economy Adam based his assumptions of gentrification in Stockholm on factors specific to Stockholm. To me it is logical that a city’s unique economical factors will be the components of gentrification for that city, and not a cookie cutter theory. I believe there are many points (specifically in Stockholm) not considered in the rent and value gaps theories that can contribute to gentrification, and I agree that a variety of areas should be studied to determine what those specific point could be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)