Principled Education: Authority

It's interesting: this is the third time that I've read Miss Mason's Teaching in the Branches, which is an essay Charlotte Mason read at one of their meetings about the principles that their schools run on. The second time through, I felt like I'd entirely missed the point the first time. And this time, while I do think it would be going a bit far to say I'd missed the point the second time, I do think that I was still unclear on it --in spite of having pulled out 14 points in an "outline" of sorts of the essay. But she says right out, near the beginning, what the three main principles she thinks they ought to be attending to are:

---

(1) The recognition of authority as a fundamental principle, as universal and as inevitable in the moral world as is that of gravitation in the physical; 
(2) The recognition of the physical basis of habits and of the important part which the formation of habits plays in education; 
(3) The recognition of the vital character and inspiring power of ideas. 
-Charlotte Mason, Teaching in the Branches

---

The idea, at the time, was that the local groups running the schools affiliated with Miss Mason would get together and have lectures or other presentations on various aspects of these ideas. Now, for me, the idea is to consider the principles that our homeschool runs upon, and to put some thought into working out how that looks in practice in my home. Turns out, it's a topic well worth revisiting, repeatedly.

Agency in God's Plan

Agency is the capacity to choose; it has sometimes also been called free will. Conditions of liberty allow the greatest possible "space" in which to exercise Agency; tyranny, by definition, is the attempt to oppress or repress another person's Agency.

---

Next to the bestowal of life itself, the right to direct that life is God’s greatest gift to man. … Freedom of choice is more to be treasured than any possession earth can give. It is inherent in the spirit of man. It is a divine gift. … Whether born in abject poverty or shackled at birth by inherited riches, everyone has this most precious of all life’s endowments—the gift of free agency; man’s inherited and inalienable right.
-David O. McKay, Agency and Responsibility

---

In the Church, we tend to prefer the term Agency over free will, and I'd guess the reason for that is that modern scripture uses the term in passages like this one:

20 Principles: Authority is an Eternal Principle

Miss Mason started chapter three of Philosophy of Education right out with a pair of ideas that I found really challenging:

---

It is still true that 'Order is heaven's first law' and order is the outcome of authority.


Without this principle [authority], society would cease to cohere.
-Charlotte Mason 6:69

---

I don't think of myself as a rebellious person. My parents read my blog, and they're probably laughing right there, and I do admit that I am not someone that can just take your word for it. One of the early memories I have about gospel study, the first time that I remember thinking that scripture was really cool, was the day that Dad explained to me that I don't have to take his word, or the teacher's word, or anybody's word for it: I can go and read the scriptures myself and find out for myself, and I can search the scriptures for the answers to my specific questions, because the important stuff is all in there, and anybody that wants it can have it. So I am an questioning, independent person. But I don't think of myself as rebellious.

However.

Charlotte Mason is a challenging teacher! I regularly feel rebellious about her statements when I first read them. Which is interesting all by itself; I can't think of another author that does that. But the really interesting thing is how often I think about it for a while and come around to her way of thinking. This principle is like that. My first reaction was a rebellious, "No it isn't!" But I kept mulling it over.

---

It is still true that 'Order is heaven's first law' and order is the outcome of authority.

---

I had to work backward to get to where she's at with this one. And I re-read 2 Nephi 2, where Lehi teaches about the eternal order, the nature of God, and of law. Miss Mason says that order is the outcome of authority. Here's what Lehi says:

---

And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. ... And if ye say that there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin,. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery.
-2 Nephi 2:5,13

---

We need order and law; we need our things to continue to be ours, so we can plan, so we can prepare for tomorrow, meet our needs and those of our family. Law is important. But law presupposes that there is someone in charge. It presupposes authority. That is, order and law presuppose that someone has the right to command or to act. Realizing that was a turning point for me in understanding what she's getting at. Some of what she says here is actually familiar ideas; she says that anarchy actually isn't a thing, not really:

---

Practically there is no such thing as anarchy; what i so-called is a mere transference of authority, even if in the last resort the anarchist find authority in himself alone.
-Charlotte Mason 6:69

---

This is an idea I've run into before, in the course of studying government:




The video's section on anarchy is actually a really good expansion of what Miss Mason is saying, and it touches on some of the same things that Miss Mason says next:

---

There is an idea abroad that authority makes for tyranny, and that obedience, voluntary or involuntary, is of the nature of slavishness; but authority is, on the contrary, the condition without which liberty does not exist and, except it be abused, is entirely congenial to those on whom it is exercised...
-Charlotte Mason 6:69, emphasis added

---

Re-watching the YouTube segment really clarified for me why it is that liberty cannot exist without authority. "Some amount of government is a necessary force in any civilized, orderly society." Lehi addresses this, too, when he say that without law there is neither righteousness nor sin. No law means that there's no crime, and no punishment for unjust actions. And you spend all  your time and energy trying, probably unsuccessfully, to protect your people and your property. Which is why God gave us governments: for the good and safety of society, and for the rights and protection of all people. Like so many principles, when you dig down into the core, authority is about Agency. And, if we try to escape authority, to create an anarchy, Miss Mason is right: society will cease to cohere, and we all suffer greatly. History tells us that revolutions nearly always end up more like the French Revolution than like the American Revolution; the people are usually less free than when they began.

I don't think it's any accident that the video places things on their power scale they way they do: total government on the one hand, no government on the other, with correct action being balanced in the center. You see this kind of tension between opposing principles all the time. I wrote about it with Grace and Works a few months ago, using the Psalms and Romans, but Lehi talks about it too, and ties this concept of opposites to our Agency:

---

... it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter. Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other. ... And the Messiah cometh in the fullness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever...
-2 Nephi 2:15, 26

---

All this wanders pretty far from Miss Mason's educational treatise that I'm working on, but before I could really look at what she says about authority and education, I really had to think hard about what she's saying about the nature of authority. In spite of my initial resistance, I think that she hit the nail on the head: authority is an eternal principle that is essential to both order, and also closely related to the exercise of Agency.

Commonplace Book: January

We have this desire to give our kids what we call an academically "rigorous" education. Andrew Kern and Christopher Perrin both taught me a bit about that. ... I asked them how we could pursue a rigorous education while retaining a sense of rest. What I didn't realize at the time was that the word "rigor" comes from the Latin rigor, rigoris, which means "numbness,stiffness, hardness, firmness, roughness, rudeness." Rigor mortis literally means "the stiffness of death," which I think we can all agree is not the goal of homeschooling our children!

Don't aim for rigorous education, Kern and Perrin both told me. If we are aiming to order our children's affections, learn to love what is lovely, join in the great conversation, and cultivate a soul so that the person is read in every sense of the word to take on the challenges around the corner and on the other side of the college entrance exams; work toward "diligence" instead.

"Diligence" come from the Latin diligere, which means to "single out, value highly, esteem, prize, love; aspire to, take delight in, appreciate." What we are really aiming for in giving our children a rigorous education is not just doing hard things, but cultivating a habit of focused attention. The word "student" comes from the Latin studium, meaning "Zeal, affection, eagerness." A diligent student, then, takes delight, eagerly and with great zeal, in what he loves.
-Sarah Mackenzie, Teaching From Rest, 4-5



Learn everything; later you will see that nothing is superfluous.
-Hugh of St.Victor, quoted in Paideia Notes



But the one achievement possible and necessary for every man is character; and character is as finely wrought metal beaten into shape and beauty by the repeated and accustomed action of will.
-Charlotte Mason 6:129



The will, too, is of slow growth, nourished upon the ideas proposed to it, and so all things work together for good to the child who is duly educated. It is well that children should know that while the turbulent person is not ruled by will at all but by impulse, the movement of his passions or desires, yet it is possible to have a constant will with unworthy or evil ends, or even to have a steady will towards a good end and to compass that end by unworthy means.
-Charlotte Mason 6:132-3



You will come to know that what appears today to be a sacrifice will prove instead to be the greatest investment that you will ever make.
-Elder Gordon B. Hinckley, April 1986, The Question of a Mission



There was this luxury of living.
-Pearl S. Buck, The Good Earth, 26




Wang Lung sat smoking, think of the silver as it had lain upon the table. It had come out of the earth, this silver, out of his earth that he ploughed and turned and spent himself upon. He took his life from this earth; drop by drop by his sweat he wrung food from it and from the food, silver. Each time before this that he had taken the silver out to give to anyone, it had been like taking a piece of his life and giving it to someone carelessly. But now for the first time such giving was not pain. He saw, not the silver in the alien hand of a merchant in the town; he saw the silver transmuted into something worth even more than itself -- clothes upon the body of his son. And this strange woman of his, who worked about, saying nothing, seeming to see nothing, she had first seen the child thus clothed.
-Pearl S. Buck, The Good Earth, 36



Is self-denial wise because there is something wrong with our passions, or because there is something right with our passions? Alma taught his son: “See that ye bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love.” (Alma 38:12; emphasis added.) He did not say we should suppress or eliminate our passions but rather bridle them—harness, channel, and focus them. Why? Because disciplining our passions makes possible a richer, deeper love.
-Bruce and Marie Hafen, Bridle All Your Passions



Education which leaves out God is destitute of all true value. Satan is aware of the great power which a true system of education gives to the people. He is, therefore, opposed to such a system. He knows full well that a generation trained in all  true knowledge cannot be lead by him, as they would if their education were neglected. He therefore stirs up all the agencies under his control to do everything in their power to defeat the purposes of God in regard to the education of our children.
-George Q. Cannon, Juvenile Instructor, 15 Apr 1890



It is easy to forget that teaching is holy work. The building up of the intellect - teaching children  to really thing - does not happen by the might of human reason, but rather by the grace of God. On an ordinary day, you and I likely have a set of tasks we've scheduled for our kids. But it's more than math. It's more than history. It is the building of our children's hearts and minds, and we can only do that if we realize that this is how we thank Him for the graces He so lavishly pours upon us.
-Sarah Mackenzie, Teaching From Rest, 11



 How can the Christian know divine rest and yet educate out of and to anxiety? How can a Christian “learn from Christ” who gives rest and then give no rest to their students? How can the Christian “pause” for refreshment every Sunday but offer no sabbath to students? Where is the sabbath pattern in our schools and studies?
-Christopher Perrin, Let's Pause a Moment



Now there is a pride a man has when he sees his eldest son reading aloud the letters upon a paper and putting the brush and ink to paper and writing that which may be ready by others, and this pride Wang Lung now had.
-Pearl S. Buck, The Good Earth, 231



It takes a certain fortitude, after all, to look at a pile of dishes and see in it the makings of a cathedral. The daily mundane is holy ground because the ordinary tasks of a monotonous Monday are where we meet our Maker.

The builders of medieval cathedrals knew what it meant to work their entire lives to please God without ever expecting to see their work completed. Many cathedrals would take more than a hundred years to build -- more than the span of a man's lifetime. I once heard a story of an artisan who worked tirelessly for many years to carve a beautiful bird into a portion of the cathedral that would be covered up. When someone asked why he was working so hard on something that no one would ever see, he replied, "Because God sees."

God sees your little wooden bird, too. Just as the artisans and carpenters of old built beautiful cathedrals for the glory of God, so do you. Yes, you - you who work tirelessly day after day over a geography lesson, a math test, a laundry pile, a kitchen sink. These are th moments wherein you build cathedrals for God.
-Sarah Mackenzie, Teaching From Rest, 11-12



And Wang Lung stood beside the two graves and watched and his grief was hard and dry, and he would not cry out loud as others did for there were no tears in his eyes, because it seemed to him that what had come about was come about, and there was nothing to be done more than he had done.

But when the earth was covered over and the graves smoothed, he turned away silently and he sent away the chair and he walked home alone with himself...

Thus thinking heavily, he went on alone and he said to himself,

"There in that land of mine is buried the first good half of my life and more. It is as though half of me were buried there, and now it is a different life in my house."

And suddenly he wept a little, and he dried his eyes with the back of his hand, as a child does.
-Pearl S. Buck, The Good Earth, 289-90



Now as the winter wore away and the waters began to recede so that Wang Lung could walk abroad over his land it happened one day that his eldest son followed him and said to him proudly,

"Well, and there will soon be another mouth in the house and it will be the mouth of your grandson."

Then Wang Lung, when he heard this, turned himself about and he laughed and he rubbed his hands together and said,

"Here is a good day, indeed!"
-Pearl S. Buck, The Good Earth, 303


Odin took the horn in both his hands and drank and drank. And as he drank all the future became clear to him. He saw all the sorrows and troubles that would fall upon Men and Gods. But he saw, too, why the sorrows and troubles had to fall, and he saw how they might be borne so that Gods and Men, by being noble in the days of sorrow and trouble, would leave in the world a force that one day, a day that was far off indeed, would destroy the evil that brought terror and sorrow and despair into the world.
-Padric Colum, Children of Odin



"Well, alright," he said. "If that's the way you want it, I'm for it even if it's only an agreement between you and your dogs. If a man's word isn't any good, he's no good himself."
-Wilson Rawls, Where the Red Fern Grows, 93



What is this earth and sea, of which I have seen so much? Whence is it produced? And what am I and all the other creatures, wild and tame, human and brutal, whence are we?

Sure we are all made by some secret Power who formed the earth adn sea, the air and sky; and who is that?

Then it followed most naturally; It is God that has made it all. Well, but then, it came on strangely, if God has made all these things, He guides and governs them all and all things that concern them; for the Power that could make all things must certainly have the power to guide and direct them.
-Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe, 144



This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual." In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage. In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property. In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions. Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
-James Madison, On Property, emphasis original



But mere reading of wise books will not make you wise men: you must use for yourselves the tools with which books are made wise; and that is -- your eyes, and your ears, and common sense.
-Madam How and Lady Why, 4

20 Principles: Natural Man; Children of God

This post is part of a series. Feel free to visit the series index for more thoughts on the Charlotte Mason's 20 Principles of Education.


Charlotte Mason's second principle is that children are not born either good or bad, but with possibilities for good and for evil, and I love this. She's hit on one of the major purposes of life: to be tested and tried, to see if we will be obedient to God. And she's talking about the reality of Agency in our lives, rather than taking a deterministic view of the children she teaches, as so many did then, believing that a child born “good” will grow up to be good, but a child born “bad” will be bad. Miss Mason understood the reality of the impact of individual choice.

---

The fact seems to be that children are like ourselves, not because they have become so, but because they are born so; that is, with tendencies, dispositions, towards good and towards evil, and also with a curious intuitive knowledge as to which is good and which is evil. Here we have the work of education indicated. There are good and evil tendencies in body and mind, heart and soul; and the hope set before us is that we can foster the good so as to attenuate the evil; that is, on condition that we put Education in her true place as the handmaid of Religion. 
-Charlotte Mason, 6:46

---

We live in a fallen world, and are subject to the temptations of the Enemy: we all have tendencies toward evil, as do our children. Each one of us must fight the tendency to give into or indulge the natural man. But this is not the only part of us. The Bible teaches that we are also children of God, and that He intends to make us heirs in His kingdom with Christ: we all also have tendencies toward good that come from this divine heritage. It is given to us to choose which of these we will embrace, and to act upon our choice; it is the task of educators to place that choice in its proper context and meaning in the student's life.

---

It is our business to know of what parts and passions a child is made up, to discern the dangers that present themselves, and still more the possibilities of free-going in delightful paths. However disappointing, even forbidding, the failings of a child, we may be quite sure that in every case the opposite tendency is there and we must bring the wit to give it play.
-Charlotte Mason, 6:47

---

I love the way that, although she did not know about him, she echos the teachings of Lehi to his son: there must be opposition in all things, and I love the application that she gives: for every tendency toward error in our personality, there is an opposite tendency toward good that can be found and encouraged instead. She then goes on to talk about the development of these positive tendencies and the virtues that grow from them as one of the primary aims of education.

I love, too, that she didn't see the potential for evil and throw up her hands in despair: "Here we have the work of education indicated. ... that is, on condition that we put Education in her true place as the handmaid of Religion." Miss Mason never seems to lose sight of the divine potential of her students - and neither should we.

On Classical Education: Ordered Affections

This post is part of a series:

Character is the True Aim
Cultivation of Godly Character
What is a Student? 
Make Haste Slowly
Much Not Many
Ordered Affections (this post)
Repetition is the Mother of Memory
Repetition and the Habit of Attention
Embodied Learning (part 1)
Embodied Learning (part 2)Songs Chants and Jingles
Wonder and Curiosity
Educational Virtues
Contemplation
By Teaching We Learn
Classical Education is Like a Table



I am intrigued by this idea of "ordered affections." It comes up again and again in the writings of people who know Classical Education well, and it's a beautiful fit, doctrinally. But it's not something that I've really heard explicitly discussed often: it's the idea that there is a correct order or priority to not just the things that we love, but the activities we do, and really, to every part of our lives.

---

 "St. Augustine defines virtue as ordo amoris, the ordinate condition of the affections in which every object is accorded that kind and degree of love which is appropriate to it."
-C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

---

Certainly, there is plenty of talk about priorities, but I've always thought of that as a sort of to-do list, where it's important to get the right things at the top of the list. This concept of "ordered affections" is more, it's more nuanced, and less concerned with the outer actions of the to-do list, and more with the inward motivations, in educating the inward heart. I like that. And, being educators, the people I've been reading and listening to have quite a bit to say about what ought to be done about it, in terms of helping our children to order their own affections correctly. That quote from C.S. Lewis comes up again and again, which makes me want to find a copy of The Abolition of Man:

---

"St. Augustine defines virtue as ordo amoris, the ordinate condition of the affections in which every object is accorded that kind and degree of love which is appropriate to it. Aristotle says that the aim of education is to make the pupil like and dislike what he ought. The little human animal will not, at first, have the right responses. It must be trained to feel pleasure, liking, disgust, and hatred at those things which really are pleasant, likable, disgusting, and hateful."
-C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

---

Part of me wants to recoil from the idea of teaching that things are hateful, but then I remember what Alma said, and I think it's not so bad to teach this, after all:

---

Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.
-Alma 13:12, emphasis added

---

Setting my children's feet on a path toward the Lord's rest is exactly what I am trying to do in my parenting -- including in our educational choices. There is this about Christ's attitudes toward this concept, as well, from Dr. Perrin:

---

Jesus often signals an ordo amoris, telling the rich, young ruler there is one thing he lacks (Matt. 19) and telling Martha that though she is busy about many things, Mary has chosen what is best: to converse with him rather than prepare dinner (Luke 10). When Jesus is asked what the greatest commandment is, he responds that there are two: to love God with your whole heart and to love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 22). Jesus seems to believe that there is a divinely ordered hierarchy of loves and pleasures.
-Christopher Perrin, I Would Like to Order... an Education

---

Classical Christian Education asserts that there are objective standards of Truth, objective standards of Goodness, and objective standards of Beauty, and further says that we have a duty to instruct our children in these standards, as Lewis said, "to feel pleasure, liking, disgust, and hatred at those things which really are pleasant, likable, disgusting, and hateful." Putting character at the heart of education, re-enthroning it as the true aim of education, and then really acting as if that (and not a generous adult income) is the main priority requires a whole different way of thinking about what we do and why we are doing it. It's a completely different paradigm from wanting to create "college readiness": it's more that just knowing the facts and skills that typically lead to a good income. It's that and also having the wisdom to know that there is more to life than a career, the wisdom to recognize the reality that we are the children of God and behave in a way that befits that kind of heritage: to become more fully human.

---

We have this desire to give our kids what we call an academically "rigorous" education. Andrew Kern and Christopher Perrin both taught me a bit about that. ... I asked them how we could pursue a rigorous education while retaining a sense of rest. What I didn't realize at the time was that the word "rigor" comes from the Latin rigor, rigoris, which means "numbness,stiffness, hardness, firmness, roughness, rudeness." Rigor mortis literally means "the stiffness of death," which I think we can all agree is not the goal of homeschooling our children!

Don't aim for rigorous education, Kern and Perrin both told me. If we are aiming to order our children's affections, learn to love what is lovely, join in the great conversation, and cultivate a soul so that the person is ready in every sense of the word to take on the challenges around the corner and on the other side of the college entrance exams; work toward "diligence" instead.

"Diligence" come from the Latin diligere, which means to "single out, value highly, esteem, prize, love; aspire to, take delight in, appreciate." What we are really aiming for in giving our children a rigorous education is not just doing hard things, but cultivating a habit of focused attention. The word "student" comes from the Latin studium, meaning "Zeal, affection, eagerness." A diligent student, then, takes delight, eagerly and with great zeal, in what he loves.
-Sarah Mackenzie, Teaching From Rest, 4-5

---

In addition to doctrinal and philosophical reasons to consider the concept of ordering our affections, there are some compelling practical reasons, too. All education is self-education: it doesn't matter how good the teaching is, if the student does not engage, then no learning happens. Genuine education requires active choice on the part of the learner.

---

“Learning can only happen when a child is interested. If he’s not interested, it’s like throwing marshmallows at his head and calling it eating.”
-Katrina Gutleben

---

As we come to prize the good, the true, and the beautiful, then we become hungry, curious, and the love of learning ignites. We need to help our children acquire studium, so that they can become real students, rather than just being officially "in school".

---

“The question is not, -- how much does the youth know? when he has finished his education -- but how much does he care? and about how many orders of things does he care? In fact, how large is the room in which he finds his feet set? and, therefore, how full is the life he has before him?”
-Charlotte Mason

---

But in this process, we can't behave haphazardly and expect it to create order. The process of bridling our passions is something that needs to be happening in both teachers and children. The Psalmist talks about learning to bridle our mouth, and Alma speaks more broadly about bridling our passions. In the Church, we often talk about this in terms of bridling sexual passions, but I think that I prefer the broader definition of passions in that it's things and topics and activities that we enjoy and become passionate about, to one degree or another. This concept includes, but is not limited to, sexual passions. And in this context, we want to put God at the apex, making Him the thing that we are most passionate about - that we love the most - and that we are teaching our children to love the most as well. This process of ordering our passions will require self-discipline. In homeschool, this requires planning, rather than just strewing opportunities and hoping for the best. It means that sometimes we pass on this, because that is a better choice.

---

Is self-denial wise because there is something wrong with our passions, or because there is something right with our passions? Alma taught his son: “See that ye bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love.” (Alma 38:12; emphasis added.) He did not say we should suppress or eliminate our passions but rather bridle them—harness, channel, and focus them. Why? Because disciplining our passions makes possible a richer, deeper love.
-Bruce & Marie Hafen, Bridle All Your Passions

---

When we correctly order our affections, we can give them our best, and receive from them the best they have to offer. By putting things in their proper place, we can most fully learn to love learning, and gain the best returns from the effort that we put into education.

---

Knowledge of truth, combined with proper regard for it, and its faithful observance, constitutes true education. The mere stuffing of the mind with a knowledge of facts is not education. The mind must not only possess a knowledge of truth, but the soul must revere it, cherish it, love it as a priceless gem. 
-Joseph F. Smith

---

20 Principles: Children are Born Persons

This post is part of a series. Feel free to visit the series index for more thoughts on Charlotte Mason's 20 Principles of Classical Education.



The very first thing that Charlotte Mason asserts when laying out her thoughts on education is that children are "born persons". Which is to say that they are not blank lumps, filled by education and training to become fully human, fully individual, at some later date. They do not slowly differentiate from all other blank babies as they experience and learn, rather they arrive from God as fully differentiated individuals. She says,

---

...a child is born with a mind as complete and as beautiful as his beautiful little body... his mind is the instrument of his education and that his education does not produce his mind.
-Philosophy of Education, vol. 6, p36, emphasis original.

---

And I find myself thinking, "Of course! Our children are not created at birth, but they are God's own spirit children, entrusted to our care. This is why our prayers begin, "Our Father in Heaven."

---

The doctrine is simply this: life did not begin with mortal birth. We lived in spirit form before we entered mortality. We are spiritually the children of God. This doctrine of premortal life was known to ancient Christians. For nearly five hundred years the doctrine was taught, but it was then rejected as a heresy by a clergy that had slipped into the Dark Ages of apostasy.
-Boyd K. Packer, The Mystery of Life

---

Mercifully, he has restored this truth in our day. This idea of man being a child of God is all throughout the Bible:

---

For in him we live, and move, and have our being ... For we are also his offspring.
-Acts 17:29

---

---

... all of you are children of the most High.
-Psalm 82:6

---

---

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ ... For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son...
-Romans 8:16-17, 29

---

And the Bible (as well as modern scripture) also makes clear that our spirits existed before the creation of the world.

---

Where was thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
-Job 38:4,7

---

So of course children are born fully persons, with their own personality and their own mind. They were persons prior to conception, when they existed as Spirit children of God.

But what's beautiful about Miss Mason's work is the way that she -and the Ambleside Online moms- have spent time on this question:

"So, what?"

Children are born persons, so, what do we do about it? How should that shape the way we teach, the way we parent, and the way we interact with the little ones around us? So, what are the practical implications of this idea?

In no particular order, here are some of the practical applications that I'm mulling over this afternoon:

Being patient. This can have a lot of implications, but I'm thinking specifically of giving them enough time to think it through and come to a conclusion or decision. One of the forum moms put it so beautifully in the discussion of this principle:

---

This prodding for the instant correct response doesn't respect the ability of the child's mind to be able to make these connections for themselves. This is why fill-in-the-blank style comprehension questions fall so far short. And the other point it raises is that we need to give adequate time for the child's mind to work, to chew over the ideas they have heard in order to make a response. It is so easy to want the narration instantly because you have other things to move on to, but when we remember that child are born persons, we give them the time to collect their thoughts in order to share what they have heard.
-Tania

---

There's an interesting conversation about "prodding" on the forum, Tania's comment getting right at the heart of it, but by no means the only worthy idea. Not only is it easy to want -and prod our children for- narrations (and other school work) instantly, but there's an application for this as well when dealing with behavior and discipline. Our Heavenly Father has given us a space in which to work through things, make our conclusions, and act on our choices. We ought to do the same when we are working with our own children. We need to remember: they are persons. And we need to get out of the way, rather than hovering and smothering their self-reliance, and  (all with the best of intentions) stealing opportunities to act for themselves on the opportunities they with which they are presented. Helicopter parenting - and helicopter teaching - does the child no favors at all, and it's a painfully easy trap to fall into. And a tough balancing act to not go too far the other direction and end up mired in permissiveness and its ill effects. We talk about the path to Eternal Life as a straight and narrow way -- but the scriptures, often as not, use the word strait, meaning narrow or constricted, and I frequently feel that correct action is poised, balanced on the knife's edge between two extremes. In this case, the extremes parents must avoid are being too permissive, on the one hand, and smothering the decision making process on the other; correct action will be at the sweet spot between.  In the schoolroom, this means that while we are responsible for presenting ideas, what Miss Mason calls "spreading the feast", the actual learning is the child's responsibility -- and not the parent's or the teacher's. 

Another way we can apply this idea that children are fully persons is to respect their Agency. As parents, we are charged with teaching certain things -- but we need our children's input. If they are to reach the amazing potential that is implicit in being God's offspring, then they need to be actively involved in shaping their lives, and even their educations. If that sentence feels a bit scary (it sometimes does to me) then we need to do some careful examination of both ourselves (I struggle with being a control-freak), and of the teaching our children have had this far. Ultimately, our children are self-determining, and the nearer to adulthood they get the more autonomy they will and should have. In the schoolroom, this means that while some things are required, we should also be honoring their interests, and making room for their passions.

Finally, whereas our children are God's children first, we must welcome Him into our educational process and seek His help at every step.

---

Neither the alphabet nor the multiplication table should be
taught without the Spirit of God.
-Brigham Young, quoted by Karl G. Maeser, Educating Zion, p2

---

20 Principles: Limits of Authority

This post is part of a series. Feel free to visit the series index for more thoughts on Charlotte Mason's 20 Principles of Classical Education.

---

It is extremely important that parents should keep in view, and counteract if need be, the tendencies of the day. On the other hand, it is well that they should understand the limitations of authority. Even the divine authority does not compel.
-Charlotte Mason, Teaching the Branches, (emphasis added)

---

It's wrong to force your will on someone else. There are a lot of names for this idea. Libertarian philosophy calls it the Non-Agression Principle. The Founders referred to the pursuit of happiness as an inalienable Right. I've seen some beautiful essays about Free Will from the Protestant tradition. And Mormon theology holds Agency - the power of choice - at the core of our doctrine, and teaches that, next to life itself, agency is one of the greatest gifts of God to man. Even the Atonement itself presupposes freedom of choice.

Whatever you call it, the capacity to chose is a sacred, holy thing.

It's also very unpopular in our culture right now, and it's become both ordinary and fashionable, often even seen as virtuous, to try to force others to your view and to acting on your view. So trying to parent in a way that isn't coercive and destructive of Agency -- yet still effective at teaching our children, as parents have an inescapable obligation to do -- can be very challenging and even counter-cultural.

---

Perhaps parents, great as they are and should be in the eyes of their children, should always keep well to the front the fact that their authority is derived. "God does not allow" us to do thus and thus should be a rarely expressed but often present thought to parents who study the nature of the divine authority where it is most fully revealed, that is, in the Gospels. They see there that authority works by principles and not by rules, and as they themselves are the deputy authorities set over every household, it becomes them to consider the divine method of government.
-Charlotte Mason, Teaching the Branches

---

It is interesting to me, though not terribly surprising, that what she says here is so much like what Joseph Smith said:

---

I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.

---

It is not surprising that they should say similar things because both Joseph Smith and Charlotte Mason were seekers of Truth who knew that all Truth comes from one Source. He teaches that kind of person wherever He finds them, and His teachings are always consistent.

But what are principles? And what are these principles that we should be seeing in scripture to guide our parenting? It took me a long time to figure out how to see the principle, and it was martial arts that taught me what a principle is and how to find it.

It used to be, before we had kids, that my husband and I would go to seminars together, and our sensei, Kevin, would talk about not just looking at the current technique, but seeing deeper, finding the principle. That underlying thing, the fundamental truth about the body that would allow us to defend ourselves under a variety of attacks, and not just the particular one that we were studying that day in that class. Because every attack is different - but using the principles he was trying to communicate, you could defend yourself effectively from classes of attacks, rather than attempting to learn to counter each individual movement. We gradually became adept at finding that core, the guiding idea, that would allow us to do the various techniques successfully on a variety of body types and in a variety of conditions. This was very good for our growth as martial artists.

But when we started generalizing this idea of finding the underlying principle, and applied it to gospel topics, it revolutionized the way we look at scripture.

It changed everything because it taught us to find the why. Principles generally don't address a list either of things to do or to avoid; rather, they are the reason why we might do the things on those lists.

If you understand that a wrist lock produces a certain movement in the spine, then it's not at all a stretch to apply that same lock to the fingers, the elbow, the shoulder, or the neck, in order to produce the same overall effect on the body. That allows you to move from safe space to safe space as you neutralize the attacker's efforts to hurt you.

If you understand the purpose of tithing and the Sabbath, you don't need lengthy legalistic lists of how, precisely, you should observe those laws. If you understand that the family is central to God's plan for His children, then it's easy to figure out why marriage ought to come before sexual activity and childbearing, as well as the importance of cherishing our spouse and thus preserving the marriage. If you know that gender is a Divinely bestowed characteristic, then the distinct and complementary roles of men and women start to fall into their place in the scheme of things.

But how does that apply to parenting? To parental authority? My favorite example from the scriptures for how to parent is actually the Father's dealings with Adam and Eve in the Garden.

In the Garden, God gave Adam and Eve two rules: the first was to have children, and the second was to not eat the fruit of a particular tree. Our record doesn't say much about how much explanation they got on the first count, but He was clear about that second thing: 

---

...thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 

-Genesis 2:17

---

Having warned them, He stepped back to give them space to choose. He allowed them to be tempted because there must actually be two options in order for choice to be meaningful -- and choice must be meaningful to produce growth. We know how the story goes: they chose poorly and ate from the Tree of Knowledge without permission. 

It is hugely instructive to see how He responds to His wayward children in the Garden. 

God (of course) does not freak out on them nor lose His cool. Although His children are behaving poorly, He maintains Himself and His own behavior. I think that this may be the element that is hardest for me to imitate; my kids know how to push my buttons, and it is sometimes hard to follow this part of the pattern of parenting He used in Eden. The good news is that, where He has given us weaknesses, He also promises to turn them to strengths if we turn to Him for help. 

The next part of our Father's response is to give Adam and Eve an opportunity to own their mistake: 

---

Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

-Genisis 3:11

---

Owning up to what we've done is a critical step in fixing the problem: you cannot progress through the repentance process while you are in denial that there's been an error. So the fact that Adam and Eve are quick to own their mistake is an important element, and I do not doubt that it made things go better than they would have, had they denied that there had been an infraction. (Cain, for example, has a much different experience.) Of course, our Father knew all along what had happened, but He still asked the questions: Where are you? Have you eaten the fruit? What have you been doing? These questions are not because God needed information, so they must be part of the process of teaching Adam and Eve. 

Then we finally come to the consequences that our first parents experienced as a result of their disobedience. God's consequences are instructive in nature, rather than punitive. It's not the case that they've hurt Him and He's getting back at them; these consequences are designed to help them grow and do better next time. Primarily, they are "cursed" with hard work, each in the field of their primary familial responsibilities: he to provide and protect his family, she to bear and nurture their children. As work is very good for us, the older I get the more this curse looks like a gift. It will assist them to develop the self-control and other virtues that were insufficiently strong in the Garden to keep them out of trouble.

As He informs them of the consequences they will be experiencing, the Father is not browbeating, He's not guilting them, and He's not haggling. He just tells them what's going on, then puts the changes into effect. And then they move on. 

There is so much in this episode that is instructive for how to exercise parental authority! Miss Mason talks about parents as being "deputy authorities" and to me, as I've tried to fill that role it's always seemed important that the kids can see that I'm not just making the rules up arbitrarily. Our family's rules generally fall into two categories: rules to keep us safe, and rules of right conduct which are based on the standards in scripture. And our kids know that we are bound by those rules of conduct as well: we don't allow them to lie or to be idle, but we don't do those things ourselves, either. They know early on that we are responsible to God for our conduct - and responsible to Him for the teaching we give them. 

But the thing I love the most about Miss Mason's comments here is the way that she encapsulates this truth:

---

Even the Divine authority does not compel.

---

If He does not employ compulsion, how much less right have we to do so!

Socialism and Agency

In the process of a discussion of current presidential candidates, a very old friend of mine asked me how socialism violates agency. It's a good question.

Somewhere in junior high or high school, they introduced socialism, and I thought, "Hey! Cool! This sounds really close to what they described in Sunday School when we talked about the United Order! I wonder if they're the same thing, and the world is going to come around and figure it out?" Since then I have realized just exactly how unlikely it is that the world would "come around to" and figure out or embrace doing things the Lord's way. That's just not the way our culture is going, unfortunately. However, the question of if they are alike, possibly even the same, is an important one: we are bound by Christian Duty to care for one another, and particularly to care for the poor, the widow, and the unfortunate among us, and our hope for salvation is tied, in part, to our care for each other. So nothing in what I'm saying here should be construed to say that we should abandon the poor or anybody else - I am looking only at if socialism is what ought to be done, if it is consistent with scripture and the teaching of the prophets. The question is not if we ought to help, but is socialism how we ought to do it. To try to look at other options for assisting, in addition to examining socialism's place in LDS theology, is simply too much to take on in a single blog post.

In any case, there are a some superficial similarities between socialism and the United Order, particularly in the claims that each system makes: both systems make the elimination of poverty one of their primary goals, but in spite of this they are not the same. The difference between the systems comes, to a great degree, in how they deal with agency. Under the hood they are not only different, but diametrically opposed. It is not enough that we should try to care for each other: we are required to do it in the Lord's way, and no other way is acceptable.

Agency, as well as devotion to Christ, are the elements present in the United Order that are missing in socialism. Devotion to Christ is a necessary prerequisite for the United Order.

---

The basic principle of all the revelation on the united order is that everything we have belongs to the Lord; therefore, the Lord may call upon us for any and all of the property which we have, because it belongs to Him. This, I repeat, is the basic principle. [Conference Report, October 1942, p. 55]
-Elder J. Reuben Clark, Jr., quoted in The Law of Consecration

---

Because it is all His, He can call for any or all of it, at any time and for any reason that He chooses, assisting others being one of the things that He has said the United Order exists to do, though that assistance consistently plays second fiddle to the perfecting of the Saints who are living the Order in the talks that I have read. Socialism, on the other hand, is not at all focused on Christ. It is a purely political system, and indeed, historically, socialist regimes have most often been actively hostile to  religion, which is an extremely unlikely way to do away with the evils of greed and selfishness. To try to eliminate evil from society without both eyes firmly focused on Christ just seems contradictory to me.

But the question posed was focused on the relationship of socialism and agency. I think the best way to approach the question is to return to the beginning, and consider the two plans as proposed in the Premortal Counsel, with particular attention to the methods and effects of the plan that was rejected. One of the key features of that rejected plan - and I believe that this feature is what made it so appealing that a full third of the hosts of heaven wanted it adopted - is that he promised that "not one soul should be lost". No risk of failure, no empty seats; everybody wins. It's a powerful enticement. However, it's not the Father's way: this plan promising success to everyone was not only rejected, but those who continued to embrace it after a certain point were cast out for rebellion.

So why is that? Under our Father's plan, not only is there a risk of failure, but the way is variously described as strait, straight, and narrow, and we are told repeatedly that, although nothing can separate us from our Father's love, "few there be that find [the narrow way]". It is not particularly surprising that God's way of doing things seems somewhat counter-intuitive, but we also know that not only did we accept this plan that anticipates that some will fail, but that we were ecstatic about its adoption.

I think the key to understanding this apparent contradiction is in understanding the method by which our Father intends to assist us in coming to our full potential. Agency is key -so much so that it precedes the Atonement, in that the Atonement only becomes necessary under conditions where we have Agency. It is the capacity to act -and not be acted upon- that allows us the growth that is critical to reaching our potential as Sons and Daughters of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. Regarding this potential, Brigham Young said:

---

"I wish to notice this. We read in the Bible, that there is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars. In the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, these glories are called telestial, terrestrial, and celestial, which is the highest. These are worlds, different departments, or mansions, in our Father's house. Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold scepters of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course."
-Brigham Young, 20 Feb. 1853, emphasis added, JD 1:309

---

Brother  Brigham was talking specifically about unthinking deference and obedience to church leaders, but his comment gives great insight into what is necessary for us to reach our full potential - what he calls "the true independence of heaven". This independence, of a necessity, allows the space for people to choose poorly, because only preserving the potential for poor choice can we allow space for the choices that are good and beautiful. Socialism is destructive of Agency because it treats the Sons and Daughters of God as perpetual children, incapable of either providing for themselves, or of demonstrating the necessary virtue to care for their fellow man. It denies that we have the capacity to function under the divinely decreed independent circumstances, and it denies that we have the will to discipline ourselves for our own good or the good of others. It works on the assumption that people will not voluntarily do good, so we must use the power of the State to compel them to do good. This assumption comes directly from our Enemy's plan, rejected from the beginning because of the way it destroys Agency, and with Agency, goes all hope for the growth necessary to reach our potential.

In general, I think that it is good to recall, when we hear of a program that promises to deliver something, even something good, to all without exception, it is very likely that, upon close examination, it will be more in line with Satan's plan than with the Lord's. The only way to guarantee that everybody will succeed is to do away with Agency: otherwise, there will always be those who make uncommon decisions, to both positive and negative effect.

One of the things we touched on as a "for instance" was education. My friend accurately identified our public school system as an example of socialism in America today. He said that it is a place where socialism is serving us well, but I must respectfully disagree. Not only are news articles about poor student performance a dime a dozen, concerns about low reading achievement rampant, there's plenty out there about adults who won't read, and who have a dismal understanding of civics and our Republic is the norm, as is sexually explicit "literature" (surely the opposite of the best books the Lord has commanded we seek learning from), but  to me the most telling is the comparison between what I personally learned as an honors student in high school, and then in two years at UIUC (ranked as a relatively exclusive university), and what 8th graders learned 100 years ago. The 1912 8th grade exit exam left me feeling woefully under-educated. One of the few things the Right and the Left seem able to agree upon is that our schools are failing -- which hardly seems like recommendation for education as a poster child for socialism "working well".

Additionally, when the concept of public schools was introduced, the Brethren were absolutely adamant in their opposition. President Brigham Young, in the 1877 General Conference said this, at once condemning both the principles of socialism and also the specific practice of public education:

---

“I am opposed to free education as much as I am opposed to taking away property from one man and giving it to another who knows not how to take care of it. .... I now pay the school fees of a number of children who are either orphans or sons and daughters of poor people. But in aiding and blessing the poor I do not believe in allowing my charities to go through the hands of a set of robbers who pocket nine-tenths themselves, and give one-tenth to the poor. Therein is the difference between us; I am for the real act of doing and not saying. Would I encourage free schools by taxation? No! That is not in keeping with the nature of our work..." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 18 p. 357)

---

The early Brethren actually intended that the Church Education System should be a private school system, and not just the seminaries and institutes that we currently rely on. Brigham Young said in a letter to Karl Maser that "you ought not to teach even the alphabet or the multiplication tables without the Spirit of God", and Elder John Taylor, in a message from the First Presidency (collected here), said:

---

Our children should be indoctrinated in the principles of the Gospel from their earliest childhood. They should be made familiar with the contents of the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. These should be their chief text books, and everything should be done to establish and promote in their hearts genuine faith in God, in His Gospel and its ordinances, and in His works. But under our common school system this is not possible... In no direction can we invest the means God has given us to better advantage than in the training of our children in the principles of righteousness and in laying the foundation in their hearts of that pure faith which is restored to the earth. We would like to see schools of this character, independent of the District School system, started in all places where it is possible. (emphasis added)

---

Sadly, the Saints at that time did not listen, and would not send their children to the church schools, or, if they did, often failed to pay tuition. But the fact remains: at the time the public schools were introduced, the Brethren opposed both the adoption of the public schools, and also spoke forcefully against the socialistic principles that underlie them, condemning both as being inconsistent with the gospel. In fact, as public schools were proposed across the nation, it was most often the parents and pastors who opposed them. One citizen in Massachusetts put it this way:

---

A government system of education in Prussia is not inconsistent with the theory of Prussian society, for there all wisdom is supposed to be lodged in the government. But the thing is wholly inadmissible here . . . because, according to our theory, the people are supposed to be wiser than the government. Here, the people do not look to the government for light, for instruction, but the government looks to the people. The people give the law to the government. To entrust, then, the government with the power of determining the education which our children shall receive is entrusting our servant with the power to be our master. This fundamental difference between the two countries, we apprehend, has been overlooked by the board of education and its supporters.
-Orestes Brownson, Testimony against proposed Truancy Laws before the Massachusetts Board of Education, 19th Century

---

100+ years out from the decision to adopt public schools, we see Agency abridged in a myriad of ways. It is distant and arbitrary government, not individuals and families, that determine when a child starts school, what he will study, and to a very large extent, where he will attend, as well as how long he must stay. Government determines how many hours children must attend, and if they are deemed truant, it is parents that are fined and potentially jailed for it. Parents have a holy trust in their children, yet in the eyes of our socialistic system they are deemed incompetent to determine the most basic aspects of their child's education. In my case, this meant that when I met a midwife who agreed to take me as an apprentice, I couldn't even consider doing it seriously: attendance at the public school was compulsory, and completely and wholly incompatible with the odd hours that newborn babies keep. Not only was my Agency thwarted, but it was done so in a way that had life-altering effects, and that from only a single instance of socialized opposition to Agency!

To the extent that socialism is introduced, our Agency is circumscribed. President McKay and others of the leading Brethren have repeatedly described Agency as the greatest of God's gifts to man, next to life itself. If Agency is a gift that is next to life itself in importance, then we should be as reluctant to do destroy to our neighbor's Agency as we are to destroy his life.

Socialism just isn't up to that standard.

Commonplace Sampler: March

"An educated conscience is a far rarer possession than we imagine ... we believe that Latin and Greek must be taught, but that morals come by nature."
-Charlotte Mason, Teaching in the Branches

Well do I remember an experience while speaking to a group of missionaries. After I had invited questions, one elder stood. With tears in his eyes, he asked, “Why did Jesus have to suffer so much?” I asked the elder to open his book of hymns and recite words from “How Great Thou Art.” He read:

And when I think that God, his Son not sparing,

Sent him to die, I scarce can take it in,

That on the cross, my burden gladly bearing,

He bled and died to take away my sin.  

Then I asked this elder to read from “Reverently and Meekly Now.” These words are particularly poignant because they are written as the Lord would express His own answer to the very question that had been asked:

Think of me, thou ransomed one;

Think what I for thee have done.

With my blood that dripped like rain,

Sweat in agony of pain,

With my body on the tree

I have ransomed even thee. …

Oh, remember what was done

That the sinner might be won.

On the cross of Calvary

I have suffered death for thee. 

Jesus suffered deeply because He loves us deeply! He wants us to repent and be converted so that He can fully heal us.

-Russell M. Nelson, Jesus Christ -- The Master Healer, October Conference 2005



 On the other hand,  it is well that they should understand the limitations of authority. Even the divine authority does not compel. It indicates the way and protects the wayfarer and strengthens and directs self-compelling power. It permits a man to make free choice of obedience rather than compels him to obey. In the moral teaching of children arbitrary action almost always produces revolt.
-Charlotte Mason, Teaching in the Branches



"To the Editor of the Times & Seasons:

Sir:—Through the medium of your paper, I wish to correct an error among men that profess to be learned, liberal and wise; and I do it the more cheerfully, because I hope sober-thinking and sound-reasoning people will sooner listen to the voice of truth, than be led astray by the vain pretensions of the self-wise. The error I speak of, is the definition of the word “Mormon.” It has been stated that this word was derived from the Greek word “mormo.” This is not the case. There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, through the grace of God, translated the Book of Mormon. Let the language of that book speak for itself. On the 523rd page, of the fourth edition, it reads: “And now behold we have written this record according to our knowledge in the characters, which are called among us the “Reformed Egyptian,” being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech; and if our plates had been sufficiently large, we should have written in Hebrew: but the Hebrew hath been altered by us, also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold ye would have had no imperfection in our record, but the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also, that none other people knoweth our language; therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.”

Here then the subject is put to silence, for “none other people knoweth our language,” therefore the Lord, and not man, had to interpret, after the people were all dead. And as Paul said, “the world by wisdom know not God,” so the world by speculation are destitute of revelation; and as God in his superior wisdom, has always given his Saints, wherever he had any on the earth, the same spirit, and that spirit, as John says, is the true spirit of prophecy, which is the testimony of Jesus, I may safely say that the word Mormon stands independent of the learning and wisdom of this generation. —Before I give a definition, however, to the word, let me say that the Bible in its widest sense, means good; for the Savior says according to the gospel of John, “I am the good shepherd;” and it will not be beyond the common use of terms, to say that good is among the most important in use, and though known by various names in different languages, still its meaning is the same, and is ever in opposition to “bad.” We say from the Saxon, “good”; the Dane, “god”; the Goth, “goda”; the German, “gut”; the Dutch, “goed”; the Latin, “bonus”; the Greek, “kalos”; the Hebrew, “tob”; and the Egyptian, “mon.” Hence, with the addition of “more,” or the contraction, “mor,” we have the word “mormon”; which means, literally, “more good.”

Yours,
JOSEPH SMITH.
(May 15, 1843.) T&S 4:194.
From the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p299-300

The truth made sense; it tasted good. It wore well, like an old coat.
-Joseph and Emma: A Love Story, vol. 1, p 37

We should begin by recognizing the reality that just because something is good is not a sufficient reason for doing it. The number of good things we can do far exceeds the time available to accomplish them. Some things are better than good, and these are the things that should command priority attention in our lives.

-Dallin H Oaks, Good Better Best, October Conference 2007

"Be courteous to all but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence. True friendship is a plant of slow growth, and must undergo and withstand the shocks of adversity before it is entitled to the appellation."

-George Washington



God can't use you as He desires until you have learned to be absolutely obedient. Many have faith, and many have love, but few have the fierce self-discipline to be completely obedient.
-Joseph and Emma: A Love Story, vol.1, p232

Stern lawgiver! yet thou dost wear

The Godhead's most benignant grace;

Not know we anything so fair

As the smile upon thy face;

Flowers laugh before thee on their beds;

And fragrance in thy footing treads;

Thou dost preserve the stars from wrong;

And the most ancient heaves, through thee, are fresh and strong.

-Wordsworths's Ode to Duty,
Quoted by Charlotte Mason in Teaching in the Branches

In the matter of the Ideas that inspire the virtuous life, we miss much by our laissez-aller way of taking things for granted.
-Charlotte Mason in Teaching in the Branches




In the Arena Chapel at Padua, we have Giotto's Faith and Infidelity, Love and Envy, Charity and Avarice, Justice and Injustice, Temperance and Gluttony, Hope and Despair, pictured forth in unmistakeable characters for the reading of the unlearned and ignorant. We have the same theme, treated with a difference, in what Mr. Ruskin calls the "Bible of Amiens," where Humility and Pride, Temperance and Gluttony, Chastity and Lust, Charity and Avarice, Hope and Despair, Faith and Idolatry, Perseverance and Atheism, Love and Discord, Obedience and Rebellion, Courage and Cowardice, Patience and Anger, Gentleness and Churlishness,--in pairs of quatre-foils, an upper and a lower, under the feet of each Apostle, who was held to personify the special virtue. But we know nothing about cardinal virtues and deadly sins. We have no teaching by authoritative utterance strong in the majesty of virtue. We work out no schemes of ethical teaching in marble, we paint no scale of virtues on our walls, and no repellent vices. Our poets speak for us it is true; but the moral aphorisms, set like jewels though they be on the forefinger of time, are scattered here and there, and we leaven it serenely to happy chance whether our children shall or shall not light upon the couple of lines which should fire them with the impulse to virtuous living. It may be said that we neglect all additional ethical teaching because we have the Bible; but how far and how do we use it? Here we have indeed the most perfect ethical system, the most inspiring and heart-enthralling, that the world has ever possessed; but, alas, it is questionable whether we attempt to set a noble child's heart beating with the thought that he is required to be perfect as his Father which is in Heaven is perfect.

It is time we set ourselves seriously to this work of moral education which is to be done, most of all, by presenting the children with high ideals. "Lives of great men all remind us we can make our lives sublime," and the study of the lives of great men and of the great moments in the lives of smaller men is most wonderfully inspiring...
-Charlotte Mason in Teaching in the Branches