Correction: I read (and own) the hardbound edition. Goodreads doesn't have that option available even though the bookstores do.
Loving it. I'm also reaCorrection: I read (and own) the hardbound edition. Goodreads doesn't have that option available even though the bookstores do.
Loving it. I'm also reading Jesus the Christ by James E. Talmage at the same time and I've found some points of disagreement with Camille Fronk in the first chapter. Specifically, she states that we do not know which offering Mary and Joseph brought to the temple when the days of her purifying were fulfilled. Luke 2:24 says turtle doves or pigeons. She also says that Luke did not mention payment for Jesus because he considered that Jesus also had Levites lineage and would therefore remain in God's service throughout his life. However, Luke 2:39 says the law required redemption and Luke reports "they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord." James Talmage repeatedly comments on how the brevity of the writers seemingly to point the reader toward the pertinent lessons rather than extraneous situations. The law required the tax to be paid to redeem the firstborn from service and they performed all required by the law. These differences are both on page 17, and I haven't noticed any others so far (I'm on page 62.) I am learning much and digging into the scriptures more than with any other book so my compliments to Camille Fronk Olson!
This is a wonderful book, written by a woman, looking at the New Testament women through the eyes of history and culture, with an admiration of their essential contribution. In the concluding chapter, Camille Fronk Olson writes:
"On Resurrection morning, the two angels told the women to remember what Jesus taught them concerning his gospel and how he would be crucified and rise again. "And they remembered his words . . . and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest" (Luke 24:4-9). As true disciples who hear the word of God to remember it and do it, these women inspire us to do the same today. Of equal importance, community is created when engaged women and men work together in the spread of the faith and in their joined efforts to include all members in an active, authentically lived religion. With the blessing of Christ's Atonement and renewed commitment to keep our covenants with him, we cannot fail in that quest."
That sums up her aim in sharing the culture and history of the day in illuminating the stories and lessons of the New Trstament. In my opinion, many disputes could be resolved by studying the Lord's followers, including the women, of that era in this context and becoming better followers of Christ in our day after their examples. I recommend this book to both women to men but especially to women and men who seek to understand the gospel more fully and women's role in it. I loved it and will reread it in parts and pieces as I read through the entire New Testament again....more
I picked this book off a display at the library while waiting for my son. I was curious about the format she chose and the topic. I expected it to beI picked this book off a display at the library while waiting for my son. I was curious about the format she chose and the topic. I expected it to be about social media, which it is not. She covers some interesting history about the media and covers divers views, but it's confusing in that she's trying to cover a complex subject in a simplistic way. She also continually refers to Pres. Bush's insistence that Iraq had advanced weaponry and repeating the so-called fact that they did not. I checked the publication, 2011, and at that time the chemical weapons had not been reported. The very fact that she forgot that evidence sometimes lags behind breaking news coverage damages her credibility. I'll likely finish the book because it is interesting in parts, but I don't recommend it. Two stars mean it's okay.
I'm almost done with the book and my opinion is changing. While I haven't finished the last chapter, I like her summation. She found her stride about halfway through the book, at the climax if it had been a novel. Before then, it almost felt like she tried overly hard to impress her readers, and then her constant harping on the lack of chemical weapons in Iraq which now is known to have been true after all, hurt her credibility. So I've bumped it back to 3 stars because I liked it....more
This is an amazing book. I had no idea of the role the Crimean War played in the timing of the Civil War or has fiercely unlawful the self-named, pridThis is an amazing book. I had no idea of the role the Crimean War played in the timing of the Civil War or has fiercely unlawful the self-named, prideful, intermarried (to a ruinous degree) "aristocrats" of South Carolina ensured the breaking apart of the union and the destruction of the South. As Robert Bunch, London's consul there, stated: "the ferocious arrogance of the slavers would tear apart the Union and likely destroy the South as well."
Christopher Dickey has accomplished an amazing feat. His research is meticulous, his writing even better, as he weaves the story of the pre-Civil War South through the eyes of the British consul assigned to Charleston, South Carolina. It is no wonder that the Civil War began there. There were so many warning signs that people of common sense should have seen, but it is also a lesson of how pride and arrogance can blind people's minds to be blind to those signs. South Carolina had warning and reason to change course, they had reason to change course, but they focused on their rights and privileges as shouted at them by the fire-eaters.
At another place, it notes how in London they wondered at bleeding Kansas and Nebraska and wondered how that could happen in a civilized country. Dickey notes: "The raw, barbaric emotions of the mob were easy for the British gentlemen to sneer at (often they attributed them to the large number of Irish immigrants in the United States), but however that might be, violence was a given in American society. In the 1840s, after Charles Dickens toured the United States, he linked the American inclination to bloodshed with the barbarity of slavery. It was no surprise, he said, that in a country where humans were branded, whipped, and maimed, where men 'learn to write with pens of red-hot iron on he human face,' they grew to be bullies and, 'carrying cowards' weapons hidden in their breast, will shoot men down and stab them' when they quarrel. Every day as Bunch walked the streets in South Carolina, he had cause to remember those lines."
My thoughts as I read this book: If we only read history with the intent to fill out timelines, we will miss the true value of its lessons. Can this be applied to our society today? I would argue emphatically yes. In the American society, millions of unborn children are aborted either surgically or through use of the less messy, morning-after pill under the convenient guise of "my body, my choice." The slavers also did the convenient thing, calling it there moral duty to keep the Negro slaves in chains because they were sub-par human beings, unable to direct their own lives. In each case, where there is lack of respect for human life, that loss does not stay in one neat category but spills over into every part of life. Legislation has never been able to replace moral goodness with rules. The rules will be overthrown to the detriment of all society. The United States paid a phenomenally heavy price for allowing slavery, the lack of respect for life. Must we continue to perpetuate the crime? When will we decide that people, not profits, not convenience, are most important? Until then, we are focusing on the wrong things. Would there be a need to regulate guns in this country if we changed our perception on the importance of people, both born and unborn? Would the government need to step in to take care of everyone if neighbors were helping neighbors? I think not. If the Golden Rule, as is given in scripture, not gold, became the standard, so many regulations could be dropped. If the do-gooders became busier changing their own approach to personally doing good, how much further could that reach? If hearts would have changed and softened, the Civil War never would have happened. That lesson needs to be learned today in my opinion. That is the purpose of studying history, not to answer questions on some silly test!
Back to the book: When asked late in 1959 about the possibility of dis-Union sentiment dying away be 1860 as it had 30 years previous, Robert Bunch reported that hardly anyone talked in support of the Union, and he could not see that sentiment disappearing. However, he also said: "He did not believe the Union would disintegrate immediately, . . . and clearly hoped it would last a good long time. 'A great Republic like this--the evolution of a great thought--of a great experiment, is not to be broken to pieces by one, or half a dozen blows. It has immense vitality and will, in my humble judgment, stand a good deal more knocking about than it has yet had. Besides which, are the South prepared to organize a government which shall take its place? Why, I do not believe that any three Southern States could be found to agree upon any one simple point, except perhaps that every man has an inalienable right to 'wallop his own nigger.'
Bunch really did not like American democracy "but, "I own to a sneaking kindness for our American off-shoot. . . . Full of faults as the system is . . . it has much to do yet for the good of mankind. Once divided, the prestige is gone.' If one or two states could break away, and the principle of secession were accepted, 'where would the practice stop?'" Abraham Lincoln also understood that risk.
In another place, as South Carolina declared secession and the South tried to get things in order to gain Great Britain recognize their independence, Bunch wrote Lyon: "Revolutions are the order of the day. The papers were full of long reports about Garibaldi's triumphant march north from Sicily to Naples to join up with King Victor Emmanuel II, and many an American noted that while the Union was coming apart, Italy was coming together. But this revolution in South Carolina was different from those in Europe in an even more fundamental respect. 'other nations! especially those enlightened and more old-fashioned in their notions, rebel, fight, and die for Liberty, . . . while South Carolina is prepared to do the same for slavery."
And another, regarding the Secession Convention held in Charleston: "The Secession Convention's final and authoritative statement, which it fashioned with many references to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, . . . . concerned itself entirely and exclusively with slavery. Secession, then, was not about tariffs, as some claimed before and long after the Civil War."
I've finished this book now. Absolutely fabulous review of the Civil War era from a more international lens. I highly recommend it!...more