The Forgotten Founding Father by Joshua Kendall

"Every civil government is based upon some religion or philosophy of life. Education in a nation will propagate the religion of that nation. In America, the foundational religion was Christianity. And it was sown in the hearts of Americans through the home and private and public schools for centuries. Our liberty, growth, and prosperity was the result of a Biblical philosophy of life. Our continued freedom and success is dependent on our educating the youth of America in the principles of Christianity."
~ Noah Webster

This book was a bit of a disappointment. While I am glad I read it and it was filled with interesting information about Webster's life, it missed some critical points explaining why the 1828 is such a treasure. 

The 1828 is unique in that it is not a dictionary of common usage. Webster's effort was to elevate the American language based on the usage and meaning in the bible. He was familiar enough with the King James to have made his own revision. 

The 1828 is an invaluable resource for students of the King James, The Book of Mormon, students of the Founding Fathers many of whom took classes from Webster, as well as those who study Emily Dickinson and her contemporaries.

Look up the words education and marriage in a modern dictionary and compare the definitions with the 1828, you will see why anyone who takes an interest in character education prefers Webster's 1828. Webster's dictionary defines over 1,000 words from the King James bible that are not in common usage today. The dictionary is a priceless American and Christian treasure to this day.

The entire preface of the dictionary, which is brief, is well worth reading. Here are a few of its beautiful lines:

It satisfies my mind that I have done all that my health, my talents and my pecuniary means would enable me to accomplish. I present it to my fellow citizens, not with frigid indifference, but with my ardent wishes for their improvement and their happiness; and for the continued increase of the wealth, the learning, the moral and religious elevation of character, and the glory of my country.

To that great and benevolent Being, who, during the preparation of this work, has sustained a feeble constitution, amidst obstacles and toils, disappointments, infirmities and depression; who has twice borne me and my manuscripts in safety across the Atlantic, and given me strength and resolution to bring the work to a close, I would present the tribute of my most grateful acknowledgments. And if the talent which he entrusted to my care, has not been put to the most profitable use in his service, I hope it has not been "kept laid up in a napkin," and that any misapplication of it may be graciously forgiven.
~New Haven, 1828 N. Webster

Fusion Wedding

#handpaintedloveboxes #brideandgroom #weddingcaketoppers #pegdolls

www.handpaintedloveboxes.etsy.com

I remember hearing this as a child. I love this story.

In “The Vision of Sir Launfal,” an interesting story is told of a young knight who rode out into the world in search of the Holy Grail (the cup which the Master supposedly drank from at the Last Supper). He had dedicated his life to the quest. He was young, handsome, and strong, clothed in bright and shining armor, mounted on a gallant white charger. As he crossed the drawbridge riding out into the world, a beggar (who was a leper) put up his hand to him, begging alms. The young knight reached into his pouch, took out a gold coin and flung it to the beggar as he rode on, but he really did not give the beggar very much because no one would accept even a gold coin from a leper.

The young man searched for the cup; of course he didn’t find it, although he spent his life in the quest. He did, however, learn a lot, and at the close of his life he was returning to his castle, no longer young. He is now shrunken with age. His armor is no longer bright; his mount is no longer a charger but just a tired old gray horse. As he was about to cross the drawbridge into the castle, once again a beggar put up his hand begging for alms. This time Sir Launfal stopped, got down from his horse, reached into his knapsack and took out the only thing he had—a crust of bread. He then dipped his cup into the stream and gave the crust of bread and one cup of cold water to the beggar.

The wooden cup from which the beggar drank turned into the Holy Grail for which he had searched, and the beggar turned into a Christ and said a very interesting thing. He said:

“Not what we give, but what we share.

For the gift without the giver is bare;

Who gives himself with his alms feeds three,

Himself, his hungering neighbor, and me.”

(“The Vision of Sir Launfal,” James R. Lowell.)

https://www.lds.org/…/1973/10/you-shall-receive-the-spirit.…

The Road to Character by David Brooks

Neal A. Maxwell once wrote:

How intellectually amazing the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is! The gospel is truly inexhaustible! It is marvelous! It is a wonder!

Yet orthodoxy is required to keep all these truths in essential balance. In orthodoxy lies real safety and real felicity! Flowing from orthodoxy is not only correctness but happiness. Orthodoxy is especially vital in a time of raging relativism and belching sensualism. The world’s morality is constantly being improvised. Some views are politically correct one day, but not another.

One writer recently observed that the relativistic forces at work should warm every atheist’s heart. For if God is a socially conscious political being whose views invariably correspond to our own prejudices on every essential point of doctrine, he demands of us no more than our politics require. [H]ow would our worship of [this kind of being] constitute more than self-congratulation for our own moral standards?

The writer continued: As an atheist, I like this God. It is good to see him every morning while I am shaving. [Eugene D. Genovese, “Pilgrim’s Progress,” The New Republic, 11 May 1992, p. 38]
Neal A. Maxwell, The Inexhaustible Gospel, August 18, 1992.

This is an intriguing book that misses the truth in too many instances. Short example: The difference that made Washington great and Eisenhower mediocre is the moderation Brooks praises. Washington was absolutely committed to principle and to God. Eisenhower was a humanist who had to feel his way on his own.

Brooks doesn't seem to either believe in, or understand the principles behind orthodoxy or sin, therefore he can't understand character.  While the book has some salient points and is worth reading, it is still aggrandizing the failed and morally troubling, progressive public policy that Brooks has espoused his entire life. 

The morality Brooks espouses is godless and ambiguous. What represents sin? What represents good character and who decides? Brooks seems to choose society, whose morality constantly shifts while spiraling downward. Can man be good without God? Yes. But, not without adherence to his law. Self-reflection is refreshing, were it combined with true principles, it would be powerful.