How to teach- Part I

Schalom!

This week I've been thinking a lot about teaching. Specifically, I've been thinking about what makes a good lesson and a good teacher. There was way too much for one post, so I decided to make it a series.

The first skill that I think a good teacher needs is how to take care of reading. If there's one sure-fire way to get your class all farblonjid, it's reading a long boring passage. For anybody who hasn't figured it out yet, let me tell you a secret: any long reading is boring. It doesn't matter if it was interesting when you first read it. If it takes more than a minute to read, less than half the class will be listening by the end. That's just the way it is. There are ways to make it better though.

1) Read less- The simple truth is that reading whole chapters out loud is not a great way to learn, and much of what we read in class could be taught another way. If you can think of a way to teach it without making it a farshlepteh krenk, you should probably do it.

2) Explain more- Before reading a verse (or a quote), explain who is talking, whom they are talking to, and any important things that are happening. This also helps you to accomplish number 1. If you explain the context, you don't have to read the 3 verses before the one you are interested in just to explain what is going on.

3) Let them read- It is usually better to let the class members do the reading, not you. The class is already hearing your fonfering for an hour, so you might as well give them some variety. Another benefit is that you can let shy people who don't feel comfortable sharing their own ideas participate in a less threatening way.

4) If you have to break any of these rules, especially the first one, you will have to do something extra to keep it interesting. I have found it helpful when I am reading a long passage to give the class something to listen for instead of waiting till it is over to explain why it was important.

"While we are reading these verses, pay special attention to the way the Savior shows his love for..."

Basically you ask your question before you read the passage, then ask it again after. Knowing up-front why you are listening to something makes listening a lot easier.

Well, that's it for this week. Till next time, zay gezunt and a glick ahf dir with the reading!

Herschel

Who's your daddy?

Schalom!

Today, I want to do a bit of kvetching. And, as my dear mother always said, "A kvetch a day keeps the dumkops at bay." Or something to that effect.

It hurts my poor ears to hear people misusing "thee" and "thy" and the other scriptural pronouns. Now, I may not know much for zombies, but when it comes to bible talk... I'm the Bal Toyreh. So, without any more fuss, let's talk grammar.

Thou- Thou is used as the SUBJECT of a sentence. That means that you use it any time you would say "I" or "he," not "me" or "him."

Thee- Thee is used as the OBJECT of a sentence. That means that it is not the thing doing the verb, but the thing being verbed. If you can replace it with "him" or "us" or "me," you are probably using it right.

Thy- Thy is used as a possessive. It means "your."

Now, the general misuse of these is not the real subject of my kvetch. What I really want to kvetch about is a specific misuse of 'thy.' When we pray, we often end in the name of "thy son, Jesus Christ." This makes perfect sense. When we pray, we are addressing God the Father, whose Son is Jesus Christ. What bothers me is when people end their talks like this. In a talk, we address the congregation, not God. Ending a talk in the name of "thy son" means that you, the speaker, think that Jesus is my son. For anybody who is confused on this subject, let me just tell you: I am not Jesus' father. Please do not address me as such.

Well, everybody, that's all I have to say today. Till next time, zay gezunt!

Herschel

There will be blood

We got notified this morning of a movie which portrays Mormons as flesh-eating zombies. Let me tell you, when I read about this, I got mad-- mad that I didn't think of this first, mad that I didn't get invited to participate.

Our dear friend Betty Toms also got mad, but for a different reason. She's mad because this portrays Mormons in a negative way. But let's compare this to a problem faced by our brothers and sisters, the Jews. There actually are stories that Jewish people drink the blood of babies as part of their religious rituals. And even though these stories are ridiculous lies, tens of millions have (1) believed them and (2) acted on them, violently. So if someone made a movie which resurrected this old lie, I would be upset, even though I am not Jewish, because people could really get hurt.

I grew up in the Bible Belt, and I'm familiar with the special breed of unthinking anti-Mormon bigot you can find in those parts. And I do sometimes get tired of hearing anti-Mormon slurs. For instance, I get a little upset at books and movies which associate Mormonism with polygamy. Mormons renounced polygamy 120 years ago, so it's a lie to say that we're still polygamists. And it's a lie that some people will believe. But it's not a lie that will inspire any violent action. So although I get a little irritated about Big Love, and other such nonsense, I would never waste my time protesting it.

Now, a movie portraying Mormons as flesh-eating zombies is even less worthy of my condemnation, or even my attention. Of course, Mormons aren't really zombies. But no one is going to be fooled by this movie into thinking they are. (PS - If someone watches this trailer and wonders if Mormons really are undead monsters, they probably have difficulty tying their own shoes.)

The people who made this movie didn't pick Mormons for their monsters because Mormons are threatening. On the contrary, Mormons are boring, which makes it funny. Watch the trailer. It's a campy, over-the-top, silly B-movie made by a bunch of college kids. It's only forty minutes long. It walks the line between laughably bad and just plain bad. These guys want to be Sam Raimi-- they're aiming for thrills, and laughs.

Krusty the Clown taught us that a pie in the face is only funny if "the sap's got dignity." You make fun of someone because it causes them discomfort. If they laugh along, there's no fun in it. Fortunately for the makers of The Book of Zombie, Mormons are humorless squares, perfect targets for ridicule. So, congratulations on proving the Gentiles right.

--MOISHE

Nephi and the Boyfriend Deflection

Schalom to all!

First, let me welcome Yankel to the blog. I'm sure that his kvetching will fit right in with the rest. And maybe his tastes in cheese will be useful. By way of introduction to our readers, let me just say that Yankel is a real mensch, and you will like him. Mazal tov, Yankel!

Second, I want to talk about something that struck me while I was reading 1 Nephi 11. In the opening verses, Nephi prays to see the vision his father saw, and is visited by a Spirit. The Spirit asks Nephi if he believed that his father did see the vision, and Nephi answers that he believes all that his father has told him.

I have always seen this as a sign of Nephi's super faith. I read it as saying "Not only do I believe that he saw the tree, but I also believe everything else he has ever said." But, the more I think about it, the more I think that is not what is going on. It sounds more and more like Nephi is using what I call the Boyfriend deflection. Allow me to demonstrate:

Girl: "Do you think I look good in this dress?"
Boyfriend: "Honey, you know I love all your dresses."

Or let's try another one:

Girl: "Did you think my sister was acting immature?"
Boyfriend: "Why would you think that? I love spending time with your family!"

The boydidn't want to give the completely true answers ("You look like a zeppelin in that dress and your sister is a meshuggenerin"), but didn't want to lie either. So, he used the age old method of giving a positive answer to a different question. That way, his sweetheart doesn't get hurt, and he doesn't lie.

I think this is what Nephi is doing. He is not trying to be dishonest, but he is trying to give the best response he can. He knows that the right answer would be that he believes, but he doesn't quite feel comfortable with that, so he gives the next best thing.

The Spirit then shows Nephi the vision, based not on his belief in his father, but on his faith in Christ. I am not sure where I want to go with this, I just think it's something interesting. Maybe later I will revisit the idea and see if I can flesh it out a bit. Till then, the take home message is that it is OK not to know everything, as long as we are willing to be taught and want to know.

Till next time, zay gezunt!

Herschel

Rough Stone Rolling

I am currently reading Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, and am more confused than enlightened. In church videos, he is portrayed as not really a person, but a being. (A little like Ward Cleaver) He is wise, benevolent, perfectly moral, and totally unselfish. (Don't get me wrong, I think Joseph Smith was a prophet, kind hearted, moral, and a really really good guy.) I want some more information to flesh out his character. On the other hand, many other sources also describe Joseph as an inhuman, but devilish being. His only desire is to corrupt the souls of men.

So, now I am reading Rough Stone Rolling, and the historian's slant is to show that Joseph Smith was a person with personality and lots of problems, but still a prophet. I AM SO CONFUSED! I enjoy the detail, but do not know now what to think of the man. Maybe the book gives more details (Temper tantrums, personal breakdowns, and Polygamy Polygamy Polygamy) than I can accept.

P.S. I still have a testimony as to the veracity of the Book of Mormon, and continue to happily attend the temple and regular Sunday meetings.

P.P.S I wanted to find a good picture of Joseph Smith, but since I couldn't find one, here is one of Orrin Porter Rockwell.

The Keystone Lesson

Schalom! This month I was called as a Gospel Doctrine teacher, so I plan on posting more often. Hooray! Last week I taught the dreaded lesson about how the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. I get very tired of this lesson, not because it is a bad lesson, but because I disagree with the way that it is always taught.

This is how it happens: the teacher draws an arch on the board, points to the keystone and says "What would happen if we took this one out?" Then everyone in the class responds (without thinking at all) that the arch would fall over.

"Herschel," you might ask me, "How do you know they aren't thinking?" I know this because if anyone thought about this before they answered, they would be able to tell you that removing any stone from an arch would cause it to fall. Any toddler who has played with blocks can tell you that.

So, as I prepared to teach this lesson, I tried to find a new approach to avoid this pitfall. And so I present for your consideration: "Keystones: What the Heck Are They For, Anyway?"

Before people started building arches, they framed their doors, windows, and other openings with a construct called a post and lintel. This consisted of two vertical posts and a beam across the top. These were somewhat limited in their usefulness because the posts had to be very close together, and they couldn't support very much weight above them. I won't go into the physics of it, but just know that if you put much weight on the lintel, it snapped in half and everything above it came crashing down.

Contrast that with an arch. Arches have a special way of distributing weight put on the keystone to the side, away from the gap in the middle. This means that they can accomodate wider doorways and support much more weight. That is what the keystone does: it transfers weight away from the very unstable open space to the more stable foundation.

This is one of the things that touches me about the story of Nephi. When he was asked if he understood the future coming of the Lord, he replied that he did not, but that he did know that God loved his children. This is why the Book of Mormon is so important to me. It allows me to take the weight of my testimony and put it back on the foundation of Christ, despite the holes formed by things that I don't understand.

Herschel

Christmas

Scheyne gruesse and merry Christmas!

Moishe and I are spending the holidays at the Mormonides homestead with the family. I just thought I should take a moment away from the busy day to wish all of you a very merry Christmas. May the new year bring happiness and gezundheit to you and yours.

Herschel Mormonides

Happy Holidays

I had some way to connect this video to the sentiments of the season and all that sort of thing, but I forgot what it was. So, here's Jerry Orbach singing. Merry Christmas. And a Happy Hanukkah.

--MOISHE

Mormons with low self esteem

Schalom and vee gehts! Moishe and I have been so busy the last few months that we haven't been blogging, and for that we apologize. In our defense, we have spent some time thinking of good things to blog about.

Enough with the apologies! On to bigger and better things!

Today, I want to talk about something that really gets on my nerfen. Allow me to explain (and then, maybe allow me to kvetch a bisel?). We were in Sunday School, when my teacher, bless his heart, started talking about humility. He had a few good things to say, but then he ruined it all by saying, "If you think you are, you aren't."

Humility may be many things, but low self-esteem it isn't! This is something that really bothers me, so I want to make it very clear. Thinking that you are bad at everything (especially being humble) is not what humility is about.

The Savior said "I am meek and lowly in heart" (Matthew 11:29). So, either Jesus is lying to us, and he is not really lowly, or there is something that differentiates humility and low self-esteem.

I hate the fact that if I talk about something I did well, people always say (albeit jokingly) "sounds like somebody needs to learn some humility." There is nothing wrong with taking pride in a job well-done. If I cook a good meal, I want to be able to say "Wow. That was tasty" and if I win a game, I want to high-five my team.

Mostly, I think that we, as a people, need to rethink our definition of humility. We need to be willing to enjoy doing things well. I am not sure how we can define it well, but here's what I think:

Humility- The recognition that one's acts were accomplished through the aid of a
higher power, and the reverent gratitude for the aid received.

It's not perfect, but it's a working definition to say the least. If
anybody has any parts they would want to add, they are more than welcome.

Till next time, zay gezunt!

Herschel

Sauce for the goose

A gezunt ahf dein kop! Recently, some putz wrote in to the local paper with advice for single Mormon women. And although much of what he said was somewhere between narishkeit and meshugas, he said one thing I agree with:

You can ask guys on dates. They won't be offended.

Lots of other people wrote in to say that this was a bad idea, and that girls should never ask boys out, but I think they're wrong. My brother Herschel has already talked a bit about this, but I want to write a lot more.

So, I want to discuss the reasons, good and bad, why you might not ask boys out on dates. In all the conversations I've had with single women, I think I've really only heard about five reasons.

1) "Those are the rules for dating, and I can't change them." This is a bad reason. The rules for dating change all the time. As we change the way we do behave, the norms and standards about how we ought to behave also change. And older ways of doing things are not always better. Want to go back to the world of arranged marriages, child brides, and women unable to own property? Not me. I am glad we've changed the rules, and I don't have a problem changing them more if the change is for the better.

2) "As priesthood leaders and future presiding officers in the home, men should take the initiative." This is also a bad reason, but it's less bad. At the very least, it's an argument based on an appeal to a certain set of values, instead of blind deference to tradition (see above).

But this is not the way priesthood works. My priesthood office gives me a specific set of duties, not the obligation or the right to take the lead in absolutely everything. (That's machismo, not priesthood.) There is no priesthood key for asking people out, because dating is a social function, not a priesthood function.

I can see where some people might get that idea. After all, marriage is an institution presided over by priesthood authority (the husband), and entered into through a priesthood ordinance (sealing). Okay. But that doesn't mean that everything that leads up to marriage has to be initiated by a man. After all, the church is also an institution presided over by a priesthood authority (the prophet), and entered into through a priesthood ordinance (baptism). But it's okay for women to share the gospel, right?

Initiating dates is not a priesthood responsibility, and asking boys out is not steadying the ark.

3) "Boys don't like girls who ask boys out." This one I hate. Where does it come from? Maybe it comes from mothers and fathers who teach it to their daughters. And maybe it was true thirty years ago in Sandy, Utah. But times change.

Maybe, though, you have heard boys say this. And I will admit, there are certain boys who like to be the pursuer, and not the pursued. Or, more pointedly, the predator and not the prey? For some guys, dating is like hunting, and what they love is the thrill of the chase. Once they've caught you, they lose interest. Let's be clear: These boys are losers, or players. You don't want them. So who cares what they think.

But maybe your personal history leads you to believe that it's not just losers and players who hate being asked out. You've asked out good boys, boys that you really like, and in every instance it was a mistake. The boy didn't fall for you, he wasn't interested, etc. Experiences like this seem to support the idea that boys don't like to be asked out, but let me suggest other explanations.

Most first dates go nowhere. You're only going to get married once (if everything works out right), and you'll probably go on dozens of first dates. So dating has a very low success rate. You should expect to go on at least five or ten first dates to have a decent shot at a relationship. That's just the way the numbers work. Most of the time, we're bad at guessing who we're going to hit it off with.

Part of the reason for this is that we usually ask people out who are slightly better catches than we are. A boy who is a B-plus catch will spend most of his time chasing girls who deserve an A or an A-minus. Why? Because we all want the vey best we can get. And because a lot of us have a pretty high opinion of ourselves. Let's test my theory. Think about the boys you have asked out, and compare them to the boys who have asked you out. My guess is that the first set are better catches than the second set. So it's not surprising that you have a harder time landing them.

Think about it like this. I'm a boy who has asked out hundreds of girls, but has not managed to marry any of them. If I told you that I had concluded that girls just don't like it when boys ask them out, what would you tell me? You might suggest that the real problem is that I am chasing girls who are out of my league, or that I have been unlucky, or that dating just stinks. But you would almost certainly tell me to keep trying. So I'll tell you the same. Keep trying. Sometimes it works, and that makes all the failure and rejection worthwhile.

4) "If I ask him, then I have to plan everything and pay for everything." This is a pathetic reason to not ask a boy out. A date doesn't have to be a big production. As Elder Oaks said in his CES fireside a couple of years ago,

. . . the more elaborate and expensive the date, the fewer the dates. As dates become fewer and more elaborate, this seems to create an expectation that a date implies seriousness or continuing commitment. That expectation discourages dating even more. Gone is the clumsy and inexpensive phone call your parents and grandparents and I used to make. That call went something like this: “What’re ya doin’ tonight? How about a movie?” Or, “How about taking a walk downtown?” Cheap dates like that can be frequent and nonthreatening, since they don’t seem to imply a continuing commitment.

There's nothing wrong with a simple date, a casual date, a brief date, or a cheap date. (And speaking of cheap, most decent guys will offer to pay for half of the date even when you ask them out.) Give it a try. It's not that hard.

5) "I'm happy with my current situation, so I have no need to ask anyone out." Now this is a good reason. If you are going out as much as you want, with the kind of boys you like, without having to do any asking, then don't go fixing what ain't broke. But if you're sitting home lonely on a Friday night, then by all means, call someone up and go do something. If what you're doing now isn't working, then try something different. Be brave. Pick up the phone.

A glick ahf dir.

--MOISHE

Pfui Teufel

First, to all those vast multitudes who have wondered why we have been so long without posting, let me just say: What, are you paying for this? Enough with the kvetching, already.

Second, In sacrament meeting, I learned another reason to hate the devil, that farshtinkener. The speaker was talking about the premortal life, and Lucifer's plan for God's children. In his plan, of course, we would have been robbed of our agency and forced to obey him. Bad enough, I know.

But the speaker also said something which I suppose I had always known but had never heard put this way before. Jesus volunteered to come down and pay for our sins, to suffer so that we could return and live with God again. In other words, he was willing to pay the ultimate price for us. Lucifer, on the other hand, was unwilling to suffer at all. He did not offer to give up anything for us. So he wanted all the praise and honor we give now to our Savior, with none of the cost. What a khazer!

--MOISHE

Getting noticed

Mazel Tov, brother! Mazel Tov!

Herschel

A mekhaye

Herschel! The machers have noticed us! Ay-yay-yay. Our little blog is growing up. It makes me so proud. Later we'll have to get together and shep naches.

--MOISHE

PS - For those of you who are new here, feel free to stick around, write a comment, kibitz, whatever. But if your comment could have a little Yiddish in it maybe, it would be a mitzvah. (See how easy?)

How not to be single

Schalom!

Here in Zion there are lots of single girls. I've got no problem with single girls. In fact, I hope to change the status of one of them at some point. The problem that I have is that many of these single Meydels are so unhappy with their singleheit that they kvetch about it all the time. A girl recently told me about a roommate of hers who spent her Friday nights at home crying because she didn't have dates. She then proceeded to tell me and several other upstanding gentlemen that we should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing this to happen. Meh, I say! Shame on her for allowing it to happen to herself!

Let me explain. I think that lots of scheyne Meydels just don't make an effort, so they get stuck being alone on the weekends. So, here it comes, directly from the source of all wisdom related to life in Eretz Provo. The Mormonides Brothers proudly present: How Not to Be Single (The original title, "how to make enough of an effort that if you are still lonely you have a right to complain about it, but please not to us" was just a bit too long).

First, whenever in mixed company, sit next to at least one boy. This one will take some work because it is against everything you have been practicing for years. When a group of friends of mixed genders goes to a movie, for example, the girls all bunch into one or two groups, leaving only the ones on the ends available for sitting next to boys. The only way you are ever going to get a guy to ask you out on a date is if you show him that you are fun, and he won't see that you are fun if you are stuck there between Rachel and Sarah.

Second, be flexible in your non-dating plans. I knew a girl, Judith, who was upset that she didn't get asked out much, so she and her girlfriends would get together every Friday and Saturday night to watch Friends (bad enough that they would watch that Dreck...) and bemoan the fact that they were all single. I thought Judith was a nice girl, so I asked her out. She refused, because she and the girls were going to be busy with an all-weekend kvetch-a-thon. I kid you not. No time for a date because Judith had to spend the weekend talking to Rebecca and Deborah about how boys don't like her. So, girls, just a tip: if you want to date, you have to be willing to reschedule girl time.

Third and last, sometimes you have to do the hard part yourself. If you make yourself available and nobody comes knocking, you might have to do the unthinkable and ask a guy yourself. Let me dispel a myth. Are you ready? Guys are not magically endowed with an ability to ask girls out on dates. The only advantage we have is practice. Guys are used to asking and, more importantly, we are more used to getting turned down. It's not the end of the world if you ask a guy out and he says no. Ask somebody else. It's not the end of the world if he says yes, but never calls you for another date. I know it's hard. Trust me, I know. But who says that only guys can ask out on a date? If you're not on a date, and you want to be on a date, there's only one way to take care of that.

Well, there you have it. How not to be single. If you follow all these steps and still don't have a date, you can feel free to complain. Just not to me. One last tip before I go: if you are going to kvetch to a guy about it, make sure he wasn't also alone that weekend. Nothing worse than hearing that you called every guy you could possibly consider going on a date with but still couldn't find one, while the guy you were talking to would have gone in a heartbeat.

Then again, none of us should be going out on Friday night anyway- it's not good to defile the Shabbat like that.

So, till next time, zay gezunt!

Herschel

Thinking is thinking

Yesterday was a very busy Sabbath, but today things have calmed down enough to give me some time to post the second thought that I had, albeit a day later than expected. In Sunday School we were talking about the fact that God has encouraged us as Saints to get as much education as we can, including a secular education. I have heard (and said) many reasons for this, but today I stumbled upon a new one. It sounds so simple, but it was an insight to me. It is this: Thinking is Thinking.

Let me explain, lest you think I am a Dumkop. The process of thinking is the same, whether you are thinking about the Gospel, sociology, astrophysics, whatever. Thinking is thinking, regardless of what one is thinking about. Thinking also takes practice. The more you think, the easier it is (which is, incidentally, why I feel that today's youth are a bunch of nogoodniks, but that's another kvetch for another day).

I think that the reason the Lord wants us to get an education is because the deep things of the Gospel are so complex, that unless we practice by thinking about comparatively simple things, like thermodynamics or vector calculus (which are truly simple by comparison), we will never be able to understand the complexities of the Gospel.

I am not saying that our studies of the Gospel should focus solely on having an academic understanding of holy things, but I do think that to truly believe in something and have perfect faith, we have to understand what it is that we believe in.

So, there you have it. Think. If we think enough we may just get smarter, alevai.

Herschel

What's your Christian Number?

Today I had two interesting ideas, so maybe I will have two interesting posts. Or maybe one interesting post and one boring one. Or maybe I will get bored before I finish and only do one post. So many possibilities.

Today we read in 1 Corinthians about how the people were dividing themselves into groups, some claiming to be of Christ, some of Paul, some of Cephas, and some of Apollos (see 1:12). I have always seen this as a division of time of membership, meaning that those who were "of Christ" were converted in the times of Christ, while those of Paul were converted later when Paul came to preach at Corinth, etc.

Today this passage struck me more as a system of "Christian Numbers." Those who were taught by Christ had a Christian Number of 1, while those who were taught by either Paul or Cephas (a.k.a. Simon a.k.a. Peter) had Christian Numbers of 2, because each of these men was taught by Christ Himself. The Christian Number for Apollos gets a bit more tricky, but as near as I can tell, it is 3 (giving those he taught a Number of 4), because Apollos was taught by Aquila, who (it seems to me) was taught by Paul, who was converted by Christ Himself.

This idea of Christain Numbers is a very interesting one. If this is, in fact, the reason behind the divisions, it would teach us a great deal about their beliefs. I will leave most of the details of what it teaches us to you to decide for yourself, or maybe I'll just do it in another post another day. What I do want to mention is where I see this idea cropping up in the modern church.

In our parents' and grandparents' generations something very similar seemed to be widespread in the Church. They wanted Nauvoo Numbers ("My Grandpa lived in Nauvoo") or Joseph Smith Numbers ("My Uncle heard a sermon directly from Joseph") or any of a wide variety of connections to people and places in what was then recent Church History.

Now we do it with apocryphal doctrine ("Well, my friend heard in a religion class at BYU that the Narrow Neck of Land was Panama" " Oh yeah? I heard at institute that the whole thing took place on the Yucatan Peninsula"). My point, and Paul's point, is that none of that matters. The foundation is Christ, and we shouldn't try to justify our views by trying to see whose has the lowest Christian Number. That is not what is important.

I don't intend to end on what feels like kind of a harsh note, but that is all I have to say on this subject.

Zay gezunt

Herschel

Cheese Blog no. 2

Schalom to all the other pretend Jews out there in Mormonia!

If there's anything my brothers and I take more pride in than being great fake Jews, it would have to be being great fake Sweeds. So, to celebrate my recent return from a Summer spent working with Goyem (and one real Jew) we made a Swedish dinner. Included in every Swedish dinner made by the Mormonides family is a large selection of fancy cheeses, usually ones that we are not terribly familiar with.

I'll start off with a familiar cheese: smoked Gouda. Gouda is a very good cheese with a strong flavor. If you want a cheese to gently compliment other flavors, Gouda is probably not what you want, and smoked Gouda even less so. I enjoyed it best with a fairly plain type of Swedish cracker called Knackebrod. Because of its strong flavor, it also complimented sweet things like honey ham or apples (or both at the same time). I give it 3.5 stars.

Second on my list of favorites is Gruyere, a cheese from Switzerland. This is not to be confused with "Swiss Cheese," which is what we call a group of Swiss cheeses that does not include Gruyere. It is a hard cheese that is absolutely delightful. It was very slightly nutty, but not nearly as nutty as other Swiss cheeses. Gruyere has a very distinctive, salty taste and I found it to be fairly dry and almost gritty. But not in a bad way. In a very good way. I enjoyed it with sesame or other not-too-salty crackers. I give it a solid 4 stars.

Last for today is Havarti. Havarti is a Danish cheese that has a few variations. We got Havarti with dill. It had an almost buttery-sweet flavor that made it truly delightful. I enjoyed it with almost anything, but particularly with some of the other essential elements of a Swedish dinner: sausages and roast. It complimented these salty meats very well. It also goes quite well with pickles, which is another thing that we Mormonides love. I give Havarti 5 stars only because there are no more stars to give.

So, till next time, zay gezunt and eat some good cheese, why not?

Herschel

Sunday School ruminations

First, I must acknowledge that after last week's EQ lesson on keeping the Sabbath day holy, I skipped EQ to drive up to Sandy and have lunch at a restaurant with my uncle. So, I'm a bit of a chanef, a hypocrite. I just think I have to admit that.

Anyway, so before I went all sabbath-breaky, I was in Gospel Essentials class, and had an interesting thought. The lesson was the first one in the manual (we have started over again), and it concerned our Heavenly Father. Midway through, we read John 17:3, which of course reads:

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

The teacher started asking us what this verse meant, and how we could come to know God. Well, in response to such a question, it would be easy to reach out and let the "ready-made phrases come crowding in," as I too often do in church. But I really do want to know the answer to this question, and not just the stock answers that thoughtlessly spring to the tongue.

At the judgement day, those who know God, and are known by him, will come to live with him. That's where I want to be. And I must confess (again) that I could not answer today that I know God. I want to know him, and I have felt his influence in my life from time to time, but there is something more I lack.

It is true, I think, that in our natural state, God is unknowable to us. His actions seem to us mysterious; his thoughts, his motivations, seem unfathomable, even alien.

But ultimately, we have the promise that we can know our master even as he knows us. And if God is knowable, then the question of how we come to know him truly is the fundamental question to be answered in life.

So, sitting there in Sunday School, I read the verses around John 17:3, looking for some context. And I found something interesting in the previous verses:

These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

If Jesus has the power to give us eternal life, and eternal life is knowing God, then Jesus has the power to help us know God. Everything sounds a little stupid and a little obvious when you write it down, but this struck me as interesting. Jesus can help me know God. Okay, so how does this actually happen?

I came up with two answers. First, I can come to know God through repenting in the name of his Son. Not only does repentance make me a more godly person, more worthy of his divine fellowship, but the process itself brings us closer together. Each time I repent, and am forgiven of my sins, I feel the love of God, and I know him better.

Second, if Jesus has the power to help me know God, then perhaps I should just pray to God and ask, in the name of his Son, for this knowledge. We are also instructed to pray and ask God for the gift of charity, so why not for this good gift? Why not just ask God to reveal himself to us by his Spirit? Of course, we must do more than just ask, but I think that perhaps asking for this knowledge is a necessary part of how we come to know God.

In any case, I got called upon to give the closing prayer after the lesson, and in my prayer, I asked God in the name of his son Jesus to help us to know him as he has always known us.

He is, after all, our Father. And although we are estranged from him in this temporal world, our spirits still cry out to him, and he will hear our prayers.

--MOISHE

Elders Quorum Moving Co.

So, Saturday I was helping some folks from the ward move out of their place, and due to their not being adequately prepared for us, I had a lot of time on my hands to stand around and think. Given the circumstances, it should surprise no one that my thoughts centered around moving, and preparations for moving.

I think I am close to formulating a theoretical model for an ideal move. I am going to share it with the world now, in hopes that my brothers, and whoever else, may help me to refine and perfect this model, for the good of future generations.

There are four phases to any move: Preparing, Moving out, Moving in, Finishing. In phase one (preparing), everything is made ready for the move. Packing materials and trucks are procured. Items which are going to the new house are packed up in boxes, and everything which is not going to the new home is discarded. The new, empty home is cleaned, and ideally so is the old one.

In phase two, boxes and furniture are removed from the home and placed in trucks. In phase three, the boxes and furniture are transported by truck to the new home. Then, they are removed from the trucks and placed in the home.

In phase four, boxes are unpacked, trucks are returned, etc. If the old home was not cleaned in stage one, it is now empty, and should be cleaned.

Now, in these four phases, individuals fulfill at least six roles: Cleaner, Boxer, Feeder, Transporter, Wagonmaster, and Unpacker. Cleaners clean the homes, old and new, in phase one (and if necessary, in phase four). Boxers operate in phase one, packing items in boxes and also preparing furniture to be moved. (Shelves and dressers, for instance, can often be disassembled for easier transport.) Transporters move boxes and furniture from the home to the trucks in phase two, and vice-versa in phase three. Feeders direct transporters inside the home, telling them which boxes to take to which trucks in phase two, and which boxes to place in which rooms in phase three.

Wagonmasters direct transporters outside the home. In phase two, they receive boxes and furniture from the transporters and direct the packing of the trucks. In phase three, they lead the unpacking of the trucks. This is a key role. Just as Boxers must carefully pack items in boxes to ensure their safety during the move, Wagonmasters must carefully pack these boxes in the truck. Having a good Wagonmaster will mean fewer broken or damaged items in boxes, not to mention furniture.

Finally, Unpackers perform the opposite function of Boxers. They operate in phase four, removing items from boxes and reassembling furniture. (Since this role is really the reverse image of the Boxer, perhaps it should be thought of as one role: Boxer / Unboxer, or Packer / Unpacker. I don't know. Schleminkel!)

Now, a single individual will naturally fulfill different roles in different phases of the move. In a disorganized move, individuals often perform multiple roles within the same phase, but I believe it would be more efficient to specialize. This will not be possible, however, without organization and planning.

In my experience, moms are usually the chief Boxers and Unpackers. This seems wise. Dads are usually wagonmasters. This also seems wise, but if a dad is not fulfilling this role, someone else should step up and take over. Without a competent chief Feeder and chief Wagonmaster, the second and third phases become a mess.

Transporters do nothing but schlep stuff around. Any willing person with a strong back can do this. Accordingly, this role is both the least important, and the most likely to be filled by people who want to help with the move. It is in this capacity that I have been mobilized, many times, as a member of the Elders Quorum.

And I guess the whole point of writing all this is to say: It is totally stupid to ask people to come help you unless you have prepared to have them help you. So, think! Plan! Organize!

Most people are willing do do whatever you ask them, but if you don't ask them to do anything, they will just stand around waiting for you to place a box in their hands. That works great if everything is Boxed and you are ready to Feed them. If not, you have a bunch of dopes standing around doing nothing. Not only does this not help you, but it also builds resentment in them because it's a poor use of their time. Remember: "The laborer is worthy of his hire!"

So, how can you be ready to use the Transporters when they show up to perform dumb labor? I think there are two simple answers. First, ask for help in phase one. Again, most people are willing to do whatever you ask them. So ask them to come help for an hour or two as Boxers or Cleaners. I think you'll be surprised to see how many people are willing to come and help with the pre-move Preparations.

Second, whenever people show up to help, assign them a specific role. Make sure they know exactly what to do, and how to do it. And, of course, make sure they know who is in charge. Transporters, for instance, need to know who the Feeders are, and who the Wagonmaster is. Otherwise, they wander around aimlessly and then go home and complain about their waste of an afternoon.

Or worse yet, they could blog about it, like a certain Schmendrick I know. (A hiltsener tsung zol er bakumn! He should grow a wooden tongue!)

--MOISHE

A quick Kvetch

Shalom and vee gehts. I've been meaning to give some good thoughts here for everybody, and I promise I will soon, but right now, it's time for a kvetch. For any goyem reading this, that means it's time for me to rant and complain. But, fortunately, this is a quick kvetch because I'm pretty busy.

So, kvetch already!

One of my huge pet peeves is when the Bishopric think that it is their job to MC sacrament meeting. IT'S NOT! There is no need to get up and tell how much you love the hymn we just sang or how we should all pay attention to the next speaker because he knows how much time they've put into it or what a mensch that last speaker is. Just tell us who is speaking and thank them quickly and sincerely. That's it.

So, to all the other pretend Jews out there, zay gezunt!

Herschel

ps- there is no such thing as a 'tropical guide.' It is called topical because it is organized by topic. I never thought I would hear an adult get that one wrong. Gevalt...