“The Tests of Abraham and Sarah”

Unsurprisingly, since today is a Wednesday, an article has gone up on the perpetually unchanging website of the Interpreter Foundation:  Reprint: “The Tests of Abraham and Sarah,” written by David R. Seely and Jo Ann Seely:

Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article originally appeared in Abraham and His Family in Scripture, History, and Tradition, edited by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, John S. Thompson, Matthew L. Bowen, and David R. Seely. For more information, go to https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/abraham-and-his-family.

“In the biblical tradition, Abraham and Sarah are the literal and spiritual father and mother of Israel and the nations. When the Lord changed their names in Genesis 17, he promised Abram and Sarai, “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. . . . As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her” (vv. 5–6, 15–16; emphasis added).”

Also newly published on the website of the completely comatose Interpreter Foundation is this item, written by Daniel T. Ellsworth:  “Beyond ‘Church Culture’: A Response to Jeff’s Strong’s Torn.”  It addresses a matter with which, sadly, all too many Latter-day Saint families are familiar.

I’ve come to the conclusion that, if one has no moral qualms about supporting Ken Paxton for a seat in the Senate of the United States representing Texas, one can have no justifiable or defensible moral reservations about another person’s supporting Graham Platner for a seat in the Senate representing the state of Maine.  And vice versa.  (See this, from National Review: “On Voting for Terrible People.”)

Should the personal morality of a candidate matter?  Shouldn’t we simply cast our votes on the basis of a candidate’s policy positions?  After all, as many people have been recently saying (who wouldn’t, I think, have said anything remotely of the kind back a decade or two), we’re not voting for a choirboy or for our pastor.

I think that personal morality and character do matter.  Why?  I have many reasons, but one of them is that new and unanticipated issues will surely arise over the course of, say, a six-year term in the Senate.  (And please remember too that, once safely ensconced in Congress, incumbent representatives and senators tend to be reelected to  multiple terms in office.  Which means that thy will likely be in their positions for quite a while.)  As the years go by, new policy issues and unforeseen challenges in foreign affairs will appear, and the person who has been elected to office will unavoidably be obliged to deal with them on the basis of the resources of personality, character, intellect, and education that he or she has brought to the task.  I would much prefer that the people entrusted with setting policy directions and making decisions at such moments be people of sound judgment, solid intellect, and good character.

But I seem to have been born in the wrong era, and (still in yesterday’s poetic vein) I can’t help but remember the seven opening lines of Ezra Pound’s poem Hugh Selwyn Mauberley:

For three years, out of key with his time,

He strove to resuscitate the dead art

Of poetry; to maintain “the sublime”

In the old sense. Wrong from the start—

Last night, we watched The Boss Baby (2017) with a Third-Generation Unit.  Tonight, we’re intending to watch Finding Dory (2016).  Life is good.  But who knows what we’ll watch tomorrow night?  Life is uncertain, full of risks.

We went over by ferry from Port Townsend to visit Whidbey Island earlier today.  The weather was perfect, and the sea was calm.  While waiting for the ferry and while crossing the water, we saw various kinds of sea birds and animals, including a sea otter that was floating on its back enjoying a leisurely meal, as well as a couple of sea lions.  This is my favorite kind of landscape, with mountains and beautiful bodies of water and mountains and forests.  If I had to make a choice, much as I enjoy the Hawaiian Islands and the deserts of southern Utah and northern Arizona — and I really do enjoy them — I would opt for this type of landscape.  It’s not hard to figure why I love my grandmother’s home country of Norway and Switzerland, where I served my mission.

Finally, I remind you of the prize (the precise nature of which is yet to be determined) that I announced on Sunday that will be given for the zaniest answers to the following urgently burning questions:

1. For what disreputable purpose is Peterson now in the State of Washington?
2. What specific unhealthy foods is Peterson consuming in mass quantities during his stay?
3. Whom did Peterson defraud and/or browbeat into paying his expenses for this trip?
4. How does his being in the State of Washington once again demonstrate him to be both depraved and a buffoon?

Although this competition is principally designed to tickle the fancy of the folks at the Peterson Obsession Board, all — including even normal human beings — are welcome to propose answers to the questions.

Posted from Discovery Bay, Washington