Friday, May 31, 2013

Arrested Development

Arrested Development is a contender for being the funniest TV show ever.  It’s the story of a dysfunctional, greedy, and selfish family, who loses everything and does everything imaginable that makes them lose more.

The first three seasons revolved around Michael Bluth (Jason Bateman) who did everything in his power to keep his family and the family business together, against all opposition from without and within.  The series started with his father, George Bluth, being arrested for fraud, but it quickly becomes apparent that that is just the tip of the iceberg.  Hints begin early that he might have gotten involved in some sort of “light treason,” consisting of an insane real estate scandal with Saddam Hussein being a buyer.
But it’s the problems within that are really wrecking the family, from the overbearing matriarch, Michael’s materialistic sister, his delusional brother-in-law, two idiotic and insecure brothers, a devious niece, and his shy son who has a secret crush on his cousin.
What defined the show for me was the brief conversation Michael has with his mom, Lucille:
Michael:  There’s been a lot of lies in this family.
Lucille:  But a lot of love.
Michael:  More lies.
Despite all the edginess and ridiculously bawdy humor, or perhaps because of it, Arrested Development hit on a valuable truth: The lies and skeletons you keep in your closet will come out and they will ruin everything you love.
When they were cancelled, the show left on a hopeful note.  Michael failed to keep the family and the company together, but for a brief shining moment, we got to see him run to do right by his teenage son, George Michael, the only genuinely good person in that whole messed up family.  All of his flaws come from puberty and confusion over right-and-wrong, all of which could have been fixed if his dad had been a dad.  The finale left us with some hope that Michael finally got his act together and was going to do right by his son.
The fourth season came out on Netflix at the beginning of the week and I watched it all in two days.  It’s not what I was expecting, and that’s not an entirely bad thing.  In some ways, the show is funnier than ever.
The format is unique and could have been annoying, since it’s not told in chronological order.  The first episode begins where Season 3 left off and covers the span of five years, climaxing at the local Cinco de Cuatro celebration (a holiday that only this show would create.)  It all follows Michael’s journey and how he’s fallen apart since then.
The second episode covers the same time frame, only this time through George Bluth’s perspective.  And the third episode from another family member’s perspective, and on and on.  Really, we never get past the Cinco de Cuatro celebration except for brief excerpts of the morning after in the final episodes.  But what each episode does is show how each family member is intertwined in the lives of each other, even when they don’t realize it; and the results are hilarious.
Unlike the first three seasons, nobody is trying to keep the family together.  It has fallen completely apart.  Each character is fending for themselves and doing all they can to try and hold their miserable lives together, and they do that the same way they’ve ruined themselves this whole time: lying.  Even George Michael, whose lies started out harmless, quickly finds how it unravels his otherwise decent life.
The show is as edgy as ever:  This is not a program for everyone.  While the incest took a backburner (after they revealed that the cousins really weren’t cousins, the writers realized that they had taken the joke as far as it could go.)  But they dive in with their faces forward into some extremely bawdy humor, and nobody comes out clean (except the brother-in-law, Tobias, who is truly a victim of circumstance more than any others.)
Every marriage and relationship gets ruined because nobody ever took the time to communicate with each other or sacrifice for the other’s good.  It was too easy for all of them to think of number one and lie their way through life.  I’ve met and know a number of these people and they are just as miserable in real life as they are on this show.  For that alone, Arrested Development reaches beyond being just a funny program.  The last minute of Michael and George Michael’s conversation was devastating, when Michael’s latest lie is uncovered and destroys any connection he had left with his son.
It made me laugh all the way through, but this show is tragic in the truest sense of the word.  I am glad this story got told.
                        ***
I do have one serious complaint with this latest season, because it killed any love I had for one character and cast a long and depressing shadow over the rest of the season.  It was during the first Gob (pronounced as Job) centered episode, which follows his relationship with Ann.
Ann is the daughter of a Christian preacher and her overzealous devotion and bad attitude was played for laughs and made her an utterly vapid character in the early seasons.  Not the actress’s fault; she was given nothing to work with.  Making her sex hungry by the end of the third season made her a hypocrite as well as boring.
I sighed and chose to bear with it.  Those in the film and TV industry tend to have an ax to grind with Christianity, and it’s no surprise Arrested Development rides that same wagon.  Making fun of Christians is easy, and though I hate admitting it, Arrested Development hit the mark more than once.  I have known people like Ann and her father, and while they are not the rule, they do draw attention to themselves.  Obnoxious people are skilled at that.
This season crossed a line.  They didn’t just make fun of Christian culture; it was like the writers knew they had taken Ann and her religious family as far as they could go, so in a last hurrah, they chose to make a mock of Christianity’s God and the heart of our doctrine.
The Gob episode begins with Gob planning to wed Ann, only to get cold feet immediately after his proposal.  Instead of calling it off before the wedding (which would have been the responsible thing to do) he decides to perform a magic show in the chapel, turning the Crucifixion and Resurrection into an entertainment.
It’s hard to explain why this offends us to anybody outside the faith, but making fun of Christ, and especially mocking his Atonement, is like having your parents stripped naked and forced to walk down Main Street on national television.  It’s humiliating and uncomfortable.
It also ruined any suspension of disbelief I had.  There isn’t a church I know of that would permit something like that to happen, or if they did, over half the congregation would have stormed out and not come back until the bum apologized profusely.  It was a stupid and mean joke and disingenuous storytelling to boot.  It's a black mark that stains what used to be one of the most honest shows ever produced.

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Fred Rogers

I did a post on Fred Rogers last year, due to a book that I had read containing many of his quotes and songs that he had given and created for us to enjoy.  It’s no secret that I love this man.

At school, I do dictation all day, and this is composed of a variety of jury charges, depositions, and sometimes literary material read by our teachers in the morning.  And if we’re not in class being dictated to, we have tapes and a large file of recordings stored in Dropbox to write out on our machines.  All that’s well and good, but I admit, I get bored by all those.  So if I’m not on various podcasts or Khan Academy videos, I do some exploration on YouTube.
And last week, I scored big with YouTube.  I found a 9-part interview with Fred Rogers, all focused on his life.  Each segment was roughly a half-hour long, which makes four-and-a-half hours devoted to this man’s life.  It took me three days to get through because I only watched it during my afternoons in school.  That, and I could only sit and watch so much TV at that time.
There is not another person I know of who did more for the children of the world in the past century than Fred Rogers did.  I’m a product of that and I take real pride in it.  And now that I’m an adult, I’ve discovered that he is one the few men that I try to emulate… and I do a really bad job at it but I know what the standard is.
It was fascinating to learn how he got into the television industries.  His first time watching television, he saw a program of people throwing pies in each other’s faces and he felt it was such a waste of a valuable tool.  He realized that television had a real possibility for education and he immediately changed his goals and got a job at NBC.
He, of course, started at the bottom.  He was an assistant to somebody, which meant that he was usually getting coffee for everybody else.  On one occasion, he had gotten overwhelmed.  There was a rather large meeting of people with all their different orders for coffee.  One man took a sip of the coffee, turned to Mr. Rogers, and said, “I wanted milk, not sugar.”
Most of us would have been irritated by that.  I can’t count the number of backbiting conversations I’ve heard from employees that couldn’t stand their boss’s arrogance and/or whining.  Not Mr. Rogers.  He felt awful.  According to him, it had been his job to be sure that they got the right coffee, and though it was a little thing, he felt he had failed their trust in him.
That is the definition of selflessness.
There is a long and fun story of how he left NBC to go into educational programming, how Mr. Rogers Neighborhood cam to be, the creation of the puppets, and all that.  But there are two stories that captivated me more than anything.
One is about a woman driving on a highway.  She was a mother, depressed, and she had completely forgotten that her child was seated behind her.  During her drive she felt that life wasn’t worth living anymore, and as a semi-truck came up, she began veering towards the left to strike it when all of a sudden she heard the song, “It’s Such a Good Feeling to Know You’re Alive.”  She immediately turned back to the right, got help, and fourteen years later wrote to Mr. Rogers to let him know that his show saved her life.
The other story was one of the hardest things he had ever done.  His father passed away and one hour after the funeral, Mr. Rogers had to go do a live show that he could not get out of.  All these children had come to see him at this particular event, and three times, he had to come onto the stage and sing “It’s a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood.”  Can you imagine having to go to work so soon after your parent’s death?  And having to sing that song when the day certainly was not that beautiful for you?  And yet he did.
Since he passed away, there’s a huge void that hasn’t been filled in our society.  And the real pity?  He’s being forgotten.  A couple of years ago, I discovered that my youngest sisters have no idea who he is.  They’ve never seen his show, couldn’t pick his face out of a crowd, and certainly would not be familiar with his songs.  That stinks because I know they’re not the only ones.
But do yourself a favor: go to YouTube, type in for “Fred Rogers Interview” and watch all nine segments to learn about his life.  You will be a much better person for it and come to understand a little more about what true love is.

Friday, May 24, 2013

Margie Holds Court

I am late getting this post up.  I apologize for that.  I promise two excellent posts next week to make up for that.

Last week, we had a speaker who has been teaching forever, a true English nut.  Well, while she was with us, she left us her email and her blog, which can be found at her website www.margieholdscourt.com.
Her target audience is definitely court reporters, but because her subject is on correct grammar and punctuation, this is valuable for any writers and readers, or just those interested in knowing what the English language is about.
Her blog posts are short and to the point (a talent that I haven’t aspired to) and she covers all varieties like prepositions, phrases, clauses, how to properly use the period and comma, and all such delightfulness that make English the joy that it is.
You can stop gagging when I say that.  It’s rude.
Frankly, though, the reason why this site has become an instant treasure for me is that Margie has finally cleared up how to properly use “who/whom.”  I should have known this a long time ago, like grade school.  The thing is, I never had one teacher who took five minutes out of their day to instruct us in that.  I’ve gone through high school, college, read the random reviews, and heard teachers and reviewers complain about how nobody knows how to use “who/whom”…and never tried to rectify the problem.
It’s been guesswork to me all these years, until Margie came and saved my life: equate “who/whom” with “he/him.”  For example, let’s look at the famous Hemingway title, For Whom the Bell Tolls—a book I will read one of these days.  I swear.
So looking at that title, the line “for whom the bell tolls” could be rewritten as “the bell tolls for him.”  If the title were “who tolls the bell,” it would mean “he tolls the bell.”
That’s all it would have taken them to explain these two little, irritating words.  Now, I’m not saying that other people haven’t made it so simple either.  I have just never made contact with them.
On the other hand, I am quite willing to admit that I just might be an idiot and the site was the final push to get it through my head.  In either case, check it out.  It’s awesome.

Monday, May 20, 2013

Saying My Farewells to Stories

Two things are coming to a close, and the first I’m sure most have some passing familiarity with: The Office.

I’ve spoken to quite a few fans and nearly everybody I talk to tells me that they lost interest in it a long while back.  For one, it was when Jim and Pam got married that he stopped caring.  For another, it was Steve Carrell leaving the show that marked the end.
I don’t understand any of that.  See, I came late into the series.  Except for three or four rerun episodes while I was in a waiting room at a walk-in clinic, I didn’t start watching The Office until near the end of its seventh season.  In fact, it was the episode that Michael Scott was engaged that I started to watch the show.  Most of my experience with The Office comes from Season 8 on up, and it was as funny as could be, and there were several characters that I cared a great deal about through the series, especially Andy and Erin’s romance—which mattered a lot at the time.
Honestly, if Season 8 hadn’t been as good, I doubt I would have gone to the beginning and watched the whole series otherwise.  I could gush this entire post about why The Office is one of the best shows to come in our generation—and the temptation is strong—but I just want to focus on the finale.  Or finales, because there were really two.  The penultimate episode was the true finish to The Office, considering that all of the major conflicts were resolved by that point.
Especially Jim and Pam.  Watching them get together over the course of four seasons was fun, but what I discovered about myself is that I am much more interested in marital relationships than I do for people courting.  This is why, despite the obvious popularity of the latter, I preferred An Ideal Husband to The Importance of Being Earnest.  I much prefer to watch somebody already in a spousal relationship face their challenges and overcome them or not.  A married couple has much more at stake romantically than those who are just dating.  Despite the increase over the years, breakups are still more common than divorce, and by its nature, dating is impermanent.
If we’re just looking at the show, Andy and Erin’s relationship, which was such a big deal at the time, by this last season, it completely collapsed and I wanted it to collapse even more than I’d hoped they’d get together the season before.
Jim and Pam’s marriage was on the rocks for the majority of this season, and it was brilliant.  It had me on the edge of my seat the entire time.  In the episode where Pam cries, I had to rewatch those final five minutes again and again, because I could not believe how much gravitas and emotion that they had put into what is normally just your average sitcom.  I loved every second of that.
This second-to-last episode was fantastic in how we got to see through Jim’s DVD how much he loved his wife, and that sweet montage is every reason I adore this show.
It really did finish everything up, too.  Dwight finally gets what he wants: to be the regional manager.  Angela finally gets the only man she’s ever cared about.  Andy moved on to reach for his dream.  And Darryl got to say good-bye and discover how much he loved the people he worked with.
They could have ended the series there, because the final episode is really just an epilogue.  It takes place one year later, brings back everybody that we’ve journeyed with, even Steve Carrell for a few minutes (despite his saying that he wouldn’t make a return.)  As an episode, it was kind of boring, but I understand.  This wasn’t really about story anymore; the final episode was one more opportunity to say good-bye after nearly a decade of being with us.  I’m not going to begrudge them that.  I like their company.
And hey, there’s always Netflix and DVD collections.  It’s not like I can’t visit these old friends again whenever I want.
                        ***
This is also the last week of the webcomic, Dominic Deegan.  This strip is wrapping up after 11 years, which is not too shabby a time to have been around.
It was not a perfect comic by any means.  The violence was so over-the-top I have a hard time recommending it to friends, while at the same time, the universe was close to ending half a dozen times that by the third such arc, it got boring.  It fell into the common fantasy trap of being incoherent when delving into his world’s mythology.  The orcs were horrible, in every way imaginable.  I never warmed up to them.  And then there’s the age-old problem in any superhero strip (which despite the fantasy setting, this is a superhero story) of recycling the same stupid villains over and over again.  This was the main reason we lost interest in Heroes.
And yet, despite all the warts, I have a soft spot in my heart for this comic.  It was the first webcomic I ever read and it led me to seek out others.  It was funny, the art improved over time, and most importantly, Dominic and Luna’s romance never felt dull.
That, and minor characters had a chance to shine, especially Stunt, the thief who’s been there since the beginning.  He earned his redemption and has become possibly my favorite character.  I’m glad I stuck to the comic long enough to read that story.
Otherwise, it is time to end, and I’m happy “Mookie” has decided to shut it down now.  These characters progressed as far as they ever could and the universe sure needed a break from its constant near-destruction.

Saturday, May 18, 2013

#50-The War of the Worlds

Science-fiction owes a lot to H. G. Wells.  He was one of sci-fi’s earliest pioneers and later authors owe much to the ideas he explored, from time-travel to genetic manipulation to space exploration.  I completely recognize and applaud his influence.  Without him, the genre might not have become what it is today.

I don’t like his books.
Okay, that’s not totally true.  The Invisible Man was the first horror novel I ever read and I’m glad it was.  Griffin remains one of the scariest monsters hiding in the shadows and at the same time very pathetic and tragic; his deepest wish could only be granted in death.
But all the other classics I slogged through just never did it for me.  And having finished The War of the Worlds, I think I know part of the reason why.
First, in War of the Worlds defense, while not the first alien invasion story or even the first novel written about Martians, he made both popular and its effects are still felt.  And I must say, I really like the Martians.  When they first come out of their canisters, Wells spare imagery is genuinely scary.  My imagination was able to conjure up something that would take on the Predator.
My problem with this book, and with his other books, is the narrator.  Too many of them feel like Alice falling down the rabbit hole.  Now, as delightful as Wonderland is, Alice was never that interesting or even likeable.  Our nameless narrator in War of the Worlds feels much the same.  He’s been dropped into an extra terrifying Wonderland of mayhem, Heat-Rays, walking tripods, red kudzu, and octopus-like vampires, and Wonderland is awesome… but he’s not.  And once the Martians die from Earth’s bacteria (an admitted deus ex machina within the book itself), we’re left with this fairly dull gentleman and have to deal with his wandering around until he finds his wife—I’m not totally heartless, by the way.  That was a sweet moment.
But, you know, Wonderland was boring.  Despite all the cool stuff, I caught myself skimming during the panic sequences.  And I shouldn’t be bringing up this point because it’s obvious to me while Wells did this, but: why are the Martians only attacking England?
The reason is the same for why in Hollywood and the X-Files the aliens only seem to strike United States: it’s the writer’s home territory and having an invasion at home creates a terror he couldn’t manufacture otherwise.
But my brain will not turn off.  Why only Britain?  And why only ten spaceships?  Was this just a trial run?  And if they’re effectively drinking human blood for their subsistence, why did they burn up so many of the humans with their Heat-Rays at the start of the story?  That seems an awful waste of their food supply.
Of course, human blood being seems a pretty bad source of sustenance considering that the bacteria is what killed them.  I mean, couldn’t they sense that something was off from the first feeding?
Oh, it’s not worth thinking about anymore.  Despite my griping, Wells will not make you less of a human being for having read him.  Chances are, you’re less judgmental than me.  I just really think sci-fi literature got so much better after Wells.

Friday, May 17, 2013

Constitution USA with Peter Sagal

I took the opportunity last week in school to not practice my machine for an hour and watch a recording of the first episode in PBS’s new show, Constitution USA with Peter Sagal. 

Students and even the teacher who had the video fell asleep within the first five minutes.  I don’t know what it says about me that I wasn’t even tired, because this show was fascinating.  In the first five minutes, it examines what is very much a modern issue: the legalization of marijuana.
To this show’s credit, they’re careful not to take a side on this issue.  Rather, they show the conflict that is going on in the power struggle between the state and federal government.  They first go to an apothecary in California where we meet a man who sells medical marijuana in the state.  Now, in the State of California, medical marijuana is legal and he is very careful to adhere to California’s standards, rules, and regulations.  Completely on the level… as far as the state is concerned.
The federal government is another story.  Marijuana is still illegal by the laws of the United States, and at any time, the FBI could come into this apothecary and arrest the man for possession and selling illegal drugs.  Not only that, but he would get the death penalty, because according to the federal government, owning and distributing 60,000 lbs. of marijuana merits death row, and he has easily sold at least a million pounds of weed from his shop.
This situation fascinates me; the State can make a law to legalize a substance, but it is subservient to the federal government, which continues to deem the substance illegal.  And that doesn’t look to change anytime soon.  What a strange situation that our government has created.
                        ***
As fun as that was, that was just the teaser.  There were at least four other subjects getting covered, including gun control and toilets, and how the Constitution plays into those.  Yes, you read that right.  The toilet dispute is awesome.
But the revelation for me was the trial case, Wickard v. Filburn.  Never heard of it?  I hadn’t either, but apparently, it gets mentioned in the federal government a lot.  I mean, a lot.  There’s even proof.  They showed several clips of politicians bringing up the case of Wickard v. Filburn, and from all I could see, they were just scratching the surface.
The situation is this: during the Great Depression, the country was not able to make sales from exporting wheat as they had in the past.  Therefore, they were stuck with a surplus that was benefitting no one and was only contributing to the troubles in the economy.  Now, the federal government has a constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce (Article 1, Section 8), and so they exercised that power and made it so farmers were only allowed to grow so much wheat and no more.
This farmer in Ohio, name of Filburn, grew a few acres more of grain than the federal government permitted.  They told him a couple times to comply with the law but Filburn ignored them.  His reasoning was that he was not going to sell those few acres of wheat but he was going to keep the wheat on his own farm, as feed for the animals, as I recall it.  Somebody correct me if I’m wrong on that.
The federal government threw a fit and it got brought all the way to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme found against Filburn.  Their reasoning was that if he was growing rather than buying his chicken feed, he wasn’t putting money into the economy to help them get out of the Depression.  Individually, it wouldn’t be so bad, but what concerned the Court was that if they didn’t make an example of Filburn, more farmers might take a page from his book and grow their own feed instead of buying it, and if enough farmers were not buying their own chicken feed, it would have a deleterious effect on the market, specifically the interstate commerce.  The federal government does have a right to regulate the interstate commerce, so the Court stuck it to Filburn.
We’re still feeling the effects of Wickard v. Filburn.  This case is what gave the federal government the largest influence it ever had over the economy and that influence continues today.
For being such an important legal landmark in our nation’s history, I’m pissed that I never heard about it until last week.  I could do another rant on how terrible my American education has been, but I’ll refrain, because at least I finally found out about it—from television.  (Those who say TV rots your brain needs a reality check.)
What I am going to say is that this was an awesome episode, PBS is running this series every Tuesday night for the next I-don’t-know-how-many-weeks, and you should watch it because it is awesome and you will be a better person for it.

Monday, May 13, 2013

Those Wilde Plays

I’ve been reading all my life and for the most part have been unimpressed with my English classes.  The reasons are too long to enumerate here, but one in particular that bothered me was when we got to the plays.  Shakespeare would be a prime example.

Now, that Shakespeare was an incredible playwright is beyond dispute, but unlike novels or regular poetry where the manuscript is the final stage, the script is only the beginning.  Plays are not completed until the actors, the props and everything is on stage and they’re performing their story in front of a live audience.
Much as Shakespeare’s writing has influenced me (I read Romeo and Juliet in the fourth grade, for crying out loud) it never feels alive until I’ve actually seen actors speak the words and perform the actions.  I found it annoying that we’d have to wait until we were almost done studying the plays that we’d actually get to watch the movies for Much Ado About Nothing and Macbeth in high school.  Never got to watch anything for Twelfth Night in college.
Personally, I think seeing it performed should have been the first thing we did.  And that especially goes with the real topic: Oscar Wilde.  The Importance of Being Earnest was funny, clever, quite a romping romance… but reading it in class was such a drag.  The entire time, our teacher was trying to convince us there was humor there.  We spent five minutes explaining why “bunburrying” was such a clever device.  Who cared?
It wasn’t until we actually saw the adaptation with Colin Firth and Judi Dench did anybody actually laugh.  Because of class schedules, it took us two days to get through, but man, those two days might have been the best we actually had in class.  I actually finished reading the play after that.
My favorite lines:
“I don’t like arguments.  They are always vulgar and often convincing.”
“It is a horrible thing to find out you’ve been telling the truth all your life.”
                        ***
The Importance of Being Earnest I think tends to be Wilde’s most popular play.  It sure is the funniest one.  But this past week, I found a BBC collection of filmed Oscar Wilde plays, and in it, I got to see two others that still have the wit, but much more heart.  Earnest, for all it’s great romping, romantic fun, is just about men who are liars and the stupid women more bothered about the men’s first names rather than their good nature.
An Ideal Husband, on the other hand, might be one of the best stories on marriage I’ve ever seen.  This is ironic because Wilde was a horrible husband himself, but that doesn’t stop him from hitting on the truth about spousal relationships.
The play begins with Sir Robert Chiltern, a widely respected politician, being blackmailed for a scam he pulled in his youth.  In despair, he turns to his friend Lord Goring for help, and Lord Goring’s first bit of advice is to tell his wife everything.  Sir Robert is too ashamed to do it and the guilt eats away at him until she finds out anyway, and that she has to hear about it from another party makes the matter even worse.
What’s especially pathetic about the story is that later, Lady Chiltern is caught in a bit of blackmail herself.  She also goes to Lord Goring for help and, once again, his first piece of advice is to tell her husband everything.  And she can’t bring herself to do that.
Very rarely do I want to yell at the TV screen.  There’s no point since they’re never going to listen to you, but it was so aggravating and yet so close to life; most every problem that strikes relationships is the inability or unwillingness to communicate with the other person.  The secrets canker and ruin everything they desire most.
Favorite lines:
“I always pass on advice.  It’s the only thing one can do with it.  It’s never the slightest use to oneself.”
“When the gods choose to punish us, they answer our prayers.”
                        ***
The second was Lady Windermere’s Fan, which at first seemed to also be another play on marriage that takes the opposite track; where in An Ideal Husband, Sir Robert is a respectable man with a sullied past, Lord Windermere in Fan is a very good man whose reputation is being tarnished for trying to help a stranger with her situation in life.  The society gossip is so bad that it’s turned his wife completely against him.
It seemed that this would be another great story on the importance of communication in marriage, but it becomes much more; Lady Windermere’s Fan is about parents, specifically motherhood and the folly it is to sacrifice it.  Mrs. Erlynne and Lady Windermere are the two significant mothers, the former having been a spectacularly horrible mom and the latter about to ruin her chance at raising her child.
This is one that will probably mean more to me when I have children in the future and can actually feel the full impact of Mrs. Erlynne’s counsel to Lady Windermere in the bachelor’s home.  It’s doesn’t even take up two minutes of the play but it gives meaning to all the rest of the story and ridiculousness of the other characters.
Favorite lines:
“The world has grown so suspicious of anything that looks like a happy married life.”
“I love talking to a brick wall.  It’s the only thing that never contradicts me.”

Sunday, May 12, 2013

Temple Sealings and the Atonement

I’m in the Elder Quorum’s presidency at my church, which is a leadership role over the men.  Any presidency in my church typically consists of a president and two counselors, and I am one of those counselors.

I bring this up because I was going to write about something else this Sunday, but on the first Sunday of every month, the presidency is responsible for teaching the Elders, and this month was my turn.  I was given free rein to discuss anything I wanted with the men and halfway through the preparation, I realized that that lesson was what I was going to publish this month.
A lot of this was triggered by one of Christ’s sermons in John 14,
“In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you.  I go to prepare a place for you.  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that were I am, there ye may be also.  And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.” (John 14:2-4)
There’s some fun imagery going on here.  “In my Father’s house are many mansions” set up a fun visual of God having this grand building covering these millions and billions and trillions of mansions like a giant tent.  But because I can never leave well enough alone, I went searching the dictionary for clarification, and found a less common definition of house meaning a family, especially one goes for generations both past and future.  House, then, has similarities with clan.
So if I reread it as, “In my Father’s family are many mansions,” this adds a new dimension to Christ’s mission.
Another thing to take note, there is no doubt of where Christ will be.  He is in his Father’s house; unlike us, he has never been on shaky ground; there is and always has been a place for him there.  What Christ is doing is so utterly selfless, he spends his time making room for us and that we will be in the same place as he is.  And it’s not a trailer home or apartment that he’s preparing, he is putting us into mansions.  Eternity is grand and it’s his purpose to put us there.
Too often, I feel, we overlook what the reward of our righteousness is.
Christ also makes the bold claim that we know the way that he goes or are on the path.  Well, he was speaking to the disciples, but considering that we’ve walked with him the best we can through study as the disciples did who actually walked with him, I feel comfortable applying his statement to us.
Yet, right in the next verse, Thomas comes to contradict the Lord, saying, “Lord, we know not whither thou goest: and how can we know the way?  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:5-6)
Christ could not have been more plain before Thomas spoke up, but then, the gospel itself is so plain and clear, and yet the majority of us struggle to comprehend the simple concepts of the gospel message.  I believe this is because we forget so quickly and easily that Christ embodies it all, as he had to remind Thomas of in the previous verses.
What is the gospel?  “Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.  And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.” (3 Nephi 27:13-15)
The gospel is no more and no less than the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and all the principles and ordinances of the gospel are the steps we take to apply the Atonement to ourselves and allow him to save us in his eternal glory.
When I think of baptismal ordinance, the symbols of baptism are centered in Christ’s Atonement.  Paul speaks loud and clear on this subject:
“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.  For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” (Romans 6:3-6)
In simpler language, baptism is a symbol of Christ’s death and resurrection.  When we are buried under the water, we are symbolizing Christ’s death by crucifixion and his burial, and when we arise from the water, it is a symbol of his resurrection.  And in another sense, it also has an additional representation of his Atonement in that when we are baptized, we slay our old man, or bury our sins and are washed clean and rise from the water pure and new because of his grace and atoning sacrifice.
The sacrament ordinance, where we take the bread and water, is a symbol of his Atonement, in that the emblem of bread represents Christ’s body that he sacrificed for us, and the water being a symbol of the blood he shed for us.  It’s a weekly reminder of the Atonement and also has great cleansing power.  For myself, there are few occasions that I feel nearer to the Savior than when I have taken the sacrament worthily and with full purpose of heart.
With all this thoughts about the how the ordinances remind us of Christ, I asked my class the question: How do temple sealings represent Christ’s Atonement?
The highest ordinance that we perform in all of our temples is the sealing ordinance.  In a basic sense, the sealing is the Latter-day Saint marriage covenant, where husbands and wives are sealed for time and for all eternity.  Being married in the temple is a big deal for us.  Civil marriages are fine, but if I may quote a line from the comic Fables, “All contracts end with death.”
In the Lord’s rather lengthy revelation to Joseph Smith on marriage, “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to held this power…are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.” (D&C 132:7, emphasis added)
Basically, all marriage contracts in the world are made in the world, but when they aren’t sealed, the covenant doesn’t continue past death or into resurrection.  To be sealed, though, is to have that marriage last not just for our time on earth but through the eternities.
“And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.” (D&C 132:19, emphasis added)
There’s more there than I’m going to discuss in this post, but I wanted to give you the full verse in this case, because this outlines entirely what the temple sealing is about.  To be sealed is not just about being married for eternity, it is about obtaining all the exaltation and glory that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ wish to give us.  It’s a treasure beyond price.
So I thought that my question was a fair one to consider and not one that many of us in the Church think about: how do the sealings remind us of Christ’s Atonement?
I had written some of my thoughts on that, but the class came up with some very intriguing ideas I hadn’t considered.  Those included:
1)      Atonement can be broken down into at-one-ment, or specifically being at one with God.  The sealing can remind us of symbolically of Christ, for as Adam said of marriage, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Gen 2:24, emphasis added)
            As well, Jesus intercessory prayer speaks much of the doctrine of becoming one with him as he is one with the Father.

2)      Christ refers to the Church as being his bride in Revelations, in his parables, and also in modern revelation, which I’ll quote here:  “That thy church may come forth out of the wilderness of darkness, and shine forth fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners; And be adorned as a bride for that day when though shalt unveil the heavens… that thy glory may fill the earth;” (D&C 109:73-74)
Those were the standouts and I wish that I had thought of those myself but I’m very grateful that I have such a good class that brought to my attention what I couldn’t do alone.  But here are a couple of my inspirations:
1)      It has always been most thought-provoking to me the role altars play in the temple ceremonies, and no less so in the temple sealing.  Altars anciently were holy places that the saints of God would offer their sacrifices to him, all the way back to the days of Adam.  To sacrifice was a commandment from God after the Fall and casting them out from the Garden of Eden.  No explanation was given at the time of the commandment, but “…after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord?  And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.  And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.” (Moses 5:6-7)
            Altars were the place of offering sacrifice to the Lord, much in the way that Christ offered himself in sacrifice.  These days, we are not commanded to sacrifice by the shedding of blood, as Christ was the infinite sacrifice.  But we are asked to “offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit.” (3 Nephi 9:20)  And when we come to the altar at the sealing, are we not offering our whole lives, not only to the Lord but to our spouses for all eternity.  Symbolically, aren’t we showing that we will sacrifice and offer ourselves entirely for the other person, just as Christ offered himself entirely for us?

2)      We believe the sealing to be an eternal covenant, contract, oath, and law.  And how does that not bring to mind the Savior’s Atonement?  “For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice…And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.” (Alma 34:10, 14)

Alma once taught that “all things denote there is a God” (Alma 30:44) and it is my opinion that all things can teach us about the nature of God if we’re willing to open our hearts and ask him to reveal to us how these things can be. 

Before I finish, I’ll have to leave a more personal note than I usually attach to these essays of mine. 

I have never been married and at this time and I currently have no prospects.  I would love for it to happen, but until it does, I take my opportunities to improve myself as much as I can so that I’m a good prospect. 

Part of that has been observing other marriages (of which there are not few in this world) and I’ve seen what works and what hasn’t.  I’ve been fortunate that my parents have had a good marriage; I don’t know if they noticed, but I have been scrutinizing their relationship for years and they’ve set a pattern I hope to follow. 

I’ve paid a lot of attention to the marriages that have failed or had extreme difficulties, and the thing that concerns me greatly is how often pornography has been involved in one way or another.  We’re warned all the time about this plague every General Conference the Church has.  Because of how common and easy it is to access, it has a powerful, invasive force in entering and ruining the lives of those addicted to it.  If you’re not involved, don’t get involved ever.  If you are, seek help.  Ecclesiastical leaders are there to help; I know that the Church’s bishops and branch presidents are there to help those struggling morally and spiritually with anything to deal with the law of chastity. 

With all things in the gospel, these things are only there to help you gain the greatest peace and joy that can be offered here and now, and in the eternities.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

#49-Candide


It was worth the read.

Which made me really happy because I was concerned.  For the last year, I have run into Voltaire’s Candide at various libraries, bookstores, and once at a friend’s place during a birthday party.  There are occasions when a title is screaming at me to read it and it won’t shut up until I do.

Candide is a short, pessimistic tale about a good man named Candide and all the troubles he suffers for love of Cunégonde.  After her father catches the beginnings of their romance, Candide is exiled and somehow gets caught in the middle of wars and civil strife.  He and Cunégonde are constantly finding each other and being separated time and again, and all throughout, he continues to witness pain and suffering among all the children of the earth.

Voltaire wrote it because he rejected the philosophy that all the sufferings and pains were part of a divine plan, and he especially hated the teaching at the time which stated that this world was the best of all possible worlds because God had created it, therefore everything that happened worked out as it was supposed to.

And what was interesting to me was that even though the story followed Candide, the story was not really about him.  He was only one man out of the millions who suffered, and as the story progresses, his troubles are by far not the worst.  The old woman (that’s all she’s called) has the most tragic story, filled with kidnapping, rape, torture, and mutilation, and what’s the horrifying part about her story was that it didn’t feel as horrifying, not after all the other terrible stuff that had happened prior to that point.  It felt like another nail in the coffin.

The ironic thing about the book, though, is that no matter how many times a death is set up, nobody actually dies.  They just move from one horrible happenstance to another until the whole community has come together to succor each other and make do with what they have left.

It’s a bitter book that actually is funny right when you need to disconnect from how awful everything is.

That moment came for me with the Eldorado chapters.  Candide has been separated from Cunégonde again, and through complete accident and disaster, he finds himself in Eldorado, which is paradise on earth.  The city is so rich that gold’s value is the same as mud.  They’ve been given everything that they need, they live in peace with each other, and they are completely sealed away from the rest of the world.  This is Utopia.

And Candide leaves.  After all the sorrows and trials he’s had, now that he has found the better world, he decides to go back.  It seems noble and romantic at first: he is so in love with Cunégonde that he cannot imagine life without her, so he leaves to find her (while bringing plenty of Eldorado’s mud with him.)  And of course, life continues to be terrible for him and he meets plenty of old friends and new with their tales of sorrow and woe.

The part that gets me, once he finds Cunégonde, he finds that she’s suffered so much that she’s lost all her natural beauty and he discovers he didn’t actually love her at all, he was just horny and thought that she was hot.  He still marries her—mostly to annoy her brother—and lives out the rest of his life in an unfulfilling marriage.

He had it all in Eldorado and he lost it all for someone he didn’t really treasure at all.

Now, that does say some pretty awful things about him as a man, but it’s also a great commentary on how we never appreciate the great things that have been given to us until long after they’re gone and out of our hands.  Quite often, mankind chooses misery because that’s what we’re comfortable with.

And, of course, there’s the endless philosophizing about misery and the existence of evil in the world.  The philosophical discussions go from beginning to end, until Candide has had enough of it and he and the community go to work on their property.  My favorite line is actually the last line.  Candide’s friend, Pangloss, has a revelation that if Candide had not been through all that he had been through, he never would have been in the home that he was now in.  “‘Well said,’ replied Candide, ‘but we must cultivate our garden.’”

Or translated, you may speak the truth but I don't care.  The work is what makes me happy.

Friday, May 10, 2013

The Seeker

The man who walked the whole world round
Moved swiftly and surely with nary a sound
But the pitter-patter, pitter- putter
Of his shoes stepping o’er road and gutter.
Heads would turn and wag and wiggle,
His appearance did their fancy tickle,
For he wasn’t in simple traveler’s garb
But in a suit, tie, and a tag named “Schlarb”
Stuck onto his prominent front pocket,
Just beneath his shirt, a dull colored locket.


While the people sat to their bread and butter,
When he came past their windows, they would mutter,
“What is this tramp doing, walking and stalking,
To interrupt our business and daily talking?
See his eyes, how they seem to shift.
He’s just the sort of man prone to drift
Into and out of trouble and prison
Not long after the sun has first risen.
Look how he smiles, the insufferable sneak,
The type who preys on the helpless and weak.
He’s like the wolf searching out the sheep
Waiting to eat the poor lamb that first peeps.
How long will he stay here in our patch of earth
And leave us to our own natural mirth?”
In less than an hour, they got their desire.
In less than another, they focused their ire
Back on each other, as was their habit
From the lowest workman to the abbot.
And the man who walked the world over
Whistled and searched for his lost lover.