I don't kill spiders. I may have mentioned it once or twice before, but I don't expect you to remember. One summer in my teens, I went to take a shower and found a spider in the tub. This was not uncommon in the summer, and I generally washed them down the drain, but for some reason that particular summer day, I decided to capture the spider in a jar and take it outside, and that became my standard procedure for such situations.
That was probably a decade ago, and now I've grown into a man who is nearly unable to kill crawling things. I am puzzled by the culture I live in, which instills in young minds the belief that killing bugs is not only acceptable but actually a sort of duty--unless the bugs in question are ladybugs or butterflies, in which case it's a crime. I don't harbor any ill feelings toward our pesticidal society, but I've often wondered why it is we go out of our way to crush the poor boneless ones.
Here's the irony: I'm a bit of an arachnophobe. I think spiders are ugly, creepy, icky things, and I feel revulsion when I see them. I understand why people kill the spiders they find in their houses because even a decade of pacifism hasn't removed from me the natural inclination toward destruction. But I can't do it. Once, early on in my marriage, I killed a rather large spider that had found its way into our apartment. I did it to show my wife I wasn't a ninny. After I did it, I was so beset by guilt that I wasn't quite myself the rest of the day. So I've never done it again. Now whenever I find a spider in our apartment, I catch it and take it outside. My wife has laughingly pointed out that I do this even when the ground outside is covered in frosty snow or puddling rain, which may well dictate a crueler death for the spider than a quick blow from a shoe, but I don't do this because I love spiders--I don't love spiders! If I loved them, I might let them live with me. But they're frightening little beasts, and I hate them, so I don't let them live with me. But I do let them live--or at least throw them out to the elements where they can suffer a natural death and turn into dirt. The odd-shaped cog of my mind that dictates my conscience says that's better than killing them outright.
I've tried to come up with justifications for my behavior (I don't want insanitary spider guts embedded in my carpet. Spiders eat flies, and flies are more proactively annoying than spiders are.), but why should I feel compelled to justify my desire not to kill? The truth is, I'm deeply embarrassed by the fact that I can't kill spiders--especially since I hate them. See, if I had an academic interest in those eight-legged fiends and could discourse on their invaluable contributions to the local ecology and was fascinated by their anatomy, then it would make sense that I would not want to kill them, and if anyone asked me why I didn't kill them, I would have a good reason. But I'm not that guy. I see spiders as nightmarish creatures, and I wonder why God didn't make them more cuddly because, really, a fly-eating pet would be pretty awesome. And so I'm embarrassed that I feel guilty when I kill them, but guilt trumps embarrassment, so I go on not killing them.
I feel like Kierkegaard would have had something to say about this, but I don't know what it would've been. Perhaps he would've examined the paradox of harboring a murderous hatred for something but feeling a moral necessity to preserve its life--he might have called the paradox Love. Who knows....
There's got to be something to say about the way I treat spiders and why I do, and I'm convinced there's a parable in here somewhere. At any rate, there's a moral to this story, and it isn't, "Ugliness isn't a capital offense." It's something more than that. Something about love and hatred being totally unrelated to tolerance. I can't quite seem to formulate it, so I'll leave that up to you.
15 March 2012
06 March 2012
Equal Partners
"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." --The Family: A Proclamation to the World (a document written and signed by 15 men)
I'm sure it seems odd to many outsiders that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims equality between men and women but maintains a male-only clergy. Heck, I'm a lifelong Mormon, and I've had trouble seeing the equality at times. The search for equality seems to be an ongoing struggle in the LDS community, and I sometimes wonder if we're looking beyond the mark. Priesthood holders are so afraid of falling into the woman-go-make-me-a-sandwich brand of unrighteous dominion that we've started debasing ourselves and placing our women on unreasonably high pedestals: "Our women are so much better than us," we say; "they are spiritually superior and socially graceful and oh so very patient with our idiotic maleness--we men would be hopeless without them," and then we wonder why they always feel so inadequate.
The truth is, many LDS men are uncomfortable with the fact that they can be ordained to priesthood offices while women cannot. We really do believe that men and women are equal, but we can't seem to find an ideology that doesn't either keep women below us or exalt them above us. We're forced to say somewhat lamely, "Men hold the priesthood, and women are--um--great." However, as is often the case with gospel quandaries, a return to the basics is all that's necessary to resolve this problem, so let's talk about the purpose of life.
If you ask most any LDS Sunday-school class what the purpose of life is, they will say, "To get a body!" and "To return to live with Heavenly Father!" One of the most frequently quoted passages in Mormondom is Moses 1:39, wherein God explains that His work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. We believe that, because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, everyone who comes to earth and receives a physical body will be resurrected someday and get to keep their physical body forever--that's immortality. We believe that the Atonement of Jesus Christ also enables everyone who comes to earth to be redeemed through priesthood ordinances so that they can one day live with God--that's eternal life. Immortality and eternal life are equally important: having a physical body while dwelling outside of God's presence (immortality without eternal life) is hell; lacking a physical body while dwelling in God's presence (eternal life without immortality) is the state we were in before we came to earth, the state that we came here to move beyond. God's work and glory is only fulfilled when we achieve both immortality and eternal life.
How do we do this? Well, first we have to receive a physical body, and the only way to do that is to be born of a woman. The work of clothing God's spirit children in physical bodies can only be accomplished by women. Even Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, had to be born of Mary, and I have heard it argued that Adam was no exception, either: he was brought into mortality by a woman because Eve gave him the forbidden fruit. Half of God's work and glory--the half concerned with bringing about our immortality--is entrusted entirely to women.
What about the other half--the half concerned with our eternal life? This work is given to men. Worthy men are ordained to the priesthood, and they use that priesthood to perform the saving ordinances necessary for us to return to God's presence. Just as nobody comes to earth without being born of a woman, nobody returns to God without being baptized by a man. This half of God's work and glory is entrusted to men.
In Doctrine and Covenants section 132, we learn that exaltation (the highest form of immortality and eternal life) can only be gained through the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. It is only by the coming together of man and woman as husband and wife that exaltation can be achieved. No man, no matter how faithful he is to his priesthood, can be exalted without first being sealed eternally to a woman. Likewise, no woman can make it alone. Is it any wonder why this is when God's work and glory is divided evenly into male and female stewardships? Paul said it best: "Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."
I believe that men and women are absolutely equal before God and that they are equally vital to His plan. I think we only lose sight of that equality because of our location in God's plan. If you are here on earth, reading this essay, you have already been born of a woman; your mother played her part in God's plan for you, and you are bound for immortality. But God's work and glory will not be fully realized in you until you reach eternal life, and to get there you must rely on the help of men--even if you are a man, you need the help of other men. And so we have a male clergy to guide you to eternal life. This is not to say that women cannot help and instruct you along the way, but just as it was by a woman that you were born and began your journey toward immortality, it is by worthy, priesthood-bearing men that you can be born again and begin your journey toward eternal life.
(I am deeply indebted to Valerie Hudson, whose article in SquareTwo inspired these thoughts in me.)
27 February 2012
Pragmatic environmentalism
(And I'll abuse the word "pragmatic" all I want, thank you very much!)
I have a hard time pigeonholing my politics. I've spent my entire adult life being opposed to political parties (or, at the very least, our two-party system as it now stands), but I'm starting to dislike the labels of "liberal" and "conservative" as well. I just don't feel like I fit in with any of these groups, and I don't see how any thinking person really can.
For example, deep in my heart of hearts (and I'm sure this is on this blog somewhere), I'm a passionate, pre-World-War isolationist: I just wanna hole up and leave the rest of the world alone. But it's a pipe dream, right? I can't wrap my head around any way that's even remotely possible, given the last 70 or 80 years of world history. Similarly, I'm all for a legislative rewinding to get closer to the Constitution, but I just don't think it's feasible: what are we going to do, fire everybody who works in Social Security and MediCare and NASA and National Security etc? Sounds like a terrible idea to me. As a last example, I'm infatuated (as wholeheartedly and ignorantly as the word connotes) with the idea of a completely free market--laissez faire and the invisible hand and all that. I love thinking that the market will always sort itself out. But the truth is, the market is frightfully amoral, and I honestly believe that bad guys always win in a truly free economy. It just seems obvious to me that, in a system where competition is everything, those who are willing to cheat will most likely pull ahead. Scum rises to the top etc. etc. So even though my deep Idaho roots call out for the government to leave me t'heck alone, I kinda like having Big Brother trying to level the playing field.
So there's a crash course in Schmetterlingism, which might just look like apathetic moderatism but feels more like a liberal leaning conservatism.
But there's one area that I'm straight-up liberal (not hard-core or bleeding-hard but fairly radical all the same), and that's environmentalism. I'm all for the privatization of a lot of things (education, for instance), but I feel like the environment is one thing that's big enough to warrant a government stewardship. It's just so hard to get a big-picture view as an individual. And it's the sort of thing that requires big actions on a regular basis because so many little actions are constantly screwing it up. So I'm all for the government regulating emissions and protecting species and (dare I say it?) angering farmers by making up rules. Here again, I might be mistaken as passionately apathetic (I often say that I don't care whether man-caused climate change is real and that I think minimizing the stuff we pump into the air is worthwhile even if it doesn't save the polar bears because it might save some asthmatic kindergartener in New York), but I am not. I consider myself a pragmatic environmentalist.
My most recent environmental stance has evolved over the course of the past few months, and its evolution started when I read an article in (*GASP!*) Mother Jones, which I now have a subscription to, thanks to a brother of mine (our mother was mortified when she found out!). The article ("Jet Blue" by Christie Aschwanden, located on the last page of the May + June 2010 issue, which was the borrowed hook that reeled me in) talked about how bad for the environment jumbo jets are. It says that a family of 4 living in western Colorado can replace an old fridge with an efficient model, replace 10 75-watt lightbulbs with 20-watt compact florescents, recycle all their paper and glass and metal and plastic waste, switch to using a bus or train for a daily 12-mile commute, and replace the family sedan for a Prius, and if they live that way for a year, they still won't have done as much to help the environment as they do to hurt it if they fly to Boston for Christmas at the end of that year. Lots of environmentally-minded people justify flying because it's public transportation, and they all assume that, when it comes to transportation, public=environmental, but the truth is that flying is the most environmentally destructive per-capita mode of transportation.
I was thinking about this as my wife and I flew out to Florida for Christmas. The facts seemed to say that we would've been better off driving that whole long way, and I felt a little guilty as I watched the SLC tarmac disappear below us. But the flight gave me time to think, and Pragmatic Environmentalism was born.
Let's imagine a hypothetical couple living just outside of Salt Lake City somewhere--in Provo, we'll say--and let's name this hypothetical couple Kyle and Katie. Now let's say that Kyle and Katie have been invited to spend Christmas in DisneyWorld with Katie's family. There are essentially three options to them: 1) they can fly (the traditional solution); 2) they can drive (the more environmentally friendly solution); 3) they can stay in Provo (the Mother Jones solution).
Solution 1: The fly out of SLC int'l and go to Orlando with a layover in DC and then come back the same way. Nearly 15,000 lbs of CO2 are emitted into the atmosphere, "high in the atmosphere, magnifying the ill effects" (that's from that article, btw).
Solution 2: They drive for a couple of days each direction. Nearly 4,000 lbs of CO2 are emitted by their car in addition to the 15,000 lbs being emitted by their airplane, which incidentally has to make its connections even if nobody's on it.
Solution 3: They stay home. 15,000 lbs of CO2 are still emitted by that airplane!
Moral of the story: Solutions 1 & 3 are equally damaging to the environment; solution 2 is more damaging.
The thing is, I do care about the environment, and so I wish that there weren't so many airplane cruising around up there, but I was looking at the maps in the seatback pocket in front of me, and it looks like they run in circuits. So even if I could get everyone in Utah to refrain from flying to DC, the Utah plane would still have to fly to DC to pick up all the people there who are headed to Orlando, and if I could talk all of them out of their trip, there's still people in Orlando who need to get to--I dunno--Kentucky. The thing is, to get even one plane grounded, I have to stop at least three and perhaps four or five plane's worth of travelers from flying anywhere.
So the plane flies, regardless of what I do. If I'm on it or if I stay home, it doesn't make any difference. But if I drive to Florida, I only make things worse.
And that's pragmatic environmentalism, which sounds an awful lot like environmental fatalism, but isn't exactly.
I have a hard time pigeonholing my politics. I've spent my entire adult life being opposed to political parties (or, at the very least, our two-party system as it now stands), but I'm starting to dislike the labels of "liberal" and "conservative" as well. I just don't feel like I fit in with any of these groups, and I don't see how any thinking person really can.
For example, deep in my heart of hearts (and I'm sure this is on this blog somewhere), I'm a passionate, pre-World-War isolationist: I just wanna hole up and leave the rest of the world alone. But it's a pipe dream, right? I can't wrap my head around any way that's even remotely possible, given the last 70 or 80 years of world history. Similarly, I'm all for a legislative rewinding to get closer to the Constitution, but I just don't think it's feasible: what are we going to do, fire everybody who works in Social Security and MediCare and NASA and National Security etc? Sounds like a terrible idea to me. As a last example, I'm infatuated (as wholeheartedly and ignorantly as the word connotes) with the idea of a completely free market--laissez faire and the invisible hand and all that. I love thinking that the market will always sort itself out. But the truth is, the market is frightfully amoral, and I honestly believe that bad guys always win in a truly free economy. It just seems obvious to me that, in a system where competition is everything, those who are willing to cheat will most likely pull ahead. Scum rises to the top etc. etc. So even though my deep Idaho roots call out for the government to leave me t'heck alone, I kinda like having Big Brother trying to level the playing field.
So there's a crash course in Schmetterlingism, which might just look like apathetic moderatism but feels more like a liberal leaning conservatism.
But there's one area that I'm straight-up liberal (not hard-core or bleeding-hard but fairly radical all the same), and that's environmentalism. I'm all for the privatization of a lot of things (education, for instance), but I feel like the environment is one thing that's big enough to warrant a government stewardship. It's just so hard to get a big-picture view as an individual. And it's the sort of thing that requires big actions on a regular basis because so many little actions are constantly screwing it up. So I'm all for the government regulating emissions and protecting species and (dare I say it?) angering farmers by making up rules. Here again, I might be mistaken as passionately apathetic (I often say that I don't care whether man-caused climate change is real and that I think minimizing the stuff we pump into the air is worthwhile even if it doesn't save the polar bears because it might save some asthmatic kindergartener in New York), but I am not. I consider myself a pragmatic environmentalist.
My most recent environmental stance has evolved over the course of the past few months, and its evolution started when I read an article in (*GASP!*) Mother Jones, which I now have a subscription to, thanks to a brother of mine (our mother was mortified when she found out!). The article ("Jet Blue" by Christie Aschwanden, located on the last page of the May + June 2010 issue, which was the borrowed hook that reeled me in) talked about how bad for the environment jumbo jets are. It says that a family of 4 living in western Colorado can replace an old fridge with an efficient model, replace 10 75-watt lightbulbs with 20-watt compact florescents, recycle all their paper and glass and metal and plastic waste, switch to using a bus or train for a daily 12-mile commute, and replace the family sedan for a Prius, and if they live that way for a year, they still won't have done as much to help the environment as they do to hurt it if they fly to Boston for Christmas at the end of that year. Lots of environmentally-minded people justify flying because it's public transportation, and they all assume that, when it comes to transportation, public=environmental, but the truth is that flying is the most environmentally destructive per-capita mode of transportation.
I was thinking about this as my wife and I flew out to Florida for Christmas. The facts seemed to say that we would've been better off driving that whole long way, and I felt a little guilty as I watched the SLC tarmac disappear below us. But the flight gave me time to think, and Pragmatic Environmentalism was born.
Let's imagine a hypothetical couple living just outside of Salt Lake City somewhere--in Provo, we'll say--and let's name this hypothetical couple Kyle and Katie. Now let's say that Kyle and Katie have been invited to spend Christmas in DisneyWorld with Katie's family. There are essentially three options to them: 1) they can fly (the traditional solution); 2) they can drive (the more environmentally friendly solution); 3) they can stay in Provo (the Mother Jones solution).
Solution 1: The fly out of SLC int'l and go to Orlando with a layover in DC and then come back the same way. Nearly 15,000 lbs of CO2 are emitted into the atmosphere, "high in the atmosphere, magnifying the ill effects" (that's from that article, btw).
Solution 2: They drive for a couple of days each direction. Nearly 4,000 lbs of CO2 are emitted by their car in addition to the 15,000 lbs being emitted by their airplane, which incidentally has to make its connections even if nobody's on it.
Solution 3: They stay home. 15,000 lbs of CO2 are still emitted by that airplane!
Moral of the story: Solutions 1 & 3 are equally damaging to the environment; solution 2 is more damaging.
The thing is, I do care about the environment, and so I wish that there weren't so many airplane cruising around up there, but I was looking at the maps in the seatback pocket in front of me, and it looks like they run in circuits. So even if I could get everyone in Utah to refrain from flying to DC, the Utah plane would still have to fly to DC to pick up all the people there who are headed to Orlando, and if I could talk all of them out of their trip, there's still people in Orlando who need to get to--I dunno--Kentucky. The thing is, to get even one plane grounded, I have to stop at least three and perhaps four or five plane's worth of travelers from flying anywhere.
So the plane flies, regardless of what I do. If I'm on it or if I stay home, it doesn't make any difference. But if I drive to Florida, I only make things worse.
And that's pragmatic environmentalism, which sounds an awful lot like environmental fatalism, but isn't exactly.
Bret is very proud of his Oscar
Perhaps you've heard that a song from The Muppets won an Oscar. I was so happy about that. For one thing, I love the Muppets; for another, Bret McKenzie (of Flight of the Conchord
fame) wrote the songs for that movie, and it just kinda rekindles my
faith in the whole movie industry that a man like Bret McKenzie can win
an Oscar.
As soon as I found out it, I decided to look up Bret's Wikipedia page to see what it had to say about this honor, and I found myself having to hold back my laughter. I think Bret himself probably modified his Wikipedia page to make it read this way. This is copy-pasted from that page (I've added highlighting so you can get the gist without having to actually read the whole thing):
As soon as I found out it, I decided to look up Bret's Wikipedia page to see what it had to say about this honor, and I found myself having to hold back my laughter. I think Bret himself probably modified his Wikipedia page to make it read this way. This is copy-pasted from that page (I've added highlighting so you can get the gist without having to actually read the whole thing):
Academy Award winner McKenzie has appeared in the first and third films inPeter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. His silent role in the first film as Figwitachieved some minor internet fame, which led to Jackson giving him a line in the third film. In April 2011, McKenzie, the winner of an Academy Award, was cast as the elf Lindir (who in contrast to Figwit is a character created by Tolkien himself) for the upcoming The Hobbit. His father Peter McKenzie played the role of Elendil in Lord of the Rings.
Along with Clement, Oscar winning McKenzie was featured as one of 2008's "100 Sexiest People" in a special edition of the Australian magazine Who.
Bret "Oscar-Winner" McKenzie and fellow Conchord Clement guest starred as a pair of camp counselors in "Elementary School Musical", the season premiere of the 22nd season of The Simpsons, which aired on 26 September 2010.[3]
Oscar winning McKenzie, together with Australian comedian Hamish Blake is
set to star in a New Zealand feature film, Two Little Boys, currently
under production in New Zealand and set for release late 2011.[4]
During the summer of 2010, Academy Awardee McKenzie flew to Los Angeles to serve as the music supervisor for the The Muppets.[5] He
went on to write five songs for the films soundtrack including "Man or
Muppet" and "Life's a Happy Song" both of which were nominated for Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards and Satellite Awards for Best Original Song.[6]
I miss my blog
The Eccentric Sage has sat in disuse for a long time now. It's tragic, really. The heyday of blogging is something I now think of in fits of nostalgia, if I think of it at all. Yet I still follow some blogs--meaning they secretly feed into my Google Reader, and I glance at the posts an read most of them. I've become a spectator in cyberspace, participating only when I feel a strong inclination to do so--and I don't feel that way often. Still, if other blogs are still running strong, why shouldn't this one? The blogosphere has not collapsed, despite the vacuum I've created there.
And so--I'm back. I've given The Eccentric Sage a much needed facelift, and I'm posting again. I'm not promising that I'll ever post with the frequency I once did (I'd say I peaked in the summer of '08), and I actually have no intention of dedicating that much time here. This blog was fueled by the angst of my bachelorhood, and I've been happily married for 20 months now. Also, I don't want to join the masses of bloggers who say, "I'm totally back and I'm gonna post every day and you guys should visit my blog because it'll be so totally awesome!" and then goes another 8 months without posting. No, this will be a very different blog from here on out, I imagine, and I'm marking the change with a titled post. Now, instead of a place to vent my angst, The Eccentric Sage will be a place for me to probe reality. I admit that it may be hard for anyone but me to detect a difference in the resultant posts, but I feel different, and it has been nearly a year since I last posted--and much longer than that since I posted frequently!--and I really feel no inclination to make a conscious effort to recreate what once was. I just need a place to think in written words, and I imagine that's what blogs were invented for.
So here we go.....
And so--I'm back. I've given The Eccentric Sage a much needed facelift, and I'm posting again. I'm not promising that I'll ever post with the frequency I once did (I'd say I peaked in the summer of '08), and I actually have no intention of dedicating that much time here. This blog was fueled by the angst of my bachelorhood, and I've been happily married for 20 months now. Also, I don't want to join the masses of bloggers who say, "I'm totally back and I'm gonna post every day and you guys should visit my blog because it'll be so totally awesome!" and then goes another 8 months without posting. No, this will be a very different blog from here on out, I imagine, and I'm marking the change with a titled post. Now, instead of a place to vent my angst, The Eccentric Sage will be a place for me to probe reality. I admit that it may be hard for anyone but me to detect a difference in the resultant posts, but I feel different, and it has been nearly a year since I last posted--and much longer than that since I posted frequently!--and I really feel no inclination to make a conscious effort to recreate what once was. I just need a place to think in written words, and I imagine that's what blogs were invented for.
So here we go.....
14 April 2011
Post 244
So, I don't visit A Motley Vision nearly as often as Theric would probably like me to. I wander over there occasionally when he links to it or says something cool is going on, but I've never gotten involved with them mostly just because I really have no idea what AMV is.
But so far, the only person to comment on my previous post was Wm Morris of AMV fame. Of course, my initial thought was, "Who the heck is Wm Morris?" and then I clicked on his name and ended up at AMV and learned about this little writing contest they're having over there that I found really exciting. (Check it out)
Now, because I really know nothing about AMV, I don't have a clue what Monsters & Mormons is, so I don't know what I'm missing out on, so I don't really feel bad about potentially disqualifying myself by telling the whole world (or at least the two judges of the contest, both of whom apparently read my blog sometimes) why my entry is the best. [NOTE: I don't recall the rules saying anything about not being able to publish a submission elsewhere, so perhaps I won't DQ myself, but this is just a disclaimer to say that, regardless of the consequences, I'd rather toot my own horn than sit and wait for someone else to toot it for me.]
I wrote a passage from the Book of Lehi. But the awesome thing about it is that I composed this bit of false scripture by piecemealing various other scriptural passages. I changed a few names, and I added one word ("for"), but the rest of this is a scriptural hodgepodge. Check it out [note, I submitted it without the references; I'm writing this blogpost to show how awesome I am in case neither Wm or Th notice]:
Lehi 16:5-9
5 "And it came to pass that Laman and Lemuel" [1 Nephi 16:20, 1 Nephi 18:11] "took of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and" [1 Nephi 16:7] "they had many children who did grow up and began to wax strong in years, that they became for themselves" [3 Nephi 1:29] "lewd fellows of the baser sort" [Acts 17:5].
6 "And now [Laman] had a son who was called [Bedlam]" [Ether 7:22]; for "when [Laman] went in to his wife, she conceived, and bare a son, and he called his name" [1 Chronicles 7:23] "Laman, being called after the name of his father" [Mosiah 24:3]. "Then said they unto him, Say now [Laman]: and he said [Bedlam]: for he could not frame to pronounce it right" [Judges 12:6] "; and therefore he was called [Bedlam]." [Mosiah 24:3]
7 "Now this [Bedlam] had, by his cunning, drawn away much people after him; even so much that they began to be very powerful; and they began to endeavor to establish [Bedlam] to be a king over the people" [Alma 2:2] "; and they did rise up in rebellion against us." [Alma 57:32]
8 "And [I] did exhort them then with all the feeling of a tender parent, that they would hearken to [my] words, that perhaps the Lord would be merciful to them, and not cast them off;" [1 Nephi 8:37] "[b]ut behold, [Bedlam] hearkened not, saying: Who is the Lord that I should know him?" [Moses 5:16]
9 "Wherefore, they went up into the wilderness. And [Bedlam] being a strong and mighty man, and a stiffnecked man, wherefore he caused a contention among them; and they were all slain [..] in the wilderness" (Omni 1:28) ": and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses." [Isaiah 37:36] "And thus endeth the days of [Bedlam]." [Alma 51:37]
So that's my scripture-wresting tour de force. Hope you like it. My only regret is that I failed to use my all-time favorite scriptural phrase: "Wherefore, lay apart all filthiness and [you ready for this?] superfluity of naughtiness" [James 1:21]. Oh well. I should be studying for my final finals anyhow.
But so far, the only person to comment on my previous post was Wm Morris of AMV fame. Of course, my initial thought was, "Who the heck is Wm Morris?" and then I clicked on his name and ended up at AMV and learned about this little writing contest they're having over there that I found really exciting. (Check it out)
Now, because I really know nothing about AMV, I don't have a clue what Monsters & Mormons is, so I don't know what I'm missing out on, so I don't really feel bad about potentially disqualifying myself by telling the whole world (or at least the two judges of the contest, both of whom apparently read my blog sometimes) why my entry is the best. [NOTE: I don't recall the rules saying anything about not being able to publish a submission elsewhere, so perhaps I won't DQ myself, but this is just a disclaimer to say that, regardless of the consequences, I'd rather toot my own horn than sit and wait for someone else to toot it for me.]
I wrote a passage from the Book of Lehi. But the awesome thing about it is that I composed this bit of false scripture by piecemealing various other scriptural passages. I changed a few names, and I added one word ("for"), but the rest of this is a scriptural hodgepodge. Check it out [note, I submitted it without the references; I'm writing this blogpost to show how awesome I am in case neither Wm or Th notice]:
Lehi 16:5-9
5 "And it came to pass that Laman and Lemuel" [1 Nephi 16:20, 1 Nephi 18:11] "took of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and" [1 Nephi 16:7] "they had many children who did grow up and began to wax strong in years, that they became for themselves" [3 Nephi 1:29] "lewd fellows of the baser sort" [Acts 17:5].
6 "And now [Laman] had a son who was called [Bedlam]" [Ether 7:22]; for "when [Laman] went in to his wife, she conceived, and bare a son, and he called his name" [1 Chronicles 7:23] "Laman, being called after the name of his father" [Mosiah 24:3]. "Then said they unto him, Say now [Laman]: and he said [Bedlam]: for he could not frame to pronounce it right" [Judges 12:6] "; and therefore he was called [Bedlam]." [Mosiah 24:3]
7 "Now this [Bedlam] had, by his cunning, drawn away much people after him; even so much that they began to be very powerful; and they began to endeavor to establish [Bedlam] to be a king over the people" [Alma 2:2] "; and they did rise up in rebellion against us." [Alma 57:32]
8 "And [I] did exhort them then with all the feeling of a tender parent, that they would hearken to [my] words, that perhaps the Lord would be merciful to them, and not cast them off;" [1 Nephi 8:37] "[b]ut behold, [Bedlam] hearkened not, saying: Who is the Lord that I should know him?" [Moses 5:16]
9 "Wherefore, they went up into the wilderness. And [Bedlam] being a strong and mighty man, and a stiffnecked man, wherefore he caused a contention among them; and they were all slain [..] in the wilderness" (Omni 1:28) ": and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses." [Isaiah 37:36] "And thus endeth the days of [Bedlam]." [Alma 51:37]
So that's my scripture-wresting tour de force. Hope you like it. My only regret is that I failed to use my all-time favorite scriptural phrase: "Wherefore, lay apart all filthiness and [you ready for this?] superfluity of naughtiness" [James 1:21]. Oh well. I should be studying for my final finals anyhow.
12 April 2011
Post 243
I heard the joke countless times in my childhood:
Q: What's the difference between a piano and a fish?
A: You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish.
It occurred to me recently that, either this is a mistelling of the joke, or the joke's creator really fell short of the full potential here. I propose the following revision:
Q: How is a piano like a fish?
A: You can tune a piano, and you can tuna fish.
It's harder to grasp, I think. That's why I imagine that the joke originally ran this way but the six-year-olds who spread it around couldn't get it right. Or maybe we should just blame it all on REO Speedwagon.
Can is the pivotal word here. Replacing it with synonyms, we get "You are able to tune a piano, and you place tuna fish into cans."
You can tune a piano, and you can tuna fish. It's a lot more interesting grammatically, and it makes the pun work better because the sentence actually makes sense (because, really, what does "you can't tuna fish" mean? Would you say "you can't sardine"? I can't think of a reason such an utterance would be made).
In a week and a half, I'll graduate from BYU. I've spent 3 years studying the English language, and I've spent 2 years trying my hand at stand-up comedy. The result? I am now fully qualified to be a children's joke critic. Fantastic.
Q: What's the difference between a piano and a fish?
A: You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish.
It occurred to me recently that, either this is a mistelling of the joke, or the joke's creator really fell short of the full potential here. I propose the following revision:
Q: How is a piano like a fish?
A: You can tune a piano, and you can tuna fish.
It's harder to grasp, I think. That's why I imagine that the joke originally ran this way but the six-year-olds who spread it around couldn't get it right. Or maybe we should just blame it all on REO Speedwagon.
Can is the pivotal word here. Replacing it with synonyms, we get "You are able to tune a piano, and you place tuna fish into cans."
You can tune a piano, and you can tuna fish. It's a lot more interesting grammatically, and it makes the pun work better because the sentence actually makes sense (because, really, what does "you can't tuna fish" mean? Would you say "you can't sardine"? I can't think of a reason such an utterance would be made).
In a week and a half, I'll graduate from BYU. I've spent 3 years studying the English language, and I've spent 2 years trying my hand at stand-up comedy. The result? I am now fully qualified to be a children's joke critic. Fantastic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)