About Me

Name: Dr. Scott
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

All I Want for Christmas

When I asked her what she wanted for Christmas, my wife Shauri replied, "All I want for Christmas is for Mitt Romney to win Iowa. If I can have that, I'll be pretty happy." Later, on Christmas day, she asked me, "Would you like to see Mitt for Christmas?" I answered her with a confused look. "I have a list of about 8 places he's going to be at in the next week," she told me enthusiastially. Can you believe that?

Ah, the magic of living in Iowa. Today Mike Huckabee was hunting pheasant here, and offered a few barely concealed jabs at Mitt's earlier comments on hunting, where he said he was a lifelong hunter and later retracted the claim, explaining that he went hunting a few times as a kid.

Picture of Huck with a gun in Iowa weather gear.

Did you hear the latest on the Huckster? Apparently he may not have been truthful in how he achieved his famous 100+-pound weight loss. He published a book in 2005 called "Quit Digging Your Grade with a Knife and Fork: A 12-Stop Program to End Bad Habis and Begin a Healthy Lifestyle." Sounds great, right? Yes, except for the fact that it may not have been through good habits or a healthy lifestyle, nor by willpower that he achieved his weight success. A blogger has put together circumstantial evidence that Huck underwent gastic bypass surgery. Put that way, the evience sounds flimsy. But if you go to the link, he's got plenty of data to support the claim.

Me? I wouldn't mind losing 105 pounds for Christmas. I have a brother who lost 70 in one year on the Shangri-La diet, which I've been trying now for just over 2 months. So far I can report going from 309.5  to 293.25. Hopefully I can keep up the momentum through the holidays.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Christmas Angels

Merry Christmas to everyone! This Christmas (or, "Fisfuss," as we cheerfully call it here, in honor of the way my oldest daughter pronounced it when she was 2 years old) has been more than memorable. Probably the best place to begin is a couple of days ago.

We weren't getting mail for awhile and didn't know it. The postman had decided that our dog, Angel, was threatening him (yes, she was quite a barker). We were trying to get a permanent place set up for her for the winter; we had a dog house, but Shauri, being from Arizona, felt that our poor dog would be too cold in it. We kept her instead in the mudroom while Shauri built a doghouse out of pink insulating styrofoam and board--but Angel figured out how to open the mudroom door and kept escaping. Which lead to the postman feeling threatened and the neighbors calling the police a few times. An officer came by and said that if Angel was seen running loose again, we'd be taken to court. And the post office finally called on Thursday to say that the mail wasn't going to be delivered until we had a permanent solution to restrict Angel's freedom.

When Shauri told me this I got a sinking feeling. "You mean, nobody has been picking up our mail?" I had put a letter in our mailbox the Saturday before, authorizing our broker to liquidate a portion of our retirement assets. I had been planning on the check arriving by the end of the following week--last week--to cover a gap between paychecks. My current job pays less per month than we need to pay bills, and I put in for a raise a month ago to cover the gap, to cooincide with the completion of my doctoral degree. When they hired me, they agreed to a raise when my Ph.D. was finished, but the negotiations have not been going very fast. So...we've been slowly bleeding out our retirement savings while being glad for a job that will allow me to participate in the National Health Services Corps--a government program for healthcare and mental healthcare workers in underserved areas, that will forgive up to $50,000 per year for two years of student loan debt. It sounds like a great tradeoff, but of course you have to keep making your student loan payments along the way, so it doesn't help with your monthly expenses during the two years you're in the program. Also, I won't be eligible to start the program until next year, so we've had to wait and we still haven't started the program.

Back to the story. So the check was going to arrive too late to save Christmas (fisfuss). The kids didn't know it, but Shauri and I were feeling a lot of stress about it. Then on Friday last week I had an epiphany, a heart-changing experience, and it had to do with Angel.

Shauri and the kids have been wanting for quite some time to make Angel into a house dog, but I have refused. I've been very allergic to animal dander, and haven't wanted to share my house with an animal that sheds. Every couple of months the issue would be brought up again, and I would have to remind everyone that Papa is allergic to dogs.

However, that isn't entirely true. Last year my chiropractor, kinesiologist, and homeopath, Dr. Terry Burk of Huxley, Iowa, using the methods of Dr. Brett Brimhall, was able to get my body to release most of the emotional causes of my allergic reactions to animal dander. Since then, I have had a much better time around animals--but I'm still wary of them and still avoid touching them when I can help it. I haven't been sure how permanent the change was, and since we've moved to southeastern Iowa, we haven't been able to see Dr. Burk as often, so I didn't want to test the limits of my newly acquired tolerance for animals. Unlike our kids, who love to go up and cuddle Angel, I avoid her as much as possible.

On Friday last week, I was at the middle school where I do therapy work, and I was observing the therapy dog that they have there. The full-time school counselor has gotten him trained and approved, and usually brings him to school every day. I was watching how people come up to him and cuddle him and baby-talk with him--adults and kids alike--and it struck me how radically different it is having an indoor pet that you can live with versus an outdoor pet that you only see when you go outside. I remembered a couple of years back when I heard an animal advocate on the radio talk about how much you're missing of the experience of having a pet if  you're not living with it. (It was Kim Langholz on WOI's Talk of Iowa program.) I looked at this dog, how clean he's kept, and how much he's loved, how much time he spends with people, and something inside me said, "That's what we need to do with Angel."

So I called Shauri and waited for her to finish something with the kids, and told her the news. Angel would have to get housetrained. But as soon as she was bathed and brushed, she could be a house dog. Shauri could hardly believe what she was hearing. "This is major!" she said, two or three times. When I got home that night, Angel was happily a part of the family. We're still trying to figure out a few logistics of the new arrangement, but it has been a totally different home, these past several days, to have a dog inside. She is very gentle, doesn't nip at anyone (even when our 10-month old pulls on her face), and very obedient. She made Christmas (fisfuss) especially memorable this year.

"But what about the finances," you might be asking. That was all taken care of in the most miraculous way. Last Wednesday, when our account balance was zero and we had no idea how we'd get through the holiday, our local church put together Christmas boxes for families that it knew would be needing a little something to get through the holiday. NO, we were not one of the families--that is not where this is going! Most of the families have single parents, and they are much worse off than we are. The boxes were mostly to provide Christmas (fisfuss) dinners--there would be Christmas hams, scalloped potatoes, dinner rolls, and so forth. A few weeks ago I signed up to help--thinking it would not be a hardship to contribute the salads for the 6 families. But on Wednesday, we had nothing to buy the salads with--except some rolls of coins that I keep squirreled away for emergencies. (They're uncirculated from the US Mint, which helps to keep them unopened and makes them perfect as an emergency cash fund). We knew that this was not a time to back out. When I sent Shauri to go buy the salads, it felt like a sacrifice, which I think to me made it all the more meaningful. It also meant that I had an opened roll of coins now. That came in handy Friday night, when I was running out of gas on the way home from work, and was able to stop and fill up. The universe is full of hidden blessings. 

That same day, Friday, after I called Shauri and told her that Angel could become a house dog, she went to the post office to pick up our backlog of mail. There was a big stack of Christmas (fisfuss) cards, and we began opening them that evening, one by one. It was wonderful to hear from our family and friends. We wished we had sent out Christmas (fisfuss) cards, but this year we just weren't able. There was one card with no return address, that wasn't signed, and we couldn't recognize the handwriting (to me it looks like different handwriting on the envelope and card). The postmark could apply to about 20 different relatives, and only heaven knows if it even was one of them. 

Inside the card was enough to cover the paycheck gap and get us through the end of the year. Shauri and I were speechless. We looked at the card, looked at the envelope, looked at each other. "I'm so glad we've been paying out tithing," she said. Shauri and I gathered the kids together and we knelt down around the coffee table (we call it the Chocolate Table), and told them what had happened. We said we were going to say a prayer together to thank Heavenly Father for touching someone's heart and blessing our family, and asking Him to bless our anonymous Christmas angel. Our oldest asked if she could say it, and she offered a beautiful prayer from the heart that was perfectly appropriate.

We were able to go on Saturday and Monday and buy Christmas presents for our kids and food for the next week--we had been hoping that the broker check would arrive in time for that, but it hadn't, because the authorization letter hadn't gotten out on time. I kept thinking about the anonymous Christmas (fisfuss) angel as we set out the gifts on Christmas Eve, and as our children opened their presents the next morning. We had another Angel there with us, licking faces and joyfully wagging her tail, spreading Christmas (fisfuss) cheer. I only got an itchy eye once, after scratching behind her ears (she seems to believe that I like her, and approaches me constantly) and then touching my face, but it went away faster than I would have thought.

As we opened the presents and watched our children's joy over the gifts their relatives sent, we felt again the gratitude for loved ones who thought of us this year. We had a cousins gift exchange that we participated in, but some relatives went a step beyond that and bought presents for the whole family. Amazingly generous, and so very like them. And there were several other gifts we opened on Christmas that lke the anonymous card were surely sent with the prompting of Christmas angels--a graduation card with $50, a Walmart card with $25. We will be fine this month, and it is mostly because of the generosity and kindness of those who love and care for us.

We feel so blessed and so grateful. I hope that their hearts are full of the same joy that we have felt when we've been able to give like this. My most memorable Christmas (fisfuss) as a boy was one year when I was about nine, when our family anonymously helped out another family in my neighborhood. They had a son my age, and it was all I could do when we later played Army men together to not tell him that I knew where he had gotten his Jeep from. But it also warmed me immensely when I saw him playing with it, and I knew we had done a good thing. We know that it is a blessing to be able to give as well as receive, and we hope that those Angels who helped us this year will feel that same joy that I felt when I was a boy.

Merry Christmas (fisfuss)!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iowa Caucus Excitement

It is getting very close (2 weeks!) to Caucus Night, which in Iowa is bigger than having the Superbowl in every town. The energy in this state is incredible. I know two families who are going to Florida for the holidays "so we can get away from it all." Pansies. Don't they know this may be the last Iowa Caucus of its kind?

First things first....in my last post I referenced fmr. Gov. Huckabee's theology degree. Apparently, he has lied about his resume, and he never earned a degree in theology. In fact, he won't even give a straight answer about what his major was in college. What is consistent in the stories is that he dropped out of seminary after one year. For the full story, see the full story at mymanmitt.com.

Next item. There is talk now that Huckabee's surge could actually help Romney in the long run. Here's a story on it at Real Clear Politics: link  The article discusses how Huckabee is making Romney look like a more moderate and acceptable candidate, and has given a more favorable context for Romney's Faith in America speech that he gave last week. The author suggests that even if Romney loses Iowa to Huckabee, the rest of the country may give Romney a better chance, given how much voters outside evangelical-heavy Iowa are leery of a candidate who claims his candidacy was annointed by the Almightly.

My wife and I have noticed another positive effect of the Huckaboom. Stiff competition has spurred the Romney campaign to work harder. I see the campaign going into overdrive, knowing that the margin of error in the polls is close enough that we could almost be neck-and-neck with Huckabee. I would rather the Romney campaign be in this posiiton, with a strong surge from an opponent 4 weeks before Caucus Night, and enough time to rally and counter the suge, than to merrily go along with a 10- or 20-point lead for months, and then get blindsided by an opponent's surge in the last week, when voters will be busy celebrating the holidays and not paying as much attention.

On last issue, which I only heard about yesterday, and really surprised me. I was talking with an African-American yesterday, who was telling me how much he liked Obama. This didn't surprise me--by being quiet and keeping his head down, Obama has distinguished himself as the nicer and cleaner candidate while Hillary antagonized voters with her negative message.

(Privately, I have told several people that it they have already maxxed out their legal contributions to Romney, they should consider donating to Obama. It's not that he would be easier to beat than Hillary--her negatives are so high that I believe she is the most vulnerable of the Democratic candidates. No, the reason I endorse Obama is that he doesn't have a mafia-like political machine working for him that intimidates and threatens enemies, pulls up dirty stories, and uses underhanded means to manipulate the political system. At least in a campaign against Obama, we would know what we were up against. It would be a clean fight, and the best man would win. In a matchup against Hillary, you would never know what dirty trick might be pulled or when--the only real sure bet would be that the October Surprise would be a doozie.)

Back to what surprised me. This friend of mine told me that I shouldn't vote for Hillary because he heard that "Hillary would bring back slavery." No, I didn't make that up. I tried to tell him that wasn't possible, because her husband was the first black president, but he didn't get the joke even when I tried to explain it (anyone who has listened to Rush Limbaugh will understand--some liberal reporter last decade praised Slick Willy for being so favorable to blacks, and so in tune with blacks, that the reporter was sure Bill in his heart was black. Couple that with the comment made by a reporter last week that Bill "has been with more black women than Obama," as if this were a resume enhancer to appeal to black voters, and you get an ongoing joke about Bill Clinton's African-American credentials. But all that was apparently over my friend's head. So I instead told him how absurd the fear of Hillary bringing back slavery was by saying that nobody, not even the Republicans (haha) would bring back slavery, because if anybody tried, they would be assassinated.

I'm pretty sure this kind of rhetoric isn't coming from the Obama campaign, but it gives a glimpse into what kind of informal campaigning might be going on out there. My friend also told me that he had been called the "N-word" this last week, and he told me that the previous week too. I know a lot of people on my side of the political spectrum like to think that racism is pretty much tamed in America, but it seems to still have plenty of life in southeastern Iowa. Between the religious bigotry we're seeing in this campaign and the racial bigotry I keep hearing about, I don't think we've come as far socially since the '60's as we would have hoped.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?

This question was raised this week in the campaign for president by fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee. The question sparked some discussion at the civfanatics forums, where there is a thread called "Ask a Mormon, Part 3." Here is the url: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=224203&page=18 I responded with the following post:

I might muddy the waters too much, but I'll give this question a shot.

 

The basic building blocks of souls is something called "intelligences" in LDS theology. If you've read the Ender's Game series by Orson Scott Card, you will see the same (or a very similar) concept labeled as aiua (read Children of the Mind), a preexisting bit of intelligence that has always been, and will always be.

 

God organized these intelligences into souls, what we call his spirit children. We believe as Paul stated that God is the father of all, including all of the beings that traditional Christian theology refers to as angels and demons.

 

Each of these intelligences had their own traits, quirks, and sensibilities. God did not give them these; he merely organized them to give them the opportunity to progress further to a more advanced state. Some have a greater capacity for learning and expansion, others have a greater tendency toward obedience, trust, and so on. Some are more rebellious, but that is not the fault of the creator.

 

Traditional creation-from-nothing theology puts the blame for all sin eventually on God's shoulders. If He alone created us, including giving us Human Nature, we are victims of our creation if we are sinful, fallen, etc. Traditional theology also posits that God gave us free will, thereby again putting any sin eventually on his shoulders again.

 

Mormon theology holds that intelligences have free will, that it isn't a God-given trait. Although He organized us, he did not did not determine our fundamental properties. Of course, this is high heresy to many Christians--to them, any God who isn't the First Cause of all things could not possibly be the real God.

 

Back to the topic.

 

When God organized our intelligences to become His spirit children, he gave us spirit bodies. Matter has substance, including the finer matter that God used to create the spirit bodies of his children. Once again, God organized this matter rather than creating it from nothing. Housed in spirit bodies, our intelligences could progress much further. We lived with Him and our heavenly Mother for eons, gaining experience and growing in our capacity to learn and become more like our parents.

 

Eventually, we reached a point where we could not progress much further without the experiences gained in a physical body--in mortality. God gathered together his children in a grand council and proposed that He would create an earth for us, and send us down to it to be tested and to gain experience. While on earth we would not be able to recall our earlier existence--we would have a new experience that had never been possible before when we lived with God--the opportunity to exercise faith and be decent, upstanding people without a sure knowledge of where we had come from and where we would be going after this life.

 

God knew that we would make mistakes under these conditions. We would sin. God is perfect and sinless--we would not be able to live with him after death if we had been sinful (nor would we want to live in His presence with our sins). God wanted us to return to Him, and to help us continue to progress after this life. God is merciful and fair--he knew it would be unfair to separate us from Him simply for being vulnerable to the conditions of mortality (sin). He proposed that one of His children would come to earth and live a sinless life and pay the penalty for our sins. Through his innocent sacrifice, we could be forgiven of our sins if we accepted his payment and did our best to follow his teachings.

 

The firstborn of God’s spirit children was also the greatest, and the most like Him. His name was Jehovah, and he stepped forward and offered to fulfill this needed role as Savior. Another of God’s children, one who was also great and eminent among God’s children, named Lucifer (which means “son of the morning”) also stepped forward. He wanted to be the savior, but he wanted to change God’s plan. He proposed that he be able to force all of God’s children to live sinless lives (which would negate free will, and would also negate the need for a savior--it would be like living under a totalitarian state of control beyond our imagination). He said that he would ensure that *all* of God’s children would return to heaven, not just those who “chose” to be obedient and repent.

 

God rejected Lucifer’s plan. He was angry, rebelled against God, and was persuasive enough to get one third of God’s children to rebel with him. Jehovah cast Lucifer and his followers out of heaven. Because of their rebellion, they would not be able to participate in mortality. They would not have physical bodies, and would not be able to progress further. Lucifer became known as Satan or the devil, and he continues to fight against God, trying to lead away as many of God’s children as possible.

 

In Mormon theology, the word “angel” has several meanings. We talk of “Satan and his angels” when we refer to those spirits who were cast out of heaven and are in opposition to God’s plan of progression and happiness for His children. Thus, they are also accurately called “fallen angels.”

 

Also, any of God’s children who are now in heaven but have not yet come to earth are also called angels. Someone asked what we do in heaven while we wait our turn for mortality. The answer is that we are angels, serving God and helping Him in His work.

 

A third definition of angels is children of God who have already completed their mission in mortality. They are continuing their path of progression, and playing a part in furthering God’s work. Gabriel (the angel who visited the virgin Mary and announced that she would be the mother of Jesus) was one of these--we believe that Gabriel was Noah in mortality, and we believe that Michael the archangel was Adam.

 

This week, in response to fmr. Gov. Huckabee raising the question of Jesus and Satan being spirit brothers, the LDS church released a statement that Satan is a fallen angel (which I have explained) and that Jesus is the son of God. As you can see, the brotherhood of Satan and Jesus is not even as close as the brotherhood of you and me. Satan never will be able to have a mortal body, and will never be able to progress further than he already is. Unlike all of us who have two mortal parents, Jesus had a divine father not just spiritually (like us), but also physically. We believe that God is the literal father of Jesus--or in other words, that Jesus is the “only begotten son” of the father in the flesh, to paraphrase the KJV of John 3:16. In this physical sense, none of God’s other children are even close to being equal to Jesus. Because of this divine sonship, Jesus was not subject to death as the rest of us--he had the power to lay down his life and take it up again at will. Only he could break the chains of death and initiate the resurrection.

 

So, are Jesus and Satan brothers? Yes, but the statement is clearly misleading, and has been a favorite talking point of those wishing to smear the LDS faith and its doctrines. As a pastor with a degree in theology, fmr. Gov. Huckabee knew exactly what he was doing when he raised the question. He was the keynote speaker of the Southern Baptist Convention’s (SBC) annual conference in 1998, which it held in Salt Lake City, Utah. Just prior to the convention, the SBC mailed 40,000 copies of an anti-Mormon video titled “The Mormon Puzzle” to its congregations, and another 14,000 copies of an anti-Mormon book. The conference was primarily aimed at converting Mormons to Jesus and convincing them of the error of their ways. The New York Times reporter said that when Huckabee asked the question about Jesus and Satan, he prefaced it by saying, as innocent as can be, that he didn’t know much about the Mormon religion.

 

I think we should expect more honesty than that from our politicians. He knew exactly what game he was playing, and he did not make the statement innocently or ignorantly. We do not need a president who will try to divide us religiously like that, who tries to use religion as a wedge issue.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What do I do with my children for Christmas?

I tie them up and decorate them lol

No, actually I decorate the house with them (not with their bodies, with their help lol). We put up the tree and other decorations. The tree is covered with ornaments that I made as a kid and that they have made while growing up. We make holiday treats to give to other families (today we made chocolate-dipped pretzels, wrapped them in cellophane, and tied bows on the place where the wrapper was gathered together). We ate a lot of them!

We exchange gifts with family. We exchange names, and everyone has someone else to buy for on each side of the family. We usually open gifts from our household (one each) on Christmas Eve, and then the rest and Santa's presents on Christmas morning. On Christmas Eve we also read the Christmas story from Luke 2.

They aren't allowed to go to their presents until *everyone* is up and ready. They wait for me on the stairs and I take a picture of them all. Then I let them go down one by one, youngest to oldest, and find their spot in the living room where Santa left their stuff (and their stocking stuffed with goodies). They each have a stocking with their name on it, that I've decorated in felt with a picture that represents them. My oldest, for example, wanted a princess on a unicorn :)

We eat breakfast, then afterward go around and take turns opening a gift from relatives. I write everything down, and when we're done we call up the relatives and wish them a merry Christmas (and thank them for the gifts). The rest of the day we play with toys and read our new books (everyone always gets a couple of books, and one orange and several handfuls of pistachios and peanuts in their stocking...those are the only gifts that are consistent every year.

Most of these traditions I got from my own family. I love them, and they feel comforting to me, so we continue them :)

What do you do?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Golden Compass and the Sleeping Beauty Syndrome

My brother-in-law Chad, wrote me the following reply to my review of the Golden Compass:

"Hey Scott, I really enjoyed your review.  So what's your take on the "don't support this movie cause it's got anti-christianity undertones in it" movement?...  Maybe I should get a pirated version of the film so that I'm not supporting them?  j/k..."

Here's my reply:

Absolutely, get a pirated version lol. That's an excellent idea. I think that I am a bad person to ask whether or not to see a science fiction or fantasy film though. I'll usually go and see them no matter how awful they are. Films like these, there is a certain segment of the population that will see them no matter what. Kinda like all the Mormons who saw The Home Teachers even though they heard it was awful. :) The main reason why I think the "don't go see it because it is anti-Christian" movement is saying what it's saying is because they know if this one flops, New Line Cinema won't make #2 and #3. It is in book 3 that the children kill God. Unfortunately, I would rather see the movies than read the books, and if they make 2 and 3, I'll probably watch them too.

I think that movies like these are excellent for older children, those who are 13 and older and can think critically about what they are seeing. It is the younger children that I'm worried about--those who will just watch it and absorb the insidious messages. But for older kids, I think it would be excellent to have a discussion first about the author, what his motives are in writing the books, and what kinds of false teachings will be in the films. Then you go and watch the films together with your teenager, and then you have a discussion afterward about the false teachings.

Notice that in the Book of Mormon, the false teachings of Korihor, Nehor, and others are not covered up and hidden. Mormon shared the false teachings with us so that we could understand what was false about them and be able to counter Satan's philosophies. As children are brought up, they also need to have contact with falsehoods, in the proper context, and helped to be prepared to resist and dissect them. That way, when they go to college, they won't be blindsided by the atheist liberal professors who just love to destroy the faith and values of young naive students.

Not preparing your children for wolves like those is a supreme act of neglect. Remember the story of Sleeping Beauty. The king and queen loved their daughter, Briar Rose. They knew that the most dangerous thing in the world for her was the spindle of a spinning wheel. So to make sure she would never touch one, they cut her off from all contact with this danger--thereby ensuring that the first time she ever saw one, she would be curious and would not know that she needed to stay away! They were well-meaning, but totally failed to inoculate her against the greatest danger to her.

I see too many parents that fall into this same "Sleeping Beauty Syndrome," where they try to keep using protectionism beyond the age where it is appropriate. Once a child is old enough to start reasoning for him or herself, parents had better be teaching the child to think about and even confront moral threats rather than just avoid them altogether. Take pornography for example. We can't just eliminate it from our homes. We also need to teach our kids what it is and what is wrong about it. By the time they are teenagers, they need dozens of good reasons for avoiding it, ones that they can explain themselves, or they will fall victim to this modern-day "spindle of a spinning wheel."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My Review of the Golden Compass

I enjoyed the Golden Compass immensely. There was a lot that I loved about it, but I'll just mention the things I didn't like :P

!!!MAJOR SPOILER ALERT!!!

I was appalled at the way the main character lied. In the story it was treated like a virtue--"isn't it wonderful that she's so good at lying!" The author, whose Magisterium represents Christianity/the Church, obviously believes that the Church lies to believers, whom it wants to keep in ignorance. Apparently, the author believes that if your enemy is a liar (or if you think your enemy is a liar) then it is okay to fight it with lies too. The problem with this logic is that sometimes we think the enemy is lying, but it really isn't. It's a flimsy excuse for jettisoning all trust. And this leads to the obvious corollary, that if you believe Christianity is lying, then it is okay to try to destroy it with lies.

Notice also that the lying heroine wouldn't survive without friends that she can trust and rely on. While it's okay for her to lie whenever she wants (there are no rules for her), everyone else is supposed to play by the rules. She gets angry when she finds out that the Magisterium is deceitful. Her mates are supposed to be loyal to her. The gypsy friend of hers in the experimental station tells the nurse that his parents taught him to write *the truth*, and the heroine loves that about him: his honesty. So why is it that everyone else has to keep their word and live by this code of civilization, and not her?

The second most annoying thing about this fantasy world was the way adults use guns. The plot completely depended on the fiction that a well-trained soldier with a rifle in his hands will not use it if you yell out him menacingly. Come on!

There is a scene where Lord Whoever is attacked by guns, but nobody ever fires at him. Two scenes where an ice bear is ringed by soldiers with guns, and nobody ever thinks to fire at him until the good guys are ready to stop them. Another scene where the caravan is attacked by men with guns, and the most obvious target--the big ice bear--never gets shot at. If the author is going to make guns so useless in the story, he would have been better off just leaving them out and sticking with swords and spears. It would have made a lot more sense.

There are several other logic problems that jar the viewer who is trying to be immersed in a story. Take the time when the heroine wakes up in the bad lady's bed after being put in a terrible machine, and the bad lady asks her for the Golden Compass. If the bad lady was able to pick her up and put her in bed while the heroine was unconscious, wouldn't you think that she would be able to search her for the Golden Compass?

Or how about the fact that on the ship, she stood next to the rail of the ship, with the Golden Compass (the last one in existence) resting easily on the rail of a rocking ship on the high seas? Are there no adults nearby to tell her that metal objects that fall into the ocean are not retrievable?

Or try the complete disconnect from reality in the areas of food, weather, and cold. There are people traveling to the Arctic Circle in this film. Most of them (especially the guy in the cowboy hat, who flies in the air *where it is colder* have completely inadequate gear for an arctic expedition. We are supposed to believe that these things are irrelevant? We are supposed to believe that Lord Whomever would go on an Arctic expedition with only a backpack? (Come to think of it, it was never explained how he got to the warm place he was pictured in later, after being captured by bad guys).

My last major quibble with the story was the one that bothered me the most, and it had to do with war and death. We live in an insulated, sterilized world, so most of us have no idea what it is like to witness a death. So I will have to ask you to trust me on this one, unless you have experienced that trauma personally. Seeing someone killed violently is traumatic. It is horrible. It shakes you, and the first time it happens to you, especially if you are unprepared (for example, a young and innocent child), you will be stunned, dazed, and possibly paralyzed afterward.

In the climactic scene of the film, the children take part in a major battle. People die all around them. They are all in constant danger of being killed (as you can guess, they also stare down trained soldiers with guns, and yell at them so that the soldiers don't fire at them until it is too late for the soldiers to win). They watch people die right next to them. People the heroine traveled with for a long journey die in the battle. And when it is over, she looks up with a carefree grin on her face and greets a friend (!). I won't bother describing further how utterly false that scene is. If you want your viewer to care about the story, you have to include elements of believability. I don't mean you can't have fantasy. Fantasy is actually one of the most powerful media for conveying deep truths. Rather, I mean that if the motives and actions of the characters don't have a basis in real world, no one will care about what they do. And just like that child who didn't care a whiff about all the death she had just witnessed, neither will we, *because it won't MEAN anything*.

The film was beautiful. There was so much about it that I wanted to love. I think the only character I genuinely cared for (who had believable motives) was Urich the Ice Bear (I think that's his name). At least he had a story behind him that was given enough development that we could see why he struggled. We were permitted to see enough nobility in him give us that hope that he would succeed in his struggle. And so perhaps it is appropriate that the best promo shots of the film include the ice bear, because he is the only real character in the film.

Contrast that, for example, with the "rousing" speech of the gypsy king, who the seraphim witch-woman supposedly loved when he was younger. He swings his hammer down on the table and bellows his defiance about how they'll make the Magisterium pay if they have hurt any of their children. But it doesn't mean anything to us, because we've never been allowed to see into the heart of this big important man.

This film illustrated wonderfully why its author completely fails to understand what worked about Lord of the Rings or The Chronicles of Narnia. I'll give a hint: it wasn't just the Christian undertones, which apparently this author has a deep hatred of, supposedly by his own admission. (And anyone who takes two minutes to look at his charicatures of the Magisterium quickly sees that he believes Christian prelates are evil, and that they are self-deluded into thinking that they are good only because they think that what they do will keep people "safe"). No, the thing that worked about those other two classic works are the way they make you care about the characters. I cannot read the Scouring of the Shire and not weep. I cannot read the passage where the Beavers tell the Pevensy children about Aslan in their little hut without shuddering with a little (or big) sob. Because J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis understood how to make characters so believable and so noble, that you ache inside at their goodness.

And that is something that the author of the Golden Compass, apparently, will never understand.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Huckabee the Tool

I’m surprised that Huckabee supporters are not paying more attention. If their guy were truly pro-life, wouldn’t he be attacking the only outspoken pro-choice Republican candidate? The apparent ceasefire between the Guilliani and Huckabee campaigns doesn’t pass the smell test. If he were being honest with us about his intentions, there would be more fire leveled at the mayor of New York. Either he is running for vice president and hoping that by playing nice, Rudy will hand him the VP nomination, or he has decided that political expediency (i.e., not getting hammered yet by Guilliani) is more important than principle (which he supposedly stands for), and believes he can actually survive when the primaries start. Anyone who has looked at his lack of organization and lack of fundraising know that the latter would only be wishful thinking.
 
Unfortunately, it appears that Huckabee has become a willing tool of the Guilliani campaign. Both know that Huckabee is the mayor of New York’s best hope for removing Romney from his threatening stance in Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida, and for taking steam out of the Thompson campaign before it becomes too strong. But Huckabee will find all too quickly after Jan. 3 that his usefulness to the Mayor is as thin as Mike’s foreign policy credentials.
 
Social conservatives who are currently enthralled with the governor of Arkansas need to look at the primary numbers. Huckabee is nowhere near taking the lead away from the top candidates in any race except Iowa. The only impact he can have on the election is to ensure that Romney or Thompson isn’t able to stop Guilliani. In other words, a vote for Huckabee on Jan. 3 is actually a vote for Guilliani. Social conservatives, think about that for a couple of minutes, and consider how you are being used. Consider who you will be helping, and examine how well it lines up with your belief system.
 
Have you stopped to consider why the mainstream media is so excited about Huckabee at the moment? They love to build people up only to tear them down later. They have no love for religious conservatives—so why all the positive attention right now? They don’t give a hill of beans about electing a conservative, but they can see how Huckabee is currently benefiting Guilliani. Wouldn’t they just love it if we had a choice between two pro-choice candidates next Fall, the pro-life movement put forth a third party candidate, and the split Republican vote handed Senator Clinton the presidency on a platter? A choice between Guilliani and Clinton would be a non-choice, and nothing is bringing us closer to that scenario than Huckabee’s surge in Iowa.

If Rudy goes against
Clinton even without a third party conservative in the mix, he will lose. Some social conservatives will probably defect Clinton’s way, as disgusted they are with his character and moral background (at least she has never been divorced). Huckabee won't survive past South Carolina. He is being used as a tool of the religious-despising left. If we put him up front on Jan. 3, we will kill our chances in November.  We can say goodbye to forcefully waging the war on terror, to resolving the social security crisis, to resolving the immigration fiasco, to strengthening the dollar, to making tax cuts permanent, and to appointing supreme court justices who follow the constitution. We will have at least four more years of the Clintons. May God help us.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »