Back when I was in Payson High School, roaming those halls and generally raising hell, my partner in crime Jayden Worwood and I wrote satirical columns each month for the student newspaper. We were the driving genius behind the paper, and through our efforts, the paper won awards for best design and content two years in a row at the UVU Journalism Conference.
Anyways, I was perusing these old columns and couldn't help but share snippets (and a few entire ones) online. Absolute gold is contained in these musings on life, love, and everything else. If you don't heartily laugh at least once while reading these, something is wrong and you should probably consult your doctor. Without further ado, I present to you, the high school musings of my twisted and over-caffeinated mind.
Appearing in the October 2011 edition of The Lion's Roar, Jayden and I mused on the fact that you need to earn your Halloween candy.
"In this day and age, the general multitude of society believes that candy should be granted to them upon simple, arbitrary guidelines, such as dressing like a fool, on the day known as Halloween. These mundane beliefs, while wildly profitable, are deplorable excuses for receiving candy. My esteemed colleague and I firmly decree that the acquisition of such delightsome sweets should be based upon the quality and effort one puts into their Halloween character. For example, if one is to pose as Darth Vader while wishing to be granted candy, that person must personify the traits of Darth Vader. They must be in full authentic garb, looking as if they have stepped off the silver screen into real life. The actual mannerisms and idiosyncrasies of Darth Vader must be perfectly portrayed and leave no doubt as to the sincerity and passion the trick or treater holds for the character. Only when this level on genuineness is achieved should candy be given to a humble and gracious individual.
"On that same note, the candy given should be comparable to the effort given by the trick or treater. If a feeble portrayal is given, then the reward should be a firm, emphatic "BOO!" Candy is not something to be bandied about like superior test scores amongst peers, unless the candy has been hard-earned.
"For too long has the majority of the trick or treating world labored under the false assumption that mediocre costumes and Halloween spirit is all that's required for candy to be gained. Now is the time to lead a revolution in the Halloween world and ensure that a higher degree of festive spirit is embodied amongst trick or treaters. No longer should our souls stand witness to the generic and rehashed hoopla that has become the modern Halloween season.
"Ensuring the high quality of Halloween spirit rests upon your shoulders. One or two men alone cannot make a difference in changing the ingrained template of classic trick or treating. We must yoke ourselves to the wagon of true Halloween spirit and pioneer new territory in the land of celebration. The bar has been raised - see to it that our grand expectations are met."
Wow. It sounds as if Jayden and I had quite the axe to grind....or maybe, we were just looking for a good topic to shoot the bull on. I think it was the latter.
February is always a tough month for me. I've never had a girlfriend during the month, so Valentine's Day has always been spent chilling on my couch without pants, as I am wont to do when I have free time. Well, my angst towards Valentine's Day shows up greatly in this first of two angst-filled rants. The other one will be posted later.
Love, Lust, and Lies - By Jayden Worwood and Spencer Durrant
"Love is like a ferocious beast, a lordly lion that cannot be tamed. Love is a wandering road that meanders through the fields of life, taking prisoners and killing the hopes of people everywhere without the slightest regard for human happiness. Even though love can be a tumultuous sea of uncharted emotions, it can lead to you paradise. Let this be your roadmap to success on the highway of love.
[Large rant on the unfairness of the friendzone summarized/99% of it redacted]
"The road to a successful relationship is not without its dead ends. The most infamous and complex of these abrupt halts in your progress is none other than the dreaded friend zone.
"The worst hazard is when you lay your eyes on a fair maiden, and finally decide to approach and seduce here, only to find that another knight in shining armor is already approaching on his noble steed. Then starts the greatest race; whose steed is fastest and whose sword is sharpest.
"Unfortunately, genetics plays a large part in the amount of victories a knight can have. Unless you are saddled with an embarrassing amount of money and a good doctor, there is now way to fix this problem. You will have to rely on other aspects of your personality to attract that maiden.
"If you have successfully avoided the obstacles, now you have to find the right path to travel on. This is not an easy act; reading the signs a girl leaves for you is nearly impossible. It takes a cunning and guile that few men possess. Most men don't notice the sings and proceed along undeterred in their dogged determination to find love and happiness only to run into woe and misery.
"Girls have developed a method to leave signs for men that cannot be deciphered. Girls will do something which in their mind, is an obvious statement of attraction toward the given male. However, the male will not be able to interpret the sign, and may even take offense. Assume anything displaced from the usual mannerisms of the girl is a sign that she may like you. Remember, with girls, nothing is 100% sure. The best way to read a sign is to find a woman to read it for you.
"The road of love is a hard one, and we may find our good names besmirched along the way, due to embarrassing moments. However, the end of the road is rich and rewarding. Love is worth it, dear friends. Persevere to the end. The bar has been raised - see to it that our grand expectations are met. "
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Supporting The Doctrine But Not The Church - Is It Possible?
Something's been on my mind quite a lot recently, and I thought that now would be a good time to share it. With all the fanfare that gay marriage has caused in headlines in recent weeks, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has gotten itself roped into the debate, as was inevitable. For an institution set so strongly against gay marriage, this firestorm of media attention and criticism was seen coming a long ways off.
The same thing happened to the Catholic church when contraception was included in healthcare coverage, and Catholic institutions didn't want to foot the bill for something that they viewed as morally wrong. The great thing about America is the ability to exercise religious freedom.
Now, I don't want to get into the debate of whether or not the LDS church, or any other church opposing homosexual marriages, is being discriminatory. That's a whole can of worms I don't feel like discussing today.
What I want to discuss is the conundrum that's arisen, especially in ultra-conservative Utah, among the Mormons who currently find themselves at odds with the church's stance on gay marriage.
Quite a few members of the LDS faith have now decided that they support homosexual people having the right to marry. According to an article by Neil J. Young for slate.com, a poll conducted by BYU in 2012 found that only 29 percent of Utah residents oppose gays having the right to get married, down from 54 percent in 2004.
With Utah being the home of the LDS church, and the state's population dominantly Mormon, this is an interesting revelation, if you'll pardon the use of that word. The vast majority of church members seem to go against the repeated urges and wishes of LDS hierarchy. This brings us to the main point of this post - is it possible to support the doctrine of the LDS church, but not the church itself?
In his article, Young proposes that the Mormon church is facing another crisis like the one in the 1970s, when supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment directly opposed the statements of then-president of the church Spencer W. Kimball. Church members who supported the ERA were dealt with in a severe manner because they opposed Kimball's prophetic role, says Young.
Which brings us to the real meat of this matter - does supporting the right for gays to marry mean that you, as a member of the LDS faith, don't support the president of the church, who is believed by Mormons to be a prophet like Moses on the Earth today? The president of the church will always reiterate what is set in stone as doctrine for the church. Current doctrine states that acting on homosexual feelings is a sin, which means that church members who support the rights of gays are at odds with what is purported by the church. Having homosexual feelings isn't a sin in and of itself, but performing homosexual acts is considered sinful by the church.
But there's a subtle difference here a lot of people are missing - supporting the rights of gays to get married doesn't mean that a person supports homosexuality. Rather, it means those who vote for gay rights believe that people should have the agency (a key component of Mormon doctrine) to make choices for themselves, without being restricted by laws that can be seen as oppressive.
In this sense, the Mormon church is almost contradicting itself. Yes, they believe the family to be the central unit of society, and Mormons adhere to the belief that true salvation can only come after a man and woman are sealed to each other for eternity in a temple. Obviously, this fundamental doctrine prohibits homosexuals from achieving the church's view of what true salvation is. But on the other hand of this argument lies something quite a few people don't consider when they form an opinion on gay marriage.
Jesus taught to love everyone, even as He loved us. He spent his time ministering not to the rich and the powerful, but to the lepers, the poor and meek and lowly of heart. Christ taught a gospel of love and He showed the ultimate sacrifice of love by dying on the cross for the sins of all mankind.
Loving someone is possible without loving the sins that they commit. We all sin, but we still find ways to love those closest to our hearts. My belief in God tells me that He loves us all, regardless of the many things we do wrong on a daily basis.
So does this attitude of love mean that people, specifically LDS members, have to support things that they might not necessarily agree with? Gay marriage will always be a controversial issue, but should those church members who support the rights of gays to marry feel as if they're going against what their prophet is saying?
My answer to that is no. The LDS church is an organization ran by men. Men are imperfect and prone to make mistakes. Therefore, contradictory to a largely held belief in Utah, the church is not a perfect institution. It's entirely possible that the church has, and will continue to make mistakes. The recent essay about giving blacks the priesthood is a perfect illustration of this.
For this reason alone, it's entirely possible to support the doctrine of the church, a doctrine of love and understanding, and not support the church as an organization in regards to moral matters that somehow find their way into the political arena.
Realizing that there's a distinction between the LDS church and the LDS gospel is imperative. The church is not the gospel, and the gospel is not the church. The church exists in order to help the gospel achieve it's goal of bringing all men unto salvation. The two are completely separate entities that have become synonymous in the minds of far too many LDS members.
Supporting the doctrine separately from the public stance of the church doesn't make you less of a member - it just means that you're standing up for what you believe in.
The same thing happened to the Catholic church when contraception was included in healthcare coverage, and Catholic institutions didn't want to foot the bill for something that they viewed as morally wrong. The great thing about America is the ability to exercise religious freedom.
Now, I don't want to get into the debate of whether or not the LDS church, or any other church opposing homosexual marriages, is being discriminatory. That's a whole can of worms I don't feel like discussing today.
What I want to discuss is the conundrum that's arisen, especially in ultra-conservative Utah, among the Mormons who currently find themselves at odds with the church's stance on gay marriage.
Quite a few members of the LDS faith have now decided that they support homosexual people having the right to marry. According to an article by Neil J. Young for slate.com, a poll conducted by BYU in 2012 found that only 29 percent of Utah residents oppose gays having the right to get married, down from 54 percent in 2004.
With Utah being the home of the LDS church, and the state's population dominantly Mormon, this is an interesting revelation, if you'll pardon the use of that word. The vast majority of church members seem to go against the repeated urges and wishes of LDS hierarchy. This brings us to the main point of this post - is it possible to support the doctrine of the LDS church, but not the church itself?
In his article, Young proposes that the Mormon church is facing another crisis like the one in the 1970s, when supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment directly opposed the statements of then-president of the church Spencer W. Kimball. Church members who supported the ERA were dealt with in a severe manner because they opposed Kimball's prophetic role, says Young.
Which brings us to the real meat of this matter - does supporting the right for gays to marry mean that you, as a member of the LDS faith, don't support the president of the church, who is believed by Mormons to be a prophet like Moses on the Earth today? The president of the church will always reiterate what is set in stone as doctrine for the church. Current doctrine states that acting on homosexual feelings is a sin, which means that church members who support the rights of gays are at odds with what is purported by the church. Having homosexual feelings isn't a sin in and of itself, but performing homosexual acts is considered sinful by the church.
But there's a subtle difference here a lot of people are missing - supporting the rights of gays to get married doesn't mean that a person supports homosexuality. Rather, it means those who vote for gay rights believe that people should have the agency (a key component of Mormon doctrine) to make choices for themselves, without being restricted by laws that can be seen as oppressive.
In this sense, the Mormon church is almost contradicting itself. Yes, they believe the family to be the central unit of society, and Mormons adhere to the belief that true salvation can only come after a man and woman are sealed to each other for eternity in a temple. Obviously, this fundamental doctrine prohibits homosexuals from achieving the church's view of what true salvation is. But on the other hand of this argument lies something quite a few people don't consider when they form an opinion on gay marriage.
Jesus taught to love everyone, even as He loved us. He spent his time ministering not to the rich and the powerful, but to the lepers, the poor and meek and lowly of heart. Christ taught a gospel of love and He showed the ultimate sacrifice of love by dying on the cross for the sins of all mankind.
Loving someone is possible without loving the sins that they commit. We all sin, but we still find ways to love those closest to our hearts. My belief in God tells me that He loves us all, regardless of the many things we do wrong on a daily basis.
So does this attitude of love mean that people, specifically LDS members, have to support things that they might not necessarily agree with? Gay marriage will always be a controversial issue, but should those church members who support the rights of gays to marry feel as if they're going against what their prophet is saying?
My answer to that is no. The LDS church is an organization ran by men. Men are imperfect and prone to make mistakes. Therefore, contradictory to a largely held belief in Utah, the church is not a perfect institution. It's entirely possible that the church has, and will continue to make mistakes. The recent essay about giving blacks the priesthood is a perfect illustration of this.
For this reason alone, it's entirely possible to support the doctrine of the church, a doctrine of love and understanding, and not support the church as an organization in regards to moral matters that somehow find their way into the political arena.
Realizing that there's a distinction between the LDS church and the LDS gospel is imperative. The church is not the gospel, and the gospel is not the church. The church exists in order to help the gospel achieve it's goal of bringing all men unto salvation. The two are completely separate entities that have become synonymous in the minds of far too many LDS members.
Supporting the doctrine separately from the public stance of the church doesn't make you less of a member - it just means that you're standing up for what you believe in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)