Musings from the Book of Revelation

So I just finished a New Testament class, and we got a great article given to us to help us understand the book of Revelation.  I've been very interested in the book and would love to understand it better.  In particular, there is a beast mentioned in one of the chapters that has a bunch of heads, and is really terrible.  The beast, representing an anti-christ, is "wounded unto death", but then returns later on, having recovered from his mortal wound.  Here's an artist's rendition of the beast:

Religious scholars have discussed and wondered aloud concerning the identity of this beast for longer than any of us need to know.  While some people think that our current president is this beast, other propositions are more credible, and therefore intriguing.  I've heard it suggested that the beast is communism—seemingly wounded to death at the end of the Cold War, but apparently will be revived.  I don't know how that will happen or if it will happen, but after reading the article we received in class, I got some additional insights into this possibility.

Roman Emperor Nero (ruled from A.D. 54-68) began the first persecutions against Christians, and they were horrible.  Nero was paranoid, murderous, capricious, and utterly selfish.  Christians feared Nero and the persecutions and killings he had sanctioned.  When Nero committed suicide, many Christians felt they could breathe a sigh of relief.  However, many feared that Nero, or a personality like Nero, would rise in the future, and would commit again all the same atrocities Nero had, or worse.

Domitian (Nero Redivivus), "Nero Revived"

Unfortunately for the Christians, such an emperor did arise—Domitian ruled from A.D. 81-96, which was about the time the Apostle John received and wrote down his Revelation.  Domitian was worse than Nero, bringing back all the old persecutions, and instituting a form of Emperor worship.  He too was cruel, murderous, and believed he was divine.  Anyone found resisting the state religion of emperor-worship would be accused of treason and blasphemy, and put to death.  Clearly, Nero and Domitian fit the description of the beast who was, then died, then came back again.

But we have a modern parallel to these Roman emperors, although I hope not too close a parallel, in North Korea.  Kim Jong-il is the ruler there, and he is often referred to as "Our Glorious Leader"  or the "Supreme Leader".  He apparently is eccentric, conspiring, and demanding of his people.  There are claims of human rights abuses and all kinds of economic and social deprivation occurring regularly throughout the country.  Instead of emperor worship, we have a personality cult around Jong-il, with his birthday being the biggest holiday in North Korea.

Now even though North Korea would be a great candidate for an explanation of the beast from Revelation, I'm not saying that Kim Jong-il is the anti-christ.  I don't know nearly enough about anything, I haven't studied the books, learned the history, or received any revelations.  We know that there's not necessarily any one personification of the anti-christ—there can be many groups, organizations, or people that all fall into that category.  All I want to do with this post is point out the similarities between the ancient Roman Empire and modern-day North Korea, and explain what I learned from reading that cool article.

Threescore and Nine Years Ago...

...the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.  December 7th, 1941, marked a turning point in America's involvement in World War II, and America's involvement in World affairs in general.  Over two thousand sailors and soldiers lost their lives that day.  The survivors continue to visit a monument erected over the wreckage of the USS Arizona every year to remember the event.  My dad's dad, my Grandpa, would have visited this year, perhaps, but he passed away in September.

Robert Hugh Matthews, 1920-2010, was in the United States Marine Corps, and was at Pearl Harbor when it was attacked.  The Marines he was with were assigned to the base on Pearl Harbor, and in some cases stayed on board the ships docked there.  Grandpa recounted the story to me once.  He was sitting on his bed, not yet dressed for the day, reading a copy of Life Magazine, when he heard an explosion.  He looked out the window of his quarters and saw the flames billowing up from the USS Arizona.  It had been hit with a bomb in the exact spot where it stored it's artillery.  The explosion was so devastating to the ship that it sunk in the harbor.

My Grandpa was on-board the USS Pennsylvania (the flagship of the fleet), which was in 'dry-dock' for repairs.  That means that it was not in it's usual 'parking spot' on the island, but was on the other side completely.  Naturally, after the Arizona blew, everything turned to chaos.  Soldiers didn't have time to get fully dressed before getting to stations and mounting some kind of defense.  My Grandpa mounted an anti-aircraft gun and tried his best to shoot down the Japanese planes as the flew over, completing almost three separate attack waves.

Grandpa later learned that the ship that was 'parked' where the Pennsylvania usually parks had sustained massive damage and was bombed heavily.  Obviously the Japanese had hoped to take out the Admiral (housed on the Pennsylvania) by sinking the flagship, but were disappointed.  I'm very grateful that my Grandpa lived through that attack, and the rest of America's involvement in World War II.

Thoughts from American Heritage: Superman as the American Hero

Where do we go from here?

A new Superman movie is currently in the works.  With creative oversight and an initial screenplay provided by Christopher Nolan (of "The Dark Knight" and "Inception" fame), Warner Bros. hopes to make this go-round better than 2006's "Superman Returns".  Nolan was chosen to 'godfather' the project after his considerable success at bringing Batman to life.  So how does one make Superman—colorful, underwear and all—relevant today, and find a place for him on the stage of the world today?  Perhaps one way to look at Superman is as the uniquely American hero he is.  He bears many similarities to America itself historically.

Superman was created by two young boys, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, both children of Jewish immigrants to America.  Interestingly, Superman's life history contains Jewish and American-immigrant themes.  He was sent away from his home, where he would've faced certain doom, like Moses in the Bible.  He comes to a new world, and struggles to fit in as a foreigner, like the immigrant parents of his creators.  He debuted in comics during the Great Depression, where he originally fought against greedy crime bosses, for social justice.  Specifically, his purpose is to fight for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way".

Superman seems discontent with staying at home and simply being a good citizen himself—he wants to help others, and stop crime and corruption.  He leaves his normal circle of influence to help people everywhere.  He generally has virtuous motives for doing so—that is, he "only uses his powers for good."  In comparison, Superman does domestically what America does internationally.

The Quintessential Superman.

George Washington believed strongly that America should avoid becoming 'entangled' in foreign affairs.  His isolationist policy lasted for over a century.  But eventually the threats overseas, and the attack on the U.S. at Pearl Harbor brought America into an active leadership role on the worldwide stage.  Today, the standard procedure in foreign policy is to unseat the reigning government, establish peace, and draft a constitution for the country intended to guarantee a democracy there ever after.

Much has been said about America's motives in maintaining such an 'aggressive' foreign policy.  Objectively, if not optimistically, I believe that America has gone into battle in the world over time for both self-interested and virtuous reasons.  But regardless of the debate and strife over America's motives, clearly Superman is the quintessential American Hero.  His story and history reflects America's so closely, that, given the current situation in the world today, it would be unwise to overlook this obvious connection and these essential similarities, as another generation creates yet another incarnation of the Man of Steel.

Articles of Faith—I Never Knew You

I served my mission in Florida, and I met all kinds of Christians—Evangelical, Charismatic, Non-denominational, etc.  In my last area there was a big revival meeting happening every night, where the crowds became so huge they had to move out to the airport to have enough ground to meet on.  There were claims of medically-verified miracles, divine healings, and even a resurrection from the dead!  It was crazy, but I loved it.  And even though I met some weird Christians on my mission, I met many who were thoughtful, well-educated, and willing to listen and discuss.

One of the big issues Christians throw at Mormon missionaries is the question of how we are saved.  It's a fairly loaded question, because one's answer to the question encompasses one's belief about the nature of the Godhead, the Fall, the place of ordinances and good deeds, the need (or not) for authority, and a slew of other issues which can be—and have been—debated for centuries!

I worked with a recent convert in one area as he struggled to understand and accept our beliefs and doctrines, as opposed to his upbringing and training in a regular Christian faith.  Over time we've had to sort some things out, and see where we actually agree in many cases and disagree in others.  I was learning about so many of these issues and questions that we don't hear much about in church, and so it was helpful for the convert and fascinating for me to explain what we believe, and see it all laid out.


My learning has continued since coming home, and studying here at BYU.  After reading papers and articles and writing one of my own, I'm finally beginning to see a more complete picture of how and where we differ from regular Christians.


You wouldn't believe it if you looked up on Wikipedia all the different issues and debates and philosophies about how salvation occurs.  While they don't go into near as much depth, providing counter-arguments and rebuttals, the Articles of Faith actually state very clearly where we stand on these soteriological (salvation-related) issues.

For those somewhat familiar with such lingo, I'll illustrate.  The second article describes in a nutshell what we believe about the Fall—and by implication, comments on original sin, total depravity, predestination and accountability.  The third article explains tersely what we believe as it relates to the necessity of ordinances, the place of grace, and the question of universalism.  The fifth article states briefly that we believe callings and revelations from God are given by those with authority, contrary to the notions of a "priesthood of all believers", or "sola scriptura".


If you had never heard of some of those terms before, or never knew there was a debate about some of those things, you were just like I was before my mission.  It's funny to realize, but I had the Articles of Faith memorized when I left for my mission, I just didn't know how helpful they could be.


Suffice it to say that I have newfound appreciation for the Articles of Faith—for succinctly stating what we believe, running counter to the religious trends of Joseph Smith's day, and for being the true word of God through His prophet.

Thoughts from American Heritage: The Problem of Evil in Government

Once upon a time there were two little boys, fighting over who would get the last piece of cake.  Their Mom hears the arguing and comes in to try and solve the problem.  Instead of cutting the cake herself, she wants her kids to learn to govern themselves and get along.  So how could she solve this problem?  How could she empower the boys to solve it amongst themselves, and ensure that the result is equitable for both boys?

This is the problem we face in government.  How do we control the often conflicting self-interest we all have, and channel our energies into working towards a common good "with Liberty and Justice for all"?

Plato (left) and Aristotle (right).

Plato and Aristotle had differing approaches to solving this problem.  Plato's thinking was that if the citizens of a democracy individually strived for virtue and excellence, they would naturally be good citizens, and willing to abide by law.  They would not do anything selfish to endanger the larger public, Plato proposed.  His plan for self-governance was based largely on the inherent virtue of the citizens themselves.

In other words, Plato's solution to the cake problem would be to trust that the little boys would be fair and divide the piece of cake evenly between themselves.  Now I don't have any kids, but I have a suspicion that such an approach probably would end with one of the boys crying.

Aristotle, Plato's pupil, favored a different approach.  He believed that government could be structured, with 'checks and balances' as we now call them, to make cooperation and equitable outcomes in everyone's self-interest.  He might solve the solution by giving one boy the knife to cut the piece with, but letting the other boy be the first to choose which half he wants.  Such an arrangement makes it in the first boy's self-interest to cut the cake as evenly as possible, because he doesn't want to shortchange himself.

On the other hand, the arguing boys would've been given a knife.

To say that all issues in government are as quaint as dividing a piece of cake would be utterly simplistic of me, and untrue.  But the challenge is real in many cases: how do we keep self-interest out and ensure justice and equity among ourselves?

I believe that successful self-government—of cities, nations, and the world—depends more on people's virtue than on whatever checks or balances we can devise and put into place.  We've all seen how corruption and inequity can still result in a system with checks and balances a plenty.  They are important, to be sure, but we've seen throughout history that negative human nature can work it's way into any system of government.  A good illustration of this can be seen in comparing the Law of Moses and the Law of the Gospel, or the higher law, as it taught in the Sermon on the Mount.

In consequence of their disobedience, the original children of Israel, after being delivered from Egypt, were given what we call the Law of Moses—a very structured, intricate set of laws and ordinances to keep them spiritually and temporally on track.  On nearly every subject imaginable, laws were given or added later on by rabbis.  The Jews continued to practice and expand upon that law until the time Christ came, by which time corruption, greed, and other negative aspects of human nature had worked their way into a divinely given system of law.

Jesus' Sermon on the Mount proclaimed a higher, more virtuous life.  Conspicuously, He did not set forth a new systematized legislation, give detailed new laws, or teach how best to fulfill the old laws that were given.  He merely encouraged His followers to lead virtuous lives, care for one another, and be their best selves.  It seems to me that his emphasis on virtue, rather than structure or laws, indicates that the first and most important challenge in government, was and is to be virtuous above all else.

Systems of government vary across the world, each with their own unique challenges and benefits.  No matter what system or method of government is in place, corruption and human nature can always make inroads unless pre-emptively dethroned in each individual, which comes through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and by practicing virtue in our own lives.

Thinking Like a Kid Again

This past weekend I had two opportunities to revisit the pre-adolescent brain—I watched "A Christmas Story" and spent time on Sunday evening playing with a baby who's less than a year old.


Playing with the baby was mentally exhausting.  I'm used to figuring people out, -ish, and understanding basic reasons why people do what they do.  I'm a psychology major!  But trying to read this kid's mind was impossible.  It was the most random amalgamation of actions and screeches and squeals and clicking sounds that I'd ever encountered.  There was no deciphering it.  I got hopeful when he would look directly at the toy I was offering him, seeing perhaps some gears turning in his head, but then he would start shaking his whole body up and down and kicking his legs out like he was doing the butterfly-stroke.  All this while laying on his back, wrapped in blankets with a pacifier in his mouth.


It was much easier to understand the kids in A Christmas Story, because there was clever and adult-friendly narration to explain everything in a simple, humorous way.  For those of you who haven't seen it, A Christmas Story came out in the early 80's, and is a hilarious story seen through the eyes of a kid (and narrated by him as in a grown up voice) trying to get what he wants for Christmas, as well as survive the local bullies and observe domestic affairs at home.  It is hilarious.  Maybe you know the part where he climbs up the slide to tell the mall-Santa what he wants, is rejected, and literally booted back down the slide.

Ralphie just wanted a BB gun for Christmas.

Here are some of my favorite quotes from the movie, which really help to show how this kid, and all of us, thought when we were young:

Flick: Are you kidding? Stick my tongue to that stupid pole? That's dumb!

Schwartz: That's 'cause you know it'll stick!

Flick: You're full of it!

Schwartz: Oh yeah?

Flick: Yeah!

Schwartz: Well I double-DOG-dare ya!

Ralphie as Adult: [narrating] NOW it was serious. A double-dog-dare. What else was there but a triple-dare-you, and finally, the coup de grace of all dares, the sinister triple-dog-dare.

Schwartz: I TRIPLE-dog-dare ya!

Ralphie as Adult: [narrating] Schwartz created a slight breach of etiquette by skipping the triple-dare-you and going right for the throat!

(After the kid does it and has to be rescued by the fire department, the teacher tries to guilt-trip whoever was responsible.)

Miss Shields: "Now I know that some of you put Flick up to this, but he has refused to say who. But those who did it know their blame, and I'm sure that the guilt you must feel would be far worse than any punishment you might receive. Now, don't you feel terrible? Don't you feel remorse for what you have done? Well, that's all I'm going to say about poor Flick." Ralphie as Adult: [narrating] "Adults loved to say things like that but kids knew better. We knew darn well it was always better not to get caught."

My Canadian and American Heritage

Let me begin by saying that I have been taking American Heritage this semester, and I love it.  Growing up in Canada, I didn't really know all the history of America—I knew about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and other isolated details from American history that are widely known, but I didn't know the history very well.
I have thoroughly enjoyed learning the history of American government and economics, and seeing how they continually interact and change today.  It's probably been the most interesting and satisfying non-religious class I've taken so far.  And as with any good class, the material sticks inside the mind, causing further reflection outside of class.  I've had many thoughts and ideas rumbling around over the semester as I've taken that class, so they will now come out at the end of the semester in the form of blog entries for my English class!  Those entries will be called something like, "Thoughts from American Heritage" or something clever like that.

*          *          *

One of the assignments we had in our American Heritage class was to do an "Interview Paper" with a parent and grandparent, comparing our lives to theirs through several different categories.  My dad's father (an American) is passed away, so I got to talk with my mom's father (a Canadian) and learn about what his life was like when he was my age.  I realized early on that I knew very little about my Grandpa Jamieson's life.  We've lived too far away from him to have any extended meaningful contact, so I was glad that I got to learn some details about his life, even for a school assignment.  That paper's already been turned in, so this entry is kind of more for fun, just reflecting on how awesome my Grandpa is.

Rulon Alton Jamieson, 87

He was born in 1923, which means he grew up during the Great Depression.  He's also a full-blooded Iroquois, which makes me one-quarter.  He grew up on the reservation and has a great memory of stories and people from there.  He also provided us with a very old document detailing which chiefs were involved in forming the Six Nations—complete with little sketches of the different chiefs and which tribes and clans they were from.  Obviously it's very important to us.

He lived through World War II—he wasn't a soldier, although he nearly joined the "Royal Canadian Air Force".  Instead he ended up working in factories producing bomber planes and other military equipment.  He's a former regional billiards champion, and he used to supplement his income by beating others at pool and betting on horse races.

Today he visits the local Senior's Center during the day to play pool and cards with his contemporaries, and he can still hop fences and climb trees to pick fruit out of his yard.  He's very intelligent, he can play the guitar very well, and he enjoys solving Sudoku puzzles.  Grandpa, you're the man!

Originally Completed October 30th, 2010

Thanks to some artistically inclined friends of ours, my wife and I made a super cool "Jack of the Lantern" this past Halloween.  What do you think?  Comment below if you like it!

"Sans" awesome lighting.

"Avec" awesome lighting!

27 Dec 2009 — The Proposal (Final)

    As Katherine and I left my parents' house to drive to her mom's, it was time for my plan to be put in motion.  “Here,” I said, giving her my scarf, “tie this on like a blindfold.  I’d help, but I’m driving.”  "Okay..." she said, smiling, and probably guessing what was coming.
    We'd already purchased a ring and brought it home with us to Canada for the holidays.  A few days before Christmas we also talked with Katherine's mom—mostly about our immediate financial future, and how we would make ends meet.  Finally, tonight we had some time before we were due back at her mom's house to play Settlers of Catan with her sister and brother-in-law.  The timing was perfect.  A little delay on the trip back would be all the time I needed to propose.
    When she'd finished putting the scarf-blindfold on, it made me think of when we first got back together after my mission.  We had dated before—we were high school sweethearts.  She had gone to BYU while I was gone, and had grown up in ways I hadn't expected.  I had grown too, but definitely not in ways I would've thought.  When we finally reunited over the Christmas holidays of 2008, we did it kind of blindly.  We didn't really know each other like we used to.  It was the first time we'd seen each other after 2 years and four months of being apart, but we went ahead and got back together anyways.  That was a year ago tonight.
    "Where are we going?" Katherine asked, attempting to peek out from under the blindfold.  "Hey!  Don't look, it's a secret," I said, as if she didn't already know.  My plan for the proposal was a simple, but meaningful one.  It was the anniversary of our getting back together, and I was going to drive her to a special location blindfolded, so she wouldn't know where we were going.  Since we had a little bit of time before we arrived, I started to tell her what I'd planned to talk about during the drive there.
    Katherine's dad had passed away while I was on my mission.  He had had multiple health challenges during his last twenty years of life.  Yet through it all, he and his wife, Katherine's mother, were strong and their love for each other grew with the challenges they faced.  They developed an inspiring reliance on each other as a result of going through so many difficult times.  I felt that Katherine and I had similarly grown closer through our own trials over the past year.
    Before I could explain what I meant, though, I realized that I was lost.  That wasn't part of my plan.  I said to Katherine, "Um, I'm not sure if we're going the right way anymore."  She let out a nervous laugh, unable to do anything else.  I'd only been to where we were headed twice, once by train and on foot.  I had an idea of where I was supposed to go, but I wasn't sure how to get there.  So for a few seconds, we both were lost.  In hindsight, it made the whole thing funnier, and less serious, but also more meaningful.  I finally recognized a landmark and got my bearings again, so on we drove.  With our sense of direction restored, I continued my little comparison of us to Katherine's parents.
    Of course, I didn't have any of the physical health problems Katherine's dad experienced.  We hadn't had anything close to the challenges her parents have gone through, but in the last year we had had our own unique adversities.  After my mission, I struggled with perfectionism and depression, and Katherine helped me and supported me in confronting those issues while we dated.  I told her, while driving, that I believed we too could grow stronger and closer together as a result of the trials we'd already been through, and that the love between her parents that she admired so much could be part of our lives too.  She had said before that I reminded her of her dad, so I felt the comparison would be acceptable.
    We finally reached the spot and parked the car.  When I stepped out of the car it was freezing!  I should've guessed that being on top of a hill would have that effect.  The city of Calgary is divided by a river that runs east-west through the middle of the city.  On the southern side of the river is the downtown core of Calgary, with all the skyscrapers and new developments of the city center.  On the northern side of the river is a major road and a large hill up to a street called Crescent Road.  There's a lookout point on Crescent Road where you can park your car, and some benches have been built so people can sit and look out over the river at downtown Calgary.  At night, when all the buildings are lit up, it's quite a sight.  Beyond that, this lookout point was also the same place where Katherine's dad proposed to her mom.
    I ran over to the other side of the car, opened Katherine's door, and helped her out of the car, since she was still blindfolded.  Snow crunching under our feet, we walked a few steps closer to the edge of the hill.  I faced her towards the skyline, and pulled out the ring.  I told her she could take her blindfold off, as I got down on one knee.  Her face lit up when she saw the view, recognizing it instantly.  We were both a little giddy, and I realized that I hadn’t planned what I was going to say.  I only had a general idea of what needed to be said, having never proposed to anyone before.  I could hardly believe the words were actually coming out of my mouth as I popped the question.
She said yes, thank goodness.  As we hugged, over her shoulder I saw that some bystanders admiring the view had witnessed the proposal.  I was about to make a joke to my new fiancee about us being a celebrity couple already, but she grabbed my hands and started pulling me towards the car.  “I’m freezing!” she said, but I had forgotten how cold it was.  We hopped back in the car and started to drive back to her mom's house.  On the way back we almost got lost again, which would’ve been hilarious—but we knew where we were going this time.

"Kairosity" in Comic Book Films

Why is it that The Dark Knight (2008) was such a popular movie, when it's DC Comics counterpart, Superman Returns (2006), did not do so well?  Why did Roger Ebert say that Iron Man (2008) was the best superhero movie since Spider-Man 2 (2004)—which he said was the best superhero movie since Superman (1978)?  I don't think it's due to Hollywood making better superhero movies, because many people didn't like Spider-Man 3 (2007) as much as Spider-Man 2.

A movie's popularity and success certainly goes beyond special effects.  If success were dependent on special effects—which improve as time goes on—then The Lost World (1997) should have been better than the original Jurassic Park (1993).  The explanation most frequently offered today is that the characters or stories of certain movies are better.  This is true, but there's an element of characters and stories that is essential to their popularity and success that is hard to put into words until you've taken an English class from BYU.

I believe a main contributing factor to these movies' success is their "kairosity" (I just made that word up).  For those who didn't read our little textbook, 'kairos' is the term used when, in a rhetorical situation, the time is right for a particular comment or action to be made.  Think of Jack Sparrow, from the first Pirates of the Caribbean (2003).  He told Will Turner and Barbossa to wait to do whatever they were going to do until the opportune moment.  That is to say, the time when one's action/comment/involvement will have the most favorable impact on the outcome of a situation.  "Strike while the iron is hot."  For movie stories and characters, kairosity is timeliness.

There was an animated movie that came out in 1999 called The Iron Giant.  It's a story about a young boy in Cold War era America who discovers a giant robot that fell out of the sky.  This giant is discovered just as Sputnik first begins orbiting the earth, and so the fear of a 'red' threat looms ominously like the giant itself.  Naturally, the giant attracts attention, especially from the paranoid national government, who wants to destroy the giant before really trying to understand it.

The movie is excellent, with a great moral message, but it didn't do well in the box office at all.  It was poorly marketed and generally overlooked, because the cold war paranoia didn't resonate with the prosperous age of the late 90s.  The movie was set in the 50s, and centered on a war that (in '99) had been over for 20 years.  The story is a great one, the characters are convincing and realistic, but the context of it all wasn't very timely.

Fast forward to 2008, when Iron Man came to the big screen.  This movie had great characters, and a classic prodigal son storyline, but it was also timely.  The hero is created out of an alternative form of energy, which was a current issue in 2008, and still is.  Tony Stark, the hero, is a CEO whose raucous lifestyle mirrors the celebrities we follow today.  The opening scenes of the movie show Stark getting kidnapped by terrorists and held hostage in the mountains of the Middle East.  By bringing up such timely situations and themes, the Iron Man is able to essentially say to his audience, "I speak your language, I know what your world is like," whereas the Iron Giant is not only from another place (outer space), but stuck in another time completely.

Although there are many reasons why some superheroes and their films are more successful than others, we should also remember that a lot more money went into The Dark Knight than Superman Returns, Iron Man didn't have an emo dancing scene like Spider-Man 3, and there's simply no more inspiring person to play Superman than Christopher Reeve.

"The Boy with the Wonderful Words"

That was my name-title to one of my friends back in elementary school.  It's also painfully funny because I am notorious in my family for some really unfortunate Freudian slips of the tongue on my part.  For example, one time in a sacrament meeting talk, I said that Nephi and his brothers went back to Jerusalem to obtain "the plates of grass....brass, that is."  Suffice it to say that everyone knew where my family sat in the congregation that day because they couldn't contain themselves.  Punks.

Another nickname given to me in elementary school was "walking dictionary".  This is because I was really good at spelling and knew slightly more than your average fourth-grader because I had three older brothers who had all gone through fourth grade already.

In our family we've played with words for a long time.  For example, my Mom used to say things to us like "Robin Hood: Prince of Sleeves"?  We of course had to correct her.  "No, it's 'Prince of Thieves'!" we would say.  Or she would ask utterly ridiculous questions like "Do you suppose of toes?"  Of course not—for fear of supposing (erroneously) that they were roses.  (Anyone who knows that reference is awesome.)  Also, I recently learned from my wife that playing with phonemes (the basic sounds that make up words) tends to high intelligence and reading ability in young children (my wife's a special ed teacher).

So I come to this English—I mean, Writing—class with all this as my background.  I find that I appreciate the process of choosing the proper words to convey my intended meaning.  For me, words are knowledge.  True, words only convey information or knowledge, but putting the right word to my feeling or idea is satisfying to me in that I understand things more clearly with the right words being used to describe them.  And so, in a way, working on refining my rhetorical analysis and choosing the proper words is enjoyable to me.  And I've found that choosing the right words comes in handy in more than just an English class.

Let me illustrate with a story.

My mother is visiting this week, and last night we needed to figure out who would pray before bed.  With old roommates we would do rock-paper-scissors to decide, and at home with my brothers we would do the nose-goes rule.  So I decided it would be funny to say something like "We used to do rock-paper-scissors, but we're better than that now," and then I would quickly touch my nose before anyone else could say anything.  I thought that it was pretty funny, because I knew what I was going for, but I also felt that I needed to use different words.  The joke was that I was gonna default to a method of deciding that was equally childish and not at all an improvement.  As I was finishing brushing my teeth, I settled on what I thought was a better wording—one that would more clearly communicate the point on which the joke hinged.  Instead of saying "we're better than that now", I came out and said to my wife and my mom, "Me and James used to do rock-paper-scissors to decide who would pray at night, but we've since progressed to more refined methods of deciding."


Then, when I quickly put my finger to my nose, everyone laughed (just as I thought they would), but I knew it was because the joke was more clearly communicated.  If I had just shot from the hip, and said what first came to me, it wouldn't have been as clear, and my wife would've only had to give her obligatory laugh.  But because I used more "wonderful" words, everyone genuinely laughed.  And that was the best reward of all.

(I'll bet you didn't know that being a clown was such intelligent, difficult work, did you, wife o' mine?)

The Circle of Life for Vampires

Somehow I don't see him bursting into song...

Is Edward Cullen really immortal?  I hope not.  But looking at the 'life cycle' of a rhetorical situation from Writing and Rhetoric Chapter 3, I saw a similar life cycle occurring with popular fads and trends.  As a refresher, the life cycle of a rhetorical situation is as follows: origin, then a stage of maturity, deterioration after it has passed it's peak, and then disintegration altogether.

Most fads are certainly recognizable at the peak of their popularity.  The current vampire craze can be traced directly back to the Twilight books (its origin), but the craze only came to the forefront of popular culture with the release of movies based on the books.  This fad has matured now (I hope), and many people—mostly men—are glad that it seems to be deteriorating.

The final and critical stage of disintegration is similar for fads as well as rhetorical situations.  As a rhetorical situation example, in the 60s after JFK's assassination, there was much talk of a government conspiracy behind the murder.  Decades later, in the early 90s, a film was made putting forth similar arguments and bringing up the issue again.  While a situation like the debate over JFK's assassination had disintegrated (as far as most of the public was concerned), there were those who would resurrect the issue later on.

Similarly, in popular fashion, back in the 80s "wayfarer" sunglasses were made famous by television stars like Don Johnson, and became an essential fashion accessory for men.  They eventually fell out of favor, but nowadays on campus one doesn't have to look far to see them being worn again, even as frames for regular prescription glasses.  Though wayfarers are not as popular now as they once were, the fad has been resurrected.

It seems that fads for popular consumption, as well as issues for public discussion, go through a similar life cycle, only to be resurrected again by future generations.  I guess it's up to the next few generations to decide if Edward Cullen really is immortal.  I, for one, will be teaching my kids to let him rest in piece.

Changing Things Up for a little while...

Since I had already started a blog way back in the day (a year ago), I figured why not revive it and give it a new twist—make it my WRTG 150 blog! What a great idea!
 

As a result, those of you who choose to "follow" me on my blog will also get a glimpse at what I was doing a year ago, and see some mission pics. Since there are so many RMs around these parts, hopefully everyone's tired of mission pics and no one will pay attention to any of them.
Now a word about the video. Isn't it awesome? Have whatever fun you want with how cheesy/corny/mushy it is, that girl became my wife, and I love making movies. If you've got a better cheesy I-love-my-girlfriend-video posted on your year-old-blog, I'd like to see it.