Dog Poop

I've been sitting on this post for a few months. I hope that everything comes across the way it's meant to be. Please let me know what you think.

One day a Sunday school teacher walked into class carrying a big plate of brownies. The teenagers in the class pounce on them like a pack of rabid hyenas. They start devouring them right after the opening prayer and the teacher sits back and smiles.

"I've got a secret." she says coyly," There is a special ingredient in those brownies." Her students look up interested.

"Dog poop."

Gasp.

"That's right, dog poop."

Immediately each student turns a pale green and gags at the thought. Normally the lesson then continues discussing how media consumption needs to be watched and monitored and if there are any "bad parts", or dog poop, then it should be avoided all together.

This lesson always made me cringe just a bit. I love movies. Media have inspired me to be a better person, to help out those in need. It may sound cliché, but it changed my life. The problem is the films and television shows that promoted the most change were ones that contained what many would consider "dog poop". Were these changes really for the better? Or was I being deceived by the amount of "feces" I had consumed?

I wrestled with this idea for quite a while and one day I realized the flaw in this metaphor.

Brownies are not good for you.

If our diet consisted of solely brownies then we would die from obesity and malnutrition. We could not survive. I realized that what many well-intended Sunday school teachers were talking about was filling our lives with harmless media. Media clear of any bad language, violence, sex, or anything at all that might harm an individual in any way. While these movies are often funny and decent media, the often lack what I refer to as "nutritional value". They are the media equivalent to marshmallow fluff, mostly air and a bit of sugar to help it go down. However, doesn't For the Strength of Youth pamphlet say that we are to "select only media that uplifts you"? Is marshmallow fluff really that uplifting?

Nutrient dense films are often like eating a plate full of sprouts or a bowl full of spinach. They might not taste very good. You also might not enjoy it. However, they're also really good for you. Also, like most vegetables, once you eat them enough you actually will grow to like them. They will become delicious and delightful to your mind. They will uplift and inspire you to do difficult things and to change your life. Nutrient dense media will also challenge you in ways that you would not be challenged with harmless media. That is because often times they contain a bit of dirt or "dog poop" as well.

Remember when we were kids and we would load up pie tins with mud? Did you ever try a bite just to see what it would taste like? I did. Then again, I wasn't the brightest kid in the universe. The funny thing about that is I lived. Even with the dirt and poop and all sorts of bacteria that were squirming around in the mud, I still lived. And you know what? It wasn't that bad. Would I try it again? Never. But would I say that it harmed me? Never. A little bit of poop is far less harmful than a diet filled with brownies, no matter how good those brownies might be.

Media that have a high nutritional value are a rare find. It has been my experience that they also challenge audiences by depicting violence, crime, extramarital sex, or even sex in general. However, there is one key feature that cannot be ignored. Nutrient dense media rarely, if ever, condone the illicit behavior. They illuminate the consequences for the negative behavior. They show the loneliness and pain that follows it. They show the reality behind the sin. Is this bad for our families?

One of my favorite stories in the Book of Mormon is the story of Korihor. He is one bad guy. So why does Mormon, with his limited space and resources, chose to quote Korihor? Mormon intentionally puts false teachings into the Book of Mormon rather than keep the book completely free of anything harmful. He does the same thing earlier when Alma and Amulek watch as the believers are cast into a pit of fire. Or later when the Nephites sacrifice virgins to their idolatrous gods. This pattern continues throughout The Book of Mormon and all of the scriptures. Why does God want us to continually read graphic depictions of wickedness, which if seen in a movie would warrant the movie full of dog poop?

God never intended the scriptures, gospel, or our lives to be marshmallow fluff. He wants us to wrestle with ideas or concepts that make us queasy. He wants us to understand sin, while not experiencing it. He wants us to know the pain that sin and wickedness cause. By showing us these illustrations via proxy in the scriptures he hopes that we will learn from others experiences. Is it too difficult to believe that there are those in the media who want us to learn the real consequences of bad behavior without experiencing it first hand?

Filling our lives with brownies and fluff and media with low nutritional value will only cause us to become fat, lethargic and slothful servants.  This is not to say that any depiction of violence, sexuality, and foul language is appropriate for everyone. We are to seek for "anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy". However, just like sprouts and vegetables that do not taste good in the interim, but provide our bodies with essential nutrients for our growth, media that causes us to wrestle with ideas and beliefs will lead to growth, development, and a greater understanding of our place in God's plan.

Mormon Mommy Blogs: It's about Religion

A few weeks ago I was sent an article entitled, “Why I can't stop reading Mormon housewife blogs” by Emily Matchar. I think she does a great job describing herself in the articles tagline. “I'm a young, feminist atheist who can't bake a cupcake. Why am I addicted to the shiny, happy lives of these women?” In the article she explores her own feelings about these blogs and, more importantly, how she views these women. She presents this rift in her soul. She is an educated, logical feminist who doesn’t even want to dream about these perfect, idealized “hipster mommy bloggers”. Yet she’s self admittedly attracted to them.


I don’t know why that is exactly, but I know one thing. She is wrong. It’s is “about religion”. You see, in the LDS faith our religion permeates into every aspect of our lives. It is literally who we are. It is why these blogs are, as Matchar states, “weirdly ‘uplifting’”. Most importantly these “Mormon Mommy blogs” help these women see “marriage and motherhood” as something other than “demeaning, restrictive or simple”. They begin to see it as a deep and sacred responsibility. Women and motherhood is at the very heart of the LDS faith. It is central to the plan that God as sent forth. In 1995 the leaders of the church published and signed a document called “Family: A Proclamation to the World”. In it they state,


"[Husbands and wives] have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.


The family is ordained of God."


These blogs celebrate motherhood. They are written by women who love the Lord and who chose to pursue careers in the family. They are solemn proclamations of fundamental truths about the divine nature of the family. 


They show the weakness in these families. They're not all "picture-perfect catalog lives", as Matchar states. In a recent post on the NieNie Dialogues the author talked about just a few of the trials in her life. She went to bed with her house in reasonable condition, but she woke up with pee on the floor, blood in her sheets, aches in her body, and kids running rambunctiously around the house. This does not seem like a "picture-perfect" life. However these women have something that many women (and men for that matter) don't have. They have an eternal perspective. They know that even with all of the chaos in their lives that there family loves them and that they "are truly royal spirit daughters of Almighty God. You are princesses, destined to become queens" (Uctdorf, Happily Ever After). This knowledge permeates through every word and is thread through every sentence these women write. So yes, it is about the religion, because these women's lives are their religion.

Brigham City

I have found in any study of religion it is important to study binaries to discover lessons that are taught in any religious text. This is also true for this week’s film. In Brigham City Dutcher relies heavily on the use of binaries to illustrate many ideals. Good and evil. Life and death. Insiders and outsiders. The seen and the unseen. Zion and the world. These binaries are important to observe because they give a shape to the themes and lessons contained in the film.

Another binary is worth mentioning: wisdom and innocence. The ward Sunday school teacher asks her class the question, “Do we have to loose our innocence to gain wisdom?” Debate ensues; Adam gained wisdom, but only after loosing innocence. Christ had all wisdom and remained pure throughout his life. I believe this is the binary Dutcher wanted to question more than any other binary that he brings up: the dichotomy of wisdom and innocence. Is it really a dichotomy at all? Are wisdom and innocence exclusive of one another? Or is it possible to have them both inclusively? Can we, as the scripture states, “Be wise as serpents yet harmless as doves?”

The sheriff of Brigham wants to keep his little community pure. Nothing will infiltrate his own personal Zion. In fact, when a murder occurs on the outskirts of town he is more than happy to pass it off to the FBI. The murder has, “nothing to do with our town”, according to the sheriff. However, when the murder hits closer to home and the hometown pageant queen and other young women in town turns up dead, he can no longer let it be. The world has invaded Brigham and something must be done. “The rest of the world just won’t let us be,” claims the sheriff’s predecessor. The corruption of the world is entering into the town, doors are being locked, and trust is being broken. Are the community and its trusted Sheriff just loosing their innocence or are they gaining wisdom or are both happening or are they simply loosing both together?

What happens next is perhaps the least charitable action I believe has ever occurred in all of film history. The sheriff marches into the private, hidden lives of everyone in the town, and then makes the unseen sins fully public for the sake of “justice”. For a person who wakes up every morning, prays, reads his scriptures, and is the Bishop of the community he has no respect for the privacy or rights of the community. He is losing his innocence for the sake of bringing justice to the world. When questioned if he has a warrant he defiantly says that he doesn’t need one. He drags Steve, the photographer, off to jail because Steve doesn’t want his pornography addiction to become part of the public sphere. The world, symbolized by the FBI, on the other hand, goes about things a different. Their investigation is largely not seen and in all honesty it feels like they do nothing for the cause, except when Meredith, one of the FBI agents, assists in Sheriff Wes’s own unlawful investigation. The whole community knows they are losing their innocence, but for what are they losing it?

There is wisdom gained in the end, however. Through all of the detritus he trudges up Wes understands that not all people can be trusted. Wait. Is that really wisdom? Or is that part of loosing innocence? The binary that is brought up may not be a binary at all. Wisdom and innocence are lost in this exchange. It is a lose/lose situation. I don’t know if Dutcher wanted to say this with his film, but it seems to me that with the initial rejection of the sacrament bread he is claiming that he is not innocent anymore. He is not worthy. The partaking of the bread later on supposedly symbolizes the renewal of innocence through the atonement, but for me it doesn’t. It reinforces the idea taught at the beginning that the town must remain pure under all costs. It is a step toward forgetting instead of repenting, a step toward ignorant innocence instead of cleansed understanding.