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.

The Other Side of Heaven

We've reached the end. As I was watching this film I realized that this project is coming to an end. Jamie can attest that in many ways it has consumed me this semester. I've either had to watch a film or write about a film every day of this semester. The project was honestly far too big for the class. Tomorrow I present on my findings. I'm honestly a little intimidated. There is far too much to talk about, but I guess I will get into that when I write a wrap up post tomorrow.

The Other Side of Heaven is the film that every LDS filmmaker wanted to create. That's a big statement, but after seeing all of the failed attempts and all of the successes in the LDS film movement I am certain of it. First, and foremost the film is clearly a Mormon film. There are many references to the church, both implicit (a photo of David O. McKay in the church house) and explicit (the drunk Tongan proclaiming, "I am a Mormon!").  This is what many LDS films wanted to accomplish. They wanted every audience member to realize that the characters in this film were in fact Mormon.

Second, the film taught doctrines of the church, without being preachy or overt. It seemed that al Groberg did was teach doctrine. He taught about faith, repentance, The Word of Wisdom, and chastity. Unlike The Best Two Years or any other of the missionary films that I viewed this semester the doctrines are not strictly LDS or at least not blatantly so. This desire existed in every LDS film I viewed this semester.

Lastly, the film revealed truths about LDS identity in an honest way that brought its viewers to transcend with the characters. The film is a missionary pic. This genre is unique to the LDS film movement because "missions... are a modern phenomenon with which all Church members are familiar" (Astle, 38). This film did not gloss over any of the hardships of a mission. In fact it is clearly portraying one of the most difficult missions ever served. The story presents all of the "culture shock, foreign languages, homesickness, departures, homecomings, and letters—all components of accented cinema" (Astle, 38) in an authentic manner. With these trials we see a change in Groberg. We see him literally take on the culture of those he served. When he comes home we don't know whether or not to be happy that the love of his life waited for him or to cry because the other love in his life (Tonga and its people) are no longer a part of his life.

This is a feeling that is typical of Mormon missions, something that is not explicitly brought up in any LDS to this point. It is the point at which missionaries understand what their mission really was for two years. It is the most important transcending moment for each Elder or Sister. It is the realization of the common identity of man.


Which has been your favorite LDS film I've talked about during this project? Do you feel I am right in saying that this film is "the film that every LDS filmmaker wanted to create"?


Film Information
Works Cited

The Work and The Glory

I wrote a while back about creation myths and the impact that they have on a culture, specifically LDS culture. If I remember right the context was that of missionary work and the impact of both the Book of Mormon and the Joseph Smith story on modern day identity. What is interesting about The Work and the Glory is the modern interpretation of this story. The story centers on the Steed family, a fictitious family who move next door to Martin Harris around the time that the LDS church is founded. They interact with real people: Martin Harris, Joseph Smith, the Whitmer family, and other prominent people of the era. Gerald Lund, the author of the original works, in many ways parallels the lives of the Steed family after the lives of any family that is learning about the church today. There are children that don't agree, father is apathetic, some readily accept. The family gets a little bit torn up by the experience. However, it all turns out for the best in the end. This parallelism is important in the analysis of the piece because it shed light on the relationship with the creation story of the LDS church and its people.

To highlight "the significance of sacred narratives, often called creation myths," one must look "for the expression and maintenance of cultural identity" (Olsen 90) within these texts and the interpretation of these texts. By learning how the Joseph Smith story helps modern Latter-Day Saints express and maintain their identity we can peel back another layer of identity. It seems necessary to share some highlights from the story in order to best share how the both the various accounts of the story and how The Work and The Glory express and maintain LDS identity.

The Joseph Smith story begins with him as a young boy, about 14 or 15 years old. The religious world around him in in upheaval and he is confused. His goal was, in his own words, to discover "Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it" (Joseph Smith-History 1:10)? Upon praying in a grove near his house some two years after he first began asking himself this question he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ appear to him. They taught him that none of the current sects were true and that he was going to be instrumental in organizing Christ's church once again on the earth (See JS-History in The Pearl of Great Price for more detailed information).

This text is vitally important to the plot of The Work and the Glory and also the lives of Latter Day Saints around the world. "The symbolic structure of the Joseph Smith story exhibits the quality of wholeness" (Olsen 91). This wholeness creates wholeness in LDS identity. This wholeness creates wholeness in LDS spirituality. Every function of the LDS people as a whole is connected to this one event. The Work and the Glory strives to connect to this text on a historically accurate way while still helping its audience both connect spiritually with the film and relate the experiences of the Steed family with their own lives.

Film Information
Works Cited

Saints and Soldiers (2003)

Saints and Soldiers contains an interesting dichotomy in LDS film. While nearly every scholar states that this is an LDS film there are no explicit references to any character’s faith. There are however, implicit references to aspects of the Mormon faith in Deacon’s character. He “doesn’t smoke, doesn’t drink, doesn’t even like coffee”. He carries an unidentified book of scripture around on him at all times. He prays while on watch. He went to Germany on a mission for his church for two years. These are all clues that indicate that he is in fact a member of the LDS church. Therefore even without explicitly stating that Deacon is a member of the church one can imply membership because of these contextual clues. This analysis brings to thought a question about the uniqueness of the Mormon identity. Are there not other churches or peoples that have nearly the same standards as the church? On my mission I taught a family that on many occasions were asked if they were Mormon. They didn't smoke. They didn't drink (much). They went to church every week. They prayed as a family. They read the Bible together, individually and as a family. These traits are not unique of the LDS faith.

In many, if not all of the previous LDS films that I have viewed have, "[alienated] or [excluded] the non- Mormons" by "largely polarized [audiences] by recognizably Mormon subjects, themes, or treatments" (Givens, 202). Saints and Soldiers uses the cross overs between Mormon culture and the rest of Christianity to both reach a wider audience and create empathy between these two cultures. "Matt Whitaker and Geoffrey Panos (the screenwriters) choose instead to rely on a text coded in such a way that its meanings can be read in both particular and universal ways (202). By doing so they were able to bridge the gap between cultures.

           
Does this bridge, however, destroy the inherent nature of LDS cinema? If any culture can easily accept the themes and devices of this film without any prior knowledge of LDS culture do the filmmaker give up the film's Mormon identity? How is it any different than The Land Before Time (Don Bluth) or The Swan Princess (Richard Rich)? (Neither of which are considered LDS films). The LDS genre is a deeply complex genre. "There can be no linear scale of “Mormonness” for a film" (Astle, 28). Each film must be evaluated on an individual basis. "A film that initially appears to have nothing to do with the Church might, in fact, be quite thoroughly infused with Mormonism, while one that is apparently full of Mormon content might be rather devoid of it" (29). 

There is no scale that one can look at and say, "There are 34 direct references to the church in this film, it must be an LDS film" or "Well, they mention the Book of Mormon, but not the Joseph Smith so it doesn't quite make the cut". The definition, however, lies in the inherent identity of the film. While Saints and Soldiers makes no explicit references to LDS faith or culture then "Mormonness" of the film is high because the identity of Deacon is so clearly LDS that there can be no question as to his faith. He must be a member of the church because he is what members desire to be like. He is not pigeonholed. He is not stereotyped or mocked. He is true. He is real. He bridges cultures like each individual must do in order to develop empathy and charity. For "[Charity] is accepting people as they truly are. It is looking beyond physical appearances to attributes that will not dim through time. It is resisting the impulse to categorize others" (Monson, Charity Never Faileth, October 2010 General conference).

Film Information
Works Cited

The Single's Ward (2002)

I don't even know where to begin? When I was growing up I remember that for a while every party, every time my friends would get together we would watch The Single's Ward. Then one day it clicked. This movie is a monstrosity. It is pure product placement. Watching it today made me seriously reconsider even doing this whole project (although later this week I'm going to be viewing The Book of Mormon Movie... now that makes me reconsider things). "Aristotle supposed that entertainment enjoys a natural advantage by providing us with certain sensual pleasures and thereby more readily chasing away our cares" (Anderson 232). This film is purposed to entertain about at the expense of the church. In other words, This Single's Ward, "primarily appeals to the body; it is more likely to be pleasing and diverting because it satisfies bodily cravings for rest, relaxation, and physical satisfaction" (232). However, this project is not about how good the movies are or how much they make me want to puke. It's about how these movies represent Mormon identity.

           
So how does this film stack up? You may remember a few weeks ago I wrote about the representation of women in the movie The RM (also made by Halestorm). Cammie Giles is a twenty something year old Activities director in the church. While she, unlike the women in The RM, is a very spiritual person, she has one major flaw. She is the definition of self-righteous. When she discovers that her boyfriend, Jonathan, tells slightly off color jokes about Mormons (nothing worse that what I've heard on BYU campus) she storms out of the room in a hysterical mess. It seems for a while that her only intentions with the unknown Jonathan in the foyer are to get him to come inside. In fact, Jonathan says himself that she'd "be a good missionary" in reference to her pushy attitude (Hollist, 142). One might even interpret this film by saying that the only way that women can be spiritual in the church is if they are self righteous or holier-than-thou.

What interests me more than the view of women in the church, however, is the perspective that this film contains about inactive members of the church. Jonathan is highly knowledgeable about the church. He quotes scripture and conference talks, references Book of Mormon stories, and "knows the tactics" used to reactivate less active members (he even still has his white shirt and tie in the closet). In fact, aside from occasional alcohol use and some off colored jokes in a comedy routine he is a stand up guy. His ex-wife is a recent convert that he himself got to join the church. Upon buying a six-pack of beer and a package of cigarettes she says, "I'm done. I don't even know if the church is true anymore".  No other explanation is given. From these two perspectives we can discern part of the attitudes that the filmmakers have concerning inactive members of the church. One, they lack a belief in the church. Two, inactives are opposed to the culture of the church. The first of these perspectives blames the individual for their inactivity. The second the community in which they live.

           
I've found through this project that most LDS films pigeonhole members, non-members and inactive members. They represent members as self-righteous, nerdy, or just plain weird. Non-members are seen as wild and free, but desperately wanting to connect with the world. Inactive members are hurt or confused about Mormon culture. These films create stereotypes of deeply complex identities that make up the Mormon Church.

Film Information
Works Cited

The Best Two Years

There was a transfer on my mission where I served with a companion who didn't know why he was on a mission. He didn't enjoy working particularly. He wouldn't stop listening to his favorite music from back home. He didn't get what a mission was. Did this make him a bad missionary? Of course not. He had one trait that redeemed him of all of his inadequacies. He cared about people. That one trait, in and of itself made him successful in my eyes. I saw how important it was to gain relationships of trust where members, missionaries, and everyone else could trust that this Elder would treat them right. This impacted my perception of what it meant to be a missionary.  I created a loose theory of missionary work. I called it "getting it". Missionaries who "got it" were successful. Those who did not would fail no matter what they did. The question in my mind was, "What does it mean to get it". By the end of my mission I understood that getting it was different for each missionary. For some it was learning to work hard, day in and day out. For some it was learning that submission to mission rules brought peace and comfort in their lives. Yet for others it was learning that each individual is more than just a statistic to be analyzed by the office elders.

           
The Best Two Years is a film about "getting it". Elder Rogers may not have been the hardest worker, but he understood the importance of people.  Elder VanPelt was an aspiring Elder who didn't get anything. Elder Johnson understood the value of hard work, but he didn't understand the importance of supporting his peers. Finally Elder Calhoon got a lot of it. He understood how and why to work; he understood the importance of people. He didn't, however, understand the importance of his role in the mission field. This film is about understanding both the strengths and weaknesses that we each have. It's about understanding the roles that we play. It's about understanding our identity.

This is at the heart of my definition of cinematic transcendence. Without knowledge of who we are and why we are here there can be no real success because there can be no progression.

           
This identity is also central to Mormon theology. Even from the beginning of the world we believe that it is important to understand who we are and what our relationship to Deity is. Lucifer was cast out of the heavens because he didn't understand his relationship with God. He sought to rise about God and commanded Him saying, "surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor." This account illustrates "the significance of sacred narratives, often called creation myths, for the expression and maintenance of cultural identity" (Olsen, 90). When the Elders in The Best Two Years understood who they were and what their weaknesses and strengths were they became infinitely more effective and productive. They became a force for good. Mormon identity is rooted in self-identity. Scott Anderson and nearly every member of the church know this. It is central to everything that Mormons do.

Film Information
Works Cited

Charly

I caught myself laughing through parts of this movie because of how accurate Teryll Givens was in describing the three paradoxes of LDS cinema: "searching and certainty" (190), "disintegration of sacred distance" (191), and "isolation and integration" (192). This film follows the relationship of Sam and Charly. Sam is a stereotypical Peter Priesthood type. His day planner runs his life to the point that he has alarms set for when he needs to row his fishing boat. In the first five minutes of the movie it is clear that Sam is a member due to his BYU baseball cap and quick references to Temple Square. Charly on the other hand lives by the motto "Life is for fun." She's loud, witty, and spontaneous. Most importantly, for the purposes of the story, she is not a member of the church. 

In perhaps Sam's most defining moment Charly and Sam talk about her experiences in taking the missionary lessons. She states, "I don't believe any of it." Almost baffled Sam states "You just have to pray." Then, like the good return missionary, he kneels down and says, "Let's pray now, it's pretty secluded." It is clear that Charly is leading him along as she kneels. However, this, more than anything is a springboard for the rest of the discussions on faith and doubt. After Charly's baptism Sam and Charly are looking at the Christos in the Salt Lake Temple visitor's center. Charly asks, "Do you really believe it?" Sam's response, "No. I know it."

It however, becomes unclear if he really knows. When Sam realizes that Charly is not a virgin then he flips out and pushes her away, almost losing her. When they find out that she is terminally ill he breaks down asking for "one lousy miracle". This paradox is a dominant theme in this film. What does it mean to have faith? What is the place of doubt in life? As given states, "It is no wonder that Mormon culture expresses itself in inconsistent bursts of the pat and the provocative, the clichéd and the astonished, the complacent and the yearning" (190).

Part of Charly's doubt at the beginning of the film is if God really answers prayers. She does not believe that God is personal and intimate with his children (it may be more accurate to say she does not believe in God). However, after accepting the church's beliefs she has no problem accepting the interpersonal connection that members of the church believe they can have with God. In fact she states, "I've been discussing the whole thing with God. We're very close now, He and I." However, during Charly's blessing near the end of the film it is made clear that Sam is blessing Charly, not God. Sam is struggling with the feeling that his wife is going to die. He will not accept it. He believes his faith will save her. He wants to force his will upon God instead of accepting that they are separate.

If there is any one of the three paradoxes Given's describes in his paper that is less dominate in this film it is the paradox of isolation and integration. Sam has no problem dating a nonmember of the church (something that many member of the church frown upon). The only struggle that is present with Charly is he ex-boyfriend's desire to still live with her after her baptism, but she may want him to leave not only for her newfound faith, but because she has broken up with him.

Overall, this film gives a solid interpretation of LDS culture. Sam's character can be extreme at time, but once Charly rounds him out he becomes a faithful, balanced member of the church. One who has his doubts, but is able to work through them. Charly becomes a strong member who, even in the face of her own death, relies on God and reaches out and touches those around her. 

Film Information

Works Cited

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.