I wanna play a game. I call it, "Where's Jesus?" The rules are simple: Watch the following video and tell me where Jesus is in its content and purpose. And I'm not talking about Jesus-esque behavior, either - just Jesus Himself. For the first installment, I decided to go with one-o'-them "... and I'm a Mormon" videos. You know what I'm talking about. If you aren't in the mood for deep thinkin', just count how many times Jesus is mentioned.
If you got more than none, you did better than me. This is the primary problem I have with this new series of videos (and, in fact, with most of what the Mormon church does): Jesus is virtually absent. He is not completely absent from the entire religion, of course, since He is mentioned frequently in the standard works and in the title of their religion, and there is an eerie statue of Him (henceforth referred to as "Space Jesus") in the Salt Lake Temple Visitor's Center, so there's that. Jesus is a key figure in Mormonism, I must admit: but His glory does not appear to be the main goal here, and He does have to compete with Joseph Smith for attention and praise. It seems to me that any religion which desires to be called "Christian" must have Christ alone as its center and purpose. I don't see that in Mormonism. When I listen to General Conference, for example, I don't hear much about Jesus (except when His name occurs in the obligatory blessing at the end of each speech. I'm beginning to think that the name "Jesus" is the Mormon equivalent for "Goodbye" or "Class dismissed."). I do hear several ridiculously old people speaking - in a tone so soft as to make a psychiatrist feel inadequate - about how important it is to play nice with others and wash behind your ears. How can anyone claim to have entered into a deep, abiding fellowship with Jesus - the very creator of everything - without being compelled by something deep within him to tell every human being on the face of the planet about how great the LORD is? This is why the Apostles were so intensely bold about the Gospel (Rom. 1:16). The LDS leadership, in contrast, has always seemed more concerned with getting the word out about how great the Mormon church is. Don't believe me? You might have noticed that these videos always feature someone who does something particularly noble and/or remarkable, like taking in mentally challenged children or being a professional surfer. And did you see how everyone was smiling? And how well-dressed they all were? And how picturesque that porch was? Everyone is happy and prosperous. Don't get me wrong: Taking care of kids like this is a wonderful thing, and I'm glad this woman chose to do it. But the underlying message of this video series is not simply that Mormons are normal, decent people (though I would agree that they are). The message is that Mormons are able to do good things and live happy lives with happy families primarily because they are card-carrying members of the LDS. No mention is ever made of sin or salvation or the work of Christ in someone's life because it is so much more important for everyone to know what church these noble people belong to. The body of Christ does not exist for the purpose of advertising itself, but for advertising the person and work of Jesus Christ, which is the Gospel.
Don't believe me?
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Celestial Marriage and the Bible: The Legend Continues
Read 'em in order and I'll give you back your grandmother.
The message of Mark 12:18-25 is that the marriage covenants made on earth will no longer be binding in heaven. I think it is helpful to point out a few things in order to understand the context (there’s that word again) of the passage. The Sadducees were a religious sect that stood in conflict with the Pharisees. They considered only the books of Moses to be authoritative, they did not believe in angels or demons, and they rejected the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead. In addition, they were wealthy and aristocratic, and were largely in favor of the Roman occupation. None of this sat well with the Pharisees, of course. But the biggest issue between them was the resurrection (Acts 23:7-10). It seemed plain to the Sadducees that death was obviously the end of the road.
When Jesus came onto the scene, everybody got a little nervous. Since it was assumed that the Messiah would liberate the Jews from Roman oppression, false Messiahs often attempted to cause uprisings and riots which always failed and only served to strain the relationship between Rome and the Jews. The Sadducees saw that their prestige with the Roman government was threatened by Jesus, so they sought to discredit Him by pointing out what they thought was a logical contradiction between the doctrine of the resurrection and the law.
The Sadducees assumed that marriages would continue after death if there was a resurrection. Therefore, they asked Jesus to explain how the a levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-6) would work in the afterlife. Jesus responds by saying that they were mistaken - not about the resurrection, but about marriage. Marriage covenants made before the resurrection will no longer be valid or necessary after it.
I have only heard one LDS explanation (that I remember) for this passage, and it doesn’t make much sense to me at all. This is that Jesus taught no one would BECOME married after the resurrection. This, of course, leaves open the possibility that any marriages from before might still be binding. But if this is the case, then He never really answered their question. And I certainly don’t think anyone would have said, “He had answered them well…”
The city of Corinth was notorious for sexual indulgence. When the church was established there, two extremes immediately formed among the congregation. First, there were those who thought they were now free to commit any sin they wished. Paul dealt with this mindset in chapters 5-6. But the second group preached celibacy, believing that any kind of sexuality was immoral and ungodly. So when the congregation wrote to Paul, they asked him whether or not it was okay to get married (1st Cor. 7:1). They probably asked other questions as well, since he kinda jumps around a bit. All of chapter 7 is his answer.
The first thing that stands out about 1st Cor. 7 is Paul’s statement that he is single (v. 8). If marriage is required in order to spend eternity with God, why is Paul, an Apostle, single? Furthermore, why would he encourage others to be single (v. 7, 8, 26, 27, 38)? Instead, he puts marriage on the same level with circumcision and uncircumcision, which he says are both “nothing.”
We know that the other Apostles were married (1st Cor. 9:5), but the fact remains that Paul was not, and he wanted others to be like him in that sense.
Second, he says in verse 25 that the Lord gave him no commandment concerning whether virgins should marry. Why would the Lord not command marriage, unless it isn’t essential to our eternal destination? It seems to me that God would have to be awfully uncaring if he wasn’t willing to command His children to do something that is required in order to enter His presence for eternity (D&C 132:4).
But what if marriage is not a part of the real plan of salvation? Then Paul’s attitude makes perfect sense. Only those who need the intimate companionship of a spouse, or who lack self-control, should get married. The rest have been given the gift of singleness.
So, where does that leave us? Marriage was instituted by God (Gen. 2:20-25), but is only intended for this earthly life (Mark 12: 18-25). It is to be honored among all (Heb. 13:4), but not everyone needs to do it (1st Cor. 7). What, then, was God’s purpose in instituting marriage? I think Rev. 19:7-9 gives us the answer. Earthly marriage was intended to be a reflection of a greater reality, which is the relationship between Christ and His church. We are told here that when Christ returns, Jesus (the Lamb) will marry His bride, which is the church (John 3:29; 2nd Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:23; Rev. 21:9-10). God instituted marriage as a means of pointing to Christ, which is why marriage is to be honored. This is also why the all of the rules in the Mosaic law concerning sexuality - except one, for the purpose of cleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24) - are about sexual relationships instead of sexual acts (Lev. 18, for example). As long as the institution of marriage is widely known, it will accomplish this purpose; therefore, not everyone needs to participate in it. Marriages between men and women are only for this life because those who are in Christ are destined for a greater marriage in eternity. What I see now is a shadow on the wall; what I will see is the form that made it (1st Cor. 13:12).
The message of Mark 12:18-25 is that the marriage covenants made on earth will no longer be binding in heaven. I think it is helpful to point out a few things in order to understand the context (there’s that word again) of the passage. The Sadducees were a religious sect that stood in conflict with the Pharisees. They considered only the books of Moses to be authoritative, they did not believe in angels or demons, and they rejected the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead. In addition, they were wealthy and aristocratic, and were largely in favor of the Roman occupation. None of this sat well with the Pharisees, of course. But the biggest issue between them was the resurrection (Acts 23:7-10). It seemed plain to the Sadducees that death was obviously the end of the road.
When Jesus came onto the scene, everybody got a little nervous. Since it was assumed that the Messiah would liberate the Jews from Roman oppression, false Messiahs often attempted to cause uprisings and riots which always failed and only served to strain the relationship between Rome and the Jews. The Sadducees saw that their prestige with the Roman government was threatened by Jesus, so they sought to discredit Him by pointing out what they thought was a logical contradiction between the doctrine of the resurrection and the law.
The Sadducees assumed that marriages would continue after death if there was a resurrection. Therefore, they asked Jesus to explain how the a levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-6) would work in the afterlife. Jesus responds by saying that they were mistaken - not about the resurrection, but about marriage. Marriage covenants made before the resurrection will no longer be valid or necessary after it.
I have only heard one LDS explanation (that I remember) for this passage, and it doesn’t make much sense to me at all. This is that Jesus taught no one would BECOME married after the resurrection. This, of course, leaves open the possibility that any marriages from before might still be binding. But if this is the case, then He never really answered their question. And I certainly don’t think anyone would have said, “He had answered them well…”
The city of Corinth was notorious for sexual indulgence. When the church was established there, two extremes immediately formed among the congregation. First, there were those who thought they were now free to commit any sin they wished. Paul dealt with this mindset in chapters 5-6. But the second group preached celibacy, believing that any kind of sexuality was immoral and ungodly. So when the congregation wrote to Paul, they asked him whether or not it was okay to get married (1st Cor. 7:1). They probably asked other questions as well, since he kinda jumps around a bit. All of chapter 7 is his answer.
The first thing that stands out about 1st Cor. 7 is Paul’s statement that he is single (v. 8). If marriage is required in order to spend eternity with God, why is Paul, an Apostle, single? Furthermore, why would he encourage others to be single (v. 7, 8, 26, 27, 38)? Instead, he puts marriage on the same level with circumcision and uncircumcision, which he says are both “nothing.”
We know that the other Apostles were married (1st Cor. 9:5), but the fact remains that Paul was not, and he wanted others to be like him in that sense.
Second, he says in verse 25 that the Lord gave him no commandment concerning whether virgins should marry. Why would the Lord not command marriage, unless it isn’t essential to our eternal destination? It seems to me that God would have to be awfully uncaring if he wasn’t willing to command His children to do something that is required in order to enter His presence for eternity (D&C 132:4).
But what if marriage is not a part of the real plan of salvation? Then Paul’s attitude makes perfect sense. Only those who need the intimate companionship of a spouse, or who lack self-control, should get married. The rest have been given the gift of singleness.
So, where does that leave us? Marriage was instituted by God (Gen. 2:20-25), but is only intended for this earthly life (Mark 12: 18-25). It is to be honored among all (Heb. 13:4), but not everyone needs to do it (1st Cor. 7). What, then, was God’s purpose in instituting marriage? I think Rev. 19:7-9 gives us the answer. Earthly marriage was intended to be a reflection of a greater reality, which is the relationship between Christ and His church. We are told here that when Christ returns, Jesus (the Lamb) will marry His bride, which is the church (John 3:29; 2nd Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:23; Rev. 21:9-10). God instituted marriage as a means of pointing to Christ, which is why marriage is to be honored. This is also why the all of the rules in the Mosaic law concerning sexuality - except one, for the purpose of cleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24) - are about sexual relationships instead of sexual acts (Lev. 18, for example). As long as the institution of marriage is widely known, it will accomplish this purpose; therefore, not everyone needs to participate in it. Marriages between men and women are only for this life because those who are in Christ are destined for a greater marriage in eternity. What I see now is a shadow on the wall; what I will see is the form that made it (1st Cor. 13:12).
Celestial Marriage and the Bible 3
Read "Celestial Marriage and the Bible 1 & 2" first if you ever want to see Mr. Jingles again.
As I was saying...
I never realized this since I never really thought that much about the Theology of marriage, but the Bible has a lot to say about it. That being the case, I decided to keep this limited to those passages which explicitly teach about marriage, rather than going also to those which merely describe examples. Also, I’m not going to talk about polygamy (unless I’m asked, of course) or divorce. There would be too much to say, I think.
God wants those who read the Bible to understand its message. Thus, He has designed it (and us) so that we can understand it if we will use some practical wisdom. Also, Jesus says that the greatest of all commandments is to “love your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your MIND, and with all your strength.” (Mark 12:30) It makes sense, then, that we should try to be as responsible as possible with how we apply our minds to God’s Word.
Good Bible interpretation is always based on one crucial rule: Always interpret a passage literally, unless the grammatical/historical context dictates otherwise. Knowing the context helps to correctly discern and understand the meaning of the text. For example, knowing about Gnosticism and early Christian history helps in understanding 1st John (particularly 4:2). A person who does not interpret the Bible by this rule might still reach the right interpretation, but only by accident.
With this in mind, Hebrews 6:1 is pretty easy to figure out. The author spends the first five chapters discussing the doctrine of Christ, but now he (or she…?) wants to move on to another subject. Verses 1-3 are a transition, essentially.
The passage about the keys of the kingdom of heaven is Matthew 16:13-19. This is an amazing scene in the life of Peter. Jesus is defining for him (and for the rest of us) what the authority of the apostle will be. Verse 19 is pretty ambiguous in English, but reading this in the original Greek removes all doubt. A more literal translation would be, “… whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.” Go to blueletterbible.org and look up this verse in the YNG version (a strictly literal translation) and you’ll see what I mean. His power was not that he could cause something to happen in heaven by doing it on earth, but that he could declare on earth those things which were already true. It is important to recognize that there is no mention of marriage in or around this passage.
Hebrews 13:4 is pretty straightforward. The author is finishing the epistle by leaving instructions about some things that didn’t need much explanation. The first part of the verse is constructed in the Greek as a command. A more literal translation in modern English would be, “Marriage is to be honored among all…” The rest is pretty self-explanatory.
As I was saying...
I never realized this since I never really thought that much about the Theology of marriage, but the Bible has a lot to say about it. That being the case, I decided to keep this limited to those passages which explicitly teach about marriage, rather than going also to those which merely describe examples. Also, I’m not going to talk about polygamy (unless I’m asked, of course) or divorce. There would be too much to say, I think.
God wants those who read the Bible to understand its message. Thus, He has designed it (and us) so that we can understand it if we will use some practical wisdom. Also, Jesus says that the greatest of all commandments is to “love your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your MIND, and with all your strength.” (Mark 12:30) It makes sense, then, that we should try to be as responsible as possible with how we apply our minds to God’s Word.
Good Bible interpretation is always based on one crucial rule: Always interpret a passage literally, unless the grammatical/historical context dictates otherwise. Knowing the context helps to correctly discern and understand the meaning of the text. For example, knowing about Gnosticism and early Christian history helps in understanding 1st John (particularly 4:2). A person who does not interpret the Bible by this rule might still reach the right interpretation, but only by accident.
With this in mind, Hebrews 6:1 is pretty easy to figure out. The author spends the first five chapters discussing the doctrine of Christ, but now he (or she…?) wants to move on to another subject. Verses 1-3 are a transition, essentially.
The passage about the keys of the kingdom of heaven is Matthew 16:13-19. This is an amazing scene in the life of Peter. Jesus is defining for him (and for the rest of us) what the authority of the apostle will be. Verse 19 is pretty ambiguous in English, but reading this in the original Greek removes all doubt. A more literal translation would be, “… whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.” Go to blueletterbible.org and look up this verse in the YNG version (a strictly literal translation) and you’ll see what I mean. His power was not that he could cause something to happen in heaven by doing it on earth, but that he could declare on earth those things which were already true. It is important to recognize that there is no mention of marriage in or around this passage.
Hebrews 13:4 is pretty straightforward. The author is finishing the epistle by leaving instructions about some things that didn’t need much explanation. The first part of the verse is constructed in the Greek as a command. A more literal translation in modern English would be, “Marriage is to be honored among all…” The rest is pretty self-explanatory.
Celestial Marriage and the Bible 2
Read "Celestial Marriage and the Bible 1" first OR I WILL FIND YOU.
Here was my to-do list for my email:
1. Compile all the relevant Bible passages concerning marriage and interpret them.
2. Justify my interpretations.
3. Defend the authenticity of the Bible by refuting the idea that the text was corrupted by repeated mistranslations and misinterpretations and miscalifornias.
4. Interpret Hebrews 6:1, just for kicks.
5. Finish season three of 24.
So, here goes. Get out your Bibles, kids!
(I edited some of it so it's more of an article than personal correspondence)
A few months ago, I quoted from Alma in my Facebook status (34:32-35, if you want to know). I explained in a comment that the passage strongly taught against the notion of work for the dead. My friend Adam, whom I had met on my most recent Utah trip, challenged me by claiming that I had taken the verse out of context. Instead of explaining the context and correct interpretation to me, he insisted that I had some kind of hidden animosity toward Mormons and removed me from his friends list. First, if you are a Mormon, I hope you know that I don’t hate you or look down on you. You’re probably pretty cool in your own way, and all I really intend by writing this is for you to know the truth about the Gospel so that you can benefit from it and God will be glorified in it. Second, logic is a lot like balancing an equation in algebra: What is done to one side must be done to the other. If Adam’s accusation was true (which, I maintain, it was not), would this mean that the Book of Mormon was corrupted? Also, the Book of Mormon has been translated into different languages. Does this mean that those translations carry a different message than the English one? I have a Mormon friend who rejects the LDS doctrine of baptism. Does this disagreement mean that something was removed from the Book of Mormon? If I were to use any of these arguments in conversation with any Mormon, I would probably get shut down easily.
The fact is, nothing has been removed from the Bible. Three small passages may have been added later, but none of these passages have any effect on any Biblical teaching. I can say this with a high degree of certainty because of the abundance of manuscript evidence available. We have more than 5,000 ancient manuscripts of the Greek New Testament - some of which go back as far as 125 A.D. - plus several thousand Latin copies. If anything was ever taken away, the sheer number of manuscripts would show us. What the Old Testament lacks in numbers, it makes up for in age range. We can re-create almost the entire OT using just the Dead Sea scrolls. We even have an Isaiah scroll that’s 2100 years old! What makes this so significant is that there is greater than 99% agreement between the oldest manuscripts and the newest ones, meaning that we would know if anything was taken away or otherwise greatly altered. Remember - God isn’t willing that His word be corrupted. A remnant will always remain (Isaiah 40:7-8). The very same God who preserved the Davidic line through the exile and the inter-testamental period is entirely capable of preserving His book from generation to generation without hiding it from the world or infringing on anyone’s “agency.”
Here was my to-do list for my email:
1. Compile all the relevant Bible passages concerning marriage and interpret them.
2. Justify my interpretations.
3. Defend the authenticity of the Bible by refuting the idea that the text was corrupted by repeated mistranslations and misinterpretations and miscalifornias.
4. Interpret Hebrews 6:1, just for kicks.
5. Finish season three of 24.
So, here goes. Get out your Bibles, kids!
(I edited some of it so it's more of an article than personal correspondence)
A few months ago, I quoted from Alma in my Facebook status (34:32-35, if you want to know). I explained in a comment that the passage strongly taught against the notion of work for the dead. My friend Adam, whom I had met on my most recent Utah trip, challenged me by claiming that I had taken the verse out of context. Instead of explaining the context and correct interpretation to me, he insisted that I had some kind of hidden animosity toward Mormons and removed me from his friends list. First, if you are a Mormon, I hope you know that I don’t hate you or look down on you. You’re probably pretty cool in your own way, and all I really intend by writing this is for you to know the truth about the Gospel so that you can benefit from it and God will be glorified in it. Second, logic is a lot like balancing an equation in algebra: What is done to one side must be done to the other. If Adam’s accusation was true (which, I maintain, it was not), would this mean that the Book of Mormon was corrupted? Also, the Book of Mormon has been translated into different languages. Does this mean that those translations carry a different message than the English one? I have a Mormon friend who rejects the LDS doctrine of baptism. Does this disagreement mean that something was removed from the Book of Mormon? If I were to use any of these arguments in conversation with any Mormon, I would probably get shut down easily.
The fact is, nothing has been removed from the Bible. Three small passages may have been added later, but none of these passages have any effect on any Biblical teaching. I can say this with a high degree of certainty because of the abundance of manuscript evidence available. We have more than 5,000 ancient manuscripts of the Greek New Testament - some of which go back as far as 125 A.D. - plus several thousand Latin copies. If anything was ever taken away, the sheer number of manuscripts would show us. What the Old Testament lacks in numbers, it makes up for in age range. We can re-create almost the entire OT using just the Dead Sea scrolls. We even have an Isaiah scroll that’s 2100 years old! What makes this so significant is that there is greater than 99% agreement between the oldest manuscripts and the newest ones, meaning that we would know if anything was taken away or otherwise greatly altered. Remember - God isn’t willing that His word be corrupted. A remnant will always remain (Isaiah 40:7-8). The very same God who preserved the Davidic line through the exile and the inter-testamental period is entirely capable of preserving His book from generation to generation without hiding it from the world or infringing on anyone’s “agency.”
Celestial Marriage and the Bible 1
This is going to take some explaining. See, I am not a Mormon. I have never been a Mormon. I am one of those Bible-thumpin' evangelicals, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. However, for reasons I don't really understand (seriously, I have no idea), I spend my free time researching Mormonism and purposefully forming friendships with Mormons. The idea is to preach the Gospel to people who actually want to hear what i have to say. A revolutionary idea, I know. And even if they never come to know Jesus, I still get to have some good conversations with some fine folks. Since most of my Mormon friends live in Utah and I do not (for now....), our conversations are mostly in the form of emails. Isn't Facebook great? Anyways, when I found out one of my Morms was about to get eternally hitched, I decided to ask about two Bible passages which seem to teach against the LDS idea of marriage (I'll get to that in a minute). In response, she said that she wanted me to give my interpretation of all the relevant Bible passages, to justify those interpretations with logic and reason, and to ask specific questions for her to answer. Mind you, I do this kind of stuff for FUN. Now, before I get into my response - which required about four months of study and far too much navel-gazing - there are two things I need you, the reader, to know.
First, there is a very important distinction between Mormonism as an institution and Mormonism as a group of people. I don't really have any problems with the average Mormon, and it's not like I keep a dart-gun next to my door. Anymore. There are some - such as General Authority Glenn Pace, for example - that I have absolutely no respect for, but this is because of specific things that thsoe individuals have done. The vast majority of Mormons are just trying to live good lives and serve their church because they believe this is what God asks them to do; therefore, I don't condemn them for who they are or how they behave. But I do have a very serious problem with Mormonism as an institution, since it teaches against the true Gospel and it causes people to live as if God's favor can be earned. This is an important distinction to point out because I make it my mission to argue against Mormonism, but for Mormons.
Second, according to the Mormon plan of salvation (or, my understanding of it - correct me if I'm wrong), a person needs to be married in a Mormon temple in order to enter the Celestial Kingdom, which is where God is. This marriage continues for all eternity because the happy couple is given the responsibility of serving as gods over their own planet, which they will have to populate with their own babies. Everything that can be done in the temple can be done for and on behalf of those who are dead. So if that's you, CHILL OUT, and leave me alone.
First, there is a very important distinction between Mormonism as an institution and Mormonism as a group of people. I don't really have any problems with the average Mormon, and it's not like I keep a dart-gun next to my door. Anymore. There are some - such as General Authority Glenn Pace, for example - that I have absolutely no respect for, but this is because of specific things that thsoe individuals have done. The vast majority of Mormons are just trying to live good lives and serve their church because they believe this is what God asks them to do; therefore, I don't condemn them for who they are or how they behave. But I do have a very serious problem with Mormonism as an institution, since it teaches against the true Gospel and it causes people to live as if God's favor can be earned. This is an important distinction to point out because I make it my mission to argue against Mormonism, but for Mormons.
Second, according to the Mormon plan of salvation (or, my understanding of it - correct me if I'm wrong), a person needs to be married in a Mormon temple in order to enter the Celestial Kingdom, which is where God is. This marriage continues for all eternity because the happy couple is given the responsibility of serving as gods over their own planet, which they will have to populate with their own babies. Everything that can be done in the temple can be done for and on behalf of those who are dead. So if that's you, CHILL OUT, and leave me alone.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Life Lessons
Duct tape fixes everything.
Five Iron Frenzy was the best Christian band ever.
$400 is way too much to pay for a ping-pong table.
You should always carry a pen, only single people are good at Minesweeper.
A warm chocolate chip cookie could probably solve most of the world’s problems.
Anchorman.
Just because you can sing doesn’t mean you should.
Just because you can’t sing doesn’t mean you should start an emo band.
There is nothing wrong with being a nerd.
If you’re going to call it Christian it should look something like Christ.
People who think God has no sense of humor have clearly never farted.
Pizza.
Facial hair will get you lots of attention regardless of what gender you are.
There is no good reason why there should be 38,000 Christian denominations.
Toy Story 2 was okay.
Life would be so much better if people used their brains every once in a while.
Deodorant.
Jesus did not die so that we could send text-messages in chapel.
There is no way that Harry Potter could ever be as good as Lord of the Rings.
Mountain Dew is the urine of God.
It's not right that men are portrayed as being dumber than women - dumbness is clearly gender-neutral.
Batman.
C.S. Lewis was probably right about everything.
Jury duty isn’t that bad.
People should treat God better than they treat anyone else they love.
There is nothing in my life worth complaining about.
Skittles.
Five Iron Frenzy was the best Christian band ever.
$400 is way too much to pay for a ping-pong table.
You should always carry a pen, only single people are good at Minesweeper.
A warm chocolate chip cookie could probably solve most of the world’s problems.
Anchorman.
Just because you can sing doesn’t mean you should.
Just because you can’t sing doesn’t mean you should start an emo band.
There is nothing wrong with being a nerd.
If you’re going to call it Christian it should look something like Christ.
People who think God has no sense of humor have clearly never farted.
Pizza.
Facial hair will get you lots of attention regardless of what gender you are.
There is no good reason why there should be 38,000 Christian denominations.
Toy Story 2 was okay.
Life would be so much better if people used their brains every once in a while.
Deodorant.
Jesus did not die so that we could send text-messages in chapel.
There is no way that Harry Potter could ever be as good as Lord of the Rings.
Mountain Dew is the urine of God.
It's not right that men are portrayed as being dumber than women - dumbness is clearly gender-neutral.
Batman.
C.S. Lewis was probably right about everything.
Jury duty isn’t that bad.
People should treat God better than they treat anyone else they love.
There is nothing in my life worth complaining about.
Skittles.
It's Like Watching Chimps
The following comes from a paper I wrote for an English class a few years ago. The assignment was to find an advertisement in a magazine and write about it (you know, demographics and such). I'm particularly proud of the result. It was frustrating, though, because the version I eventually turned in had to be edited for content. There is a creative little man inside of me, and he occasionally gets the chance to burst out of my chest and breathe fresh air before impregnating and murdering most of the crew. But now that I have finally begun blogging, I have the opportunity to present a sort of "director's cut" version. The story behind the writing of this paper is pretty crazy, too, but that's for another time. Enjoy!
Until now, the intellectual world has always been perplexed, confused, and flummoxed by the average adolescent girl. Much time and effort have gone into studying the female of the species, but to little or no avail. Theories abound, but scientists have not yet been able to confirm anything. It seems the female collective is an exclusive club, and those of us with too deep a voice are not allowed either to join or to stand outside the window and watch. This lack of understanding has served to prevent many young men from experiencing the joys of romance. But now, at long last, researchers have discovered what may be the next best thing: An advertisement stolen from the pages of their very own publication! While this may not be as informative as sitting in on a “girl-talk” session, we can now at least determine which stereotypes this particular advertiser believes to be true.
The advertisement was retrieved from a copy of the latest issue of Teen Magazine. For those who don’t already know, Teen is a magazine which caters to 12 - 16 year old girls and perverts. The fact that it appeals to girls in this age group can be determined simply by the articles featured, particularly “Can This Relationship Be Saved?” and “50 Hottest Guys In Hollywood ” (most of which aren’t old enough to drink and are probably on Disney’s payroll). These articles stand out even further because it seems someone cut them up into smaller pieces, then rearranged those pieces in no particular order all over the page.
Since there is no mention of a company name on the advertisement itself (just a website), it is probably a product ad which serves as a sort of menu for every downloadable cell phone accessory known to man. This doesn’t seem to follow any of the marketing techniques mentioned in class or in the reading. There are no obvious appeals to logic, emotions or morality -or logos, pathos, and ethos according to Barnet and Bedau (65-66). If they were trying the “plain folks” technique, they failed (teenage girls never say “hunk” unless they’re violently ill). What is most striking about the ad is the use of at least 835 distinct, seizure inducing colors. The effect is such that a person could easily use this advertisement as a replacement for his broken kaleidoscope. Clearly girls like vibrant colors and shiny things. The layout of the ad is similar to my dorm room in that there is stuff everywhere. It seems to be divided into seven sections - ringtones, wallpapers, ordering instructions, “boy or girl” test, “future husband” test, movies, and the legal information - each of which is most likely designed to make the audience less and less intelligent.
The ringtones section is just a list of popular songs and sound effects that young girls might not mind hearing at least once an hour. This doesn’t say much about the nature of teenage girls, except that the advertisers clearly assume their audience has terrible taste in music. The real goldmine, however, is the wallpaper section because it features a variety of bumper-sticker-like phrases which most likely double as common life philosophies. Here, one can see that everything a young girl wants will fall into one of these four categories: ‘Cute’ (there are pictures of kittens and puppies), ‘attitude’ (“I’m hot and you know it”), ‘fashion’, and ‘hot guys.’ There are also ones that say things like “Caution: Blonde Thinking” and “I Love Bad Boys,” both of which confirm decades-old stereotypes. It is interesting to note that no two wallpapers use the same font or color scheme. Teen girls obviously have bad attitudes and are only interested in things that don’t matter.
The ordering information section is self-explanatory – all you have to do is text-message a certain code to a certain number. The “boy or girl” test, however, is somewhat disappointing because it apparently has nothing to do with gender-androgynous people; rather, it seems this is a service which promises to psychically predict the gender of your baby. It appears the advertisers are assuming that there is a significant amount of pregnant 13-year-olds.
The movies section is interesting because it claims that the “bestseller” is an animated picture of four inexperienced firefighters (you can tell they’re inexperienced because firefighters generally don’t last long without their shirts on). There is another picture here featuring a shirtless muscle-man with the label, “RED-HOT HUNK!” The presence of these pictures is no surprise given the apparently high number of preteens who are expecting. The “future husband test” includes a similar picture next to a promise to predict the name of the patron’s future husband. The specific wording of the promise and the presence of yet another oiled-up Jean-Claude VanDamme look-alike imply a sort of unspoken knowledge among girls: Namely, that teen girls all believe they will get married, and their future husband will be able to cook bacon on his own chest.
The legal information section is another surprise. It reveals that you can’t just buy one download and call it a day. Oh no, it’s a subscription service. Looks like you’ll be paying $10 a month for that “I <3>
Until now, the intellectual world has always been perplexed, confused, and flummoxed by the average adolescent girl. Much time and effort have gone into studying the female of the species, but to little or no avail. Theories abound, but scientists have not yet been able to confirm anything. It seems the female collective is an exclusive club, and those of us with too deep a voice are not allowed either to join or to stand outside the window and watch. This lack of understanding has served to prevent many young men from experiencing the joys of romance. But now, at long last, researchers have discovered what may be the next best thing: An advertisement stolen from the pages of their very own publication! While this may not be as informative as sitting in on a “girl-talk” session, we can now at least determine which stereotypes this particular advertiser believes to be true.
The advertisement was retrieved from a copy of the latest issue of Teen Magazine. For those who don’t already know, Teen is a magazine which caters to 12 - 16 year old girls and perverts. The fact that it appeals to girls in this age group can be determined simply by the articles featured, particularly “Can This Relationship Be Saved?” and “50 Hottest Guys In Hollywood ” (most of which aren’t old enough to drink and are probably on Disney’s payroll). These articles stand out even further because it seems someone cut them up into smaller pieces, then rearranged those pieces in no particular order all over the page.
Since there is no mention of a company name on the advertisement itself (just a website), it is probably a product ad which serves as a sort of menu for every downloadable cell phone accessory known to man. This doesn’t seem to follow any of the marketing techniques mentioned in class or in the reading. There are no obvious appeals to logic, emotions or morality -or logos, pathos, and ethos according to Barnet and Bedau (65-66). If they were trying the “plain folks” technique, they failed (teenage girls never say “hunk” unless they’re violently ill). What is most striking about the ad is the use of at least 835 distinct, seizure inducing colors. The effect is such that a person could easily use this advertisement as a replacement for his broken kaleidoscope. Clearly girls like vibrant colors and shiny things. The layout of the ad is similar to my dorm room in that there is stuff everywhere. It seems to be divided into seven sections - ringtones, wallpapers, ordering instructions, “boy or girl” test, “future husband” test, movies, and the legal information - each of which is most likely designed to make the audience less and less intelligent.
The ringtones section is just a list of popular songs and sound effects that young girls might not mind hearing at least once an hour. This doesn’t say much about the nature of teenage girls, except that the advertisers clearly assume their audience has terrible taste in music. The real goldmine, however, is the wallpaper section because it features a variety of bumper-sticker-like phrases which most likely double as common life philosophies. Here, one can see that everything a young girl wants will fall into one of these four categories: ‘Cute’ (there are pictures of kittens and puppies), ‘attitude’ (“I’m hot and you know it”), ‘fashion’, and ‘hot guys.’ There are also ones that say things like “Caution: Blonde Thinking” and “I Love Bad Boys,” both of which confirm decades-old stereotypes. It is interesting to note that no two wallpapers use the same font or color scheme. Teen girls obviously have bad attitudes and are only interested in things that don’t matter.
The ordering information section is self-explanatory – all you have to do is text-message a certain code to a certain number. The “boy or girl” test, however, is somewhat disappointing because it apparently has nothing to do with gender-androgynous people; rather, it seems this is a service which promises to psychically predict the gender of your baby. It appears the advertisers are assuming that there is a significant amount of pregnant 13-year-olds.
The movies section is interesting because it claims that the “bestseller” is an animated picture of four inexperienced firefighters (you can tell they’re inexperienced because firefighters generally don’t last long without their shirts on). There is another picture here featuring a shirtless muscle-man with the label, “RED-HOT HUNK!” The presence of these pictures is no surprise given the apparently high number of preteens who are expecting. The “future husband test” includes a similar picture next to a promise to predict the name of the patron’s future husband. The specific wording of the promise and the presence of yet another oiled-up Jean-Claude VanDamme look-alike imply a sort of unspoken knowledge among girls: Namely, that teen girls all believe they will get married, and their future husband will be able to cook bacon on his own chest.
The legal information section is another surprise. It reveals that you can’t just buy one download and call it a day. Oh no, it’s a subscription service. Looks like you’ll be paying $10 a month for that “I <3>
After spending countless hours staring at this advertisement, what have researchers learned? They have learned that, according to the makers of this ad – and possibly the editors of Teen Magazine, too – girls between the ages of 12 and 16 are primarily frivolous, self-centered, sexually promiscuous, and only interested in “hot” men. They run to bright colors and puppy dogs like a moth flies to its’ death, and God forbid there should ever be a blonde one who reads more often than she primps. Perhaps some things really are better left a mystery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)