So, in no particular order, here’s the first selection from the “early years” anthology. Enjoy, and maybe let me know what YOU think.

(January 13, 1979)

It seems as though contemporary society hinges on some irrepressible, unseen force that guides people’s actions and molds them into a sameness, a conformity that seems endless. The individual in society is looked down upon for his different opinion or feelings. The individual’s mode is adjusted according to the rejection he recieves because of his convictions. He becomes a changeling, one in limbo between his beliefs and the desire for acceptance. The truly strong, or courageous, person is the one who exhibits “grace under pressure” and continues in the stand of his beliefs. One’s principles can be jeopardized by this outside pressure until that person becomes a loathsome being to himself. He does everything he said he would never do, and becomes everything he said he would never become. Only this “grace under pressure” can save a person from being molded into an almost comic stereotype. One’s principles must be upheld in any endeavor to reach the plane of self-acceptance, where one can face himself and be proud and not turn away. These principles are the only weapon against a forceful society. The air, however, must be cleared of all misconceptions, and true feelings must be revealed. Once the principles are made apparent and the revelation of one’s true feelings takes place, the path is cleared for an open relationship between a single soul and the millions of other single souls in the quandary that is life.

So, I wonder what that was all about? I’ve read this so many times and yet I cannot recall specifically what was the driving force behind these thoughts. Evidently there was some sort of struggle taking place; what it was I really cannot say. And while I’d like to think that I was some highly principled young man of convictions, I don’t believe this was the case. Oh I had convictions of course; I’m just not sure they were necessarily all that noble or pure.

I’m also guessing that this was written during or after some highly traumatic experience with a member of the opposite sex. You remember those days (or maybe you’re in the midst of them?) when you got dumped and swore you were never going to go out with anybody EVER AGAIN! Which for most of us guys lasted about five minutes when some other young lady caught our eye by paying even the slightest attention to us. Yeah, we were real tough and strong. So perhaps this essay was written around one of these experiences.

I would still agree with the opening statement. Observing today’s culture (what I called then “contemporary society”), there does seem to be something that drives people to conform. I think one of the results of this conformity is the polarization we see: “liberals” vs. “conservatives”, western vs. non-western values and traditions, and globalization vs. protectivism, just to name  a few. Whatever particular ideology you hold to, it seems as though you have to subscribe to every single aspect of that particular tribe in order to be considered a true member. In some cases, if you deviate one little iota, you’re considered anathema. So the pressure to conform is great; more conformity then leads to this polarization as each side digs in, unwilling to lose the identity they fought so hard to obtain. Whether or not I was observing something like this back in those days or just suffering from the normal pressure to conform (dress, hairstyle, language, etc.), I really can’t remember.

I’m remembering that part of what led me to write this was conformity in thinking. I was not concerned with outward actions or behavior, but what led people to conform in thinking. Why be a clone or a drone in your thinking? And this means not so much as having a unique original thought as it does to have your own thoughts, not just the spewing out of whatever thought happens to be in fashion at that time without any regard or understanding of why you hold those thoughts. Examining one’s attitudes and opinions is perhaps best exercised before those are shared or lived out in some way; I also understand that in the process of sharing or living out  attitudes and opinions, one can grow in their understanding of why those are held. And perhaps change where needed?

 And the part about the plane of self-acceptance? I have no idea what that means…

This event also should serve as a reminder that no matter how fractured and malfunctioning our political system and election process is, it is still a much healthier system than you will find across the world.

I think these words uttered by a young woman capture so well the reaction not only of the mother but perhaps of the family and the community from which she came.

After finding out she was pregnant, she said, “I took two weeks to myself where I didn’t tell anybody.”

Of course, this makes sense. Absorbing news like this would require time. Time to get over the shock of how this could happen, time to contemplate the future, time to understand how very different life would be once the child was brought into the world.

Oh, I’m sorry, you think I’m talking about Jamie Lynn Spears (Britney’s little sister). Actually I was thinking about Mary, Jesus’ mother. It’s a bit disconcerting to consider a 16 year old getting pregnant. But this is the reality that we consider at Christmas as we now await the imminent birth of the Savior. A young woman (we don’t actually know her exact age), chosen by God to miraculously conceive and carry Immanuel, was surely in shock. We read of her humility in the Bible, of her servant heart. We read of Joseph considering a quiet divorce to spare her public disgrace, until the angel reassures him that this was all part of God’s plan and that he should continue with his plans to marry her. All part of God’s plan.

So who knows, maybe there is just as much shock today as there was in the days of Mary when a 16 year old becomes pregnant. I’m guessing not. But let’s celebrate with great joy the birth of the Savior Jesus this Christmas – and pray for the Jamie Lynns in the world.

This show is appealing to me for a variety of reasons. First, there is nothing like it on TV. It is quirky without being grating or disturbing. From whimsical dialogue to surreal scenery, this show exemplifies what good televison looks like. It is pure fantasy, with doses of sardonic wit (mostly by Ned’s partner, P.I. Emerson Cod, who continually refers to Chuck as ‘dead girl’), fast-paced dialogue, and entertainingly bizarre supporting characters.

Second, the love story between Ned and Charlotte (Chuck) is fascinating. There is a purity about their relationship; remember, they cannot touch or Chuck dies. This lends an innocent quality to their romance as they try and find ways to express their affection for each other in non-physical ways. How many TV shows can say that today?

Finally, I have to commend the writers for dialogue that is intelligent, witty, and stylish. The show assumes the audience has some degree of intelligence and can go along for the ride, using imagination to appropriately apprehend the magical story unfolding. How can I not like a show that has lines like this (spoken by Chuck when she realizes that because Ned did not touch her again before a minute was up, aonther person in close proximity died): “You mean someone had to die so that I could live?” I’m paraphrasing from memory, but I thought that was a great line that serves well as an illustration about what Christ did. If you think about it, that’s the reality we face; if Christ did not die, then all hope would be lost, death would be the final act, and we would face eternity separated from God. But because Christ died, I live. In 2 Corinthians we are reminded that anyone who is in Christ is a “new creation; the old has gone, the new has come.” Someone had to die so that I could live. His name is Jesus. And if Pushing Daisies can help me remember that while entertaining me, then I say my time is well spent watching it.

Now, let me make this clear: Do I think a Mormon can be president? Yes. Do I believe a Mormon can be a good president? Yes. Can someone be Mormon and Christian? I have to say no. In spite of Mitt’s statement in his speech (“I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind”), he has to realize that even at the most basic core understanding of Jesus Christ, Christianity and Mormonism are mutually exclusive.

Why do I say this? First, please understand that I am not attacking an individual or the sincerity of one’s beliefs. I applaud Mitt Romney for having convictions, and I believe he is a person of good character. This does not mean that I can agree with his somewhat tepid and generic description of the Mormon Jesus.  Mormons believe that God the Father is a flesh and bones god and that Jesus was the first born (satan was the second) of God and one of his wives. Therefore, Mormonism teaches that Jesus was a created being. The Bible teaches that Jesus is not a created being; he IS God and existed from eternity. We don’t even need to go any further with other Mormon beliefs or teachings that are contrary to Biblical Christianity (too many to mention here). At the point where any religion teaches that Jesus was the progeny of a flesh and bones god, there is a conflict with Christianity.

In addition, Mormons believe that Jesus’ death on the cross itself is not enough to secure forgiveness of sins; in order to obtain forgiveness, humans must cooperate with God by being good and following all the commands and decrees issued by the church. Does this clash with the Biblical teaching of Jesus all sufficient merit by his suffering and death? You bet. Being Christian means following Jesus and all that is encompassed in the Biblical teaching about salvation.

So let’s not even have the debate of Mormons as Christians. They are not, but that does not mean that a Mormon – in this case Mitt Romney – can’t serve well as president. We’ll have to see how this all plays out over the next few weeks and months. And won’t we all be glad when this interminable campaign season ends?