It might be the height of arrogance to think that God concerns himself with petty things like whether Mormons drink tea, much less tequila, and that Muslims and Jews don’t eat pork. I’m just glad to not be part of a religion that forbids something I really like, like hot chocolate with whipped cream. That might truly test my faith.
One of the biggest perks of staying with my sister is that we get cable, which means that I get House. Marcy gets The Office, Dick and Adam get Heroes, and the kids get Spongebob. It’s only a matter of time, I think, before Spongebob is connected with bizzare behavior of some sort or another; perhaps not violent criminalism, but possibly even scarier for being completely absurd.
There’s a Mormon character on House right now, a youngish black man competing for a fellowship spot on House’s diagnostic team. Last Tuesday, House goaded the Mormon character (he has a number, but I can’t remember what it is) into drinking tequila as part of a pseudo-diagnostic test that might save the life of a patient. House’s compelling argument was the “Would you pull an ass out of a pit on the Sabbath?” rationale.
The dialogue was well-written and fast-paced, though one mistake made it clear that no actual Mormons were consulted (use of “LDS” for “Mormonism”; just as you wouldn’t say “Catholic” when you meant “Catholicism”). Race relations, “magic underwear,” and the Word of Wisdom were all addressed in under two minutes. And in my humble opinion, Dr. House shared my disappointment that his argument, reasonable as it may be, so easily swayed the Mormon into a medical drinking contest. As House said, rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people, otherwise there wouldn’t be any.
I love House. He’s an athiest and a misanthropist. And he’s witty. One might even compare his tongue to a wasp’s stinger. When I was in high school and had a crush on Chris Hansen in AP Chem, my friends and I had a habit of assigning code names to our crushes. Levi, who eventually turned out to be not even a possibility was Apollo the sungod, and Chris, thanks to our reading of The Scarlet Letter, was Roger Chillingworth. And I was in love.
Irrational, then, that I married a most mild-tongued man. But I still have room for a major crush on awful, sarcastic, incredibly intelligent, Sherlock Holmes-wannabe Gregory House.
Subscribe by email
Funny, because House drives me nuts. Not that I don’t love the show – never miss it. I could never deal with someone like that in real life – but I like watching his interactions with his “friends” and co-workers. And he does have tons of funny lines. I’m pretty fascinated with the medical stuff. The whole Mormon resident thing was interesting – didn’t see why all 4 or 5 of them had to do shots with the patient. But I don’t think that guy was one of the finalists, fake-Mormon or not.
I’ve never heard of that show, but I don’t think that poor guy should be judged for succumbing to the pressure. He wasn’t merely in a scenario of being asked to drink, he was on TV being watched by millions of people, and being manipulated by a very quick-witted person. Do you really think you’d be able to stand up to that? What if it was Mountain Dew? Remember, Peter himself succumbed to temptation and yet Jesus charged him to build the Church regardless. God doesn’t expect us to be perfect. In fact, it’s the world that expects us to be perfect.
Marie–
your defense of the character is unnecessary–i don’t blame the actor for portraying a Mormon in such a way. there are many imperfect Mormons who drink for worse reasons than those on the show, and, as i said, the lines of dialogue the “Mormon” character spoke made it very clear that no actual Mormons were consulted about either doctrinal or semantic issues.
what appealed to me most was that House criticizes the character for using his (House’s) judgement in making the decision rather than his own. in the plot, the patient requires such an odd diagnostic test rather than the usual MRI because she is a NASA pilot who can’t let NASA know that she is perhaps less healthy than they think. so the conflict is between her dreams and the “Mormon’s” religious belief. which is more important? does a doctor have any ethical requirement to put the dreams of a patient ahead of his/her own religious beliefs? i think the answer to that is no.
in terms of the plot, the Mormon character was shown to value his advancement in the competition (seeking to please House) more than his religious belief. i can’t admire that choice.
now, as to how i would act in that situation–very interesting. because of my religious belief, it is high unlikely that i would ever be in that or similar situation in terms of needing to sacrifice belief for ambitious achievement. instead of becoming a doctor or lawyer or pursuing a competitive career, i am a mother, and my career of child-rearing has never required me to choose between my beliefs and my ambition. i made that choice about nine years ago.
also, i think God does expect us to be perfect. that doesn’t mean we can’t sin; we’re expected to. a Savior would be rather superfluous if God didn’t both expect us to sin and expect us to become perfected at some point. which is not to say that i am not probably a huge disappointment in this expectation.
I think he would LIKE us to be perfect but doesn’t EXPECT it. He who created us knows us better than that. This is kind of like the Mother Teresa thing we were discussing before. She had doubts, and rather than diminishing her example, that doubt actually endeared her to us further. Because faith is a journey, not a “happily ever after.” We’re meant to help each other on this journey. I recently read a non-fiction book about nuns. Apparently there is a period of time in everyone’s life called “The Night of the Soul” or something like that, during which we question everything. Nuns very often take year long sabbaticals to get through that time. It is actually expected. Even Jesus went through these times. Even the most perfect man was tempted.
Marie–good points; i agree. it’s interesting to me to hear the leaders of the Mormon church give their talks twice yearly during General Conference–in Oct and April so it was just this past weekend most recently. sometimes they seem to be saying, it’s okay, don’t make yourself miserable trying to be perfect, and at other times they say, buck up and do better. hopefully we hear whichever message–comfort or criticism–that will help us to become just a little better at our current point in the journey.
i got Mother Teresa’s book, and am just starting it. will let you know how it is. hey, did you ever read the book about a nun who had visions, and then she found out they were caused by a brain tumor and she was reluctant to get the surgery because she felt that might be God’s way of talking to her. i’m describing it badly. it was a very thought-provoking book–Lying Awake by Mark Salzman. Here’s an NPR interview with the author.
Tara–i agree that that character probably won’t become a regular. it seemed like they exhausted all of their curiosity/commentary on Mormonism in those few scenes. and maybe it is because i have such a smooth partner (most of the time) in my marriage that i can indulge the tv fantasy of a beatrice-benedict/taming of the shrew type love interest.
Well not sure what to say about the character. I do know I love House regardless of how much of a jerk he can be, he is an awesome dr. and character. I never miss an episode.
I looked this up on lds.org and thought it was interesting: Guide to the Scriptures: Perfect
To me, as a person who is not predisposed to drink or has ever touched a drink, I think that it’s easy to be “perfect” in never touching a drink. There are many other things I don’t think are as easy, like being perfect in kindness or pure thoughts, etc.
Marie,
I was thinking about your comment, “Nuns very often take year long sabbaticals to get through that time” and I remembered a stake president (church leader) I had when I was in college. He said that everyone has times when they doubt or ask questions. Like you said, it is normal to question things. He continued by saying that those people that continue to do good things even when they are questioning them, are the ones that find their answers. He said those are the ones that have true testimonies; they understand that they will find answers through their faith.
I agree. I have had moments when I have doubted my beliefs. I remember being very discouraged and confused. I also remember doing a lot of praying and scripture reading. I went to church and I served people. With time, I found my answers through doing those things.
One the other hand, I have a roommate who was doubting her faith and she decided to do just the opposite. She stopped praying, going to church, reading her scriptures and eventually stopped going to church. Today, she is still very confused and unhappy.
In my mind, I think it is the wrong approach to ditch out on your faith for a little bit until you figure things out. You are right that even Jesus was tempted. But he combatted those temptations with scripture and faith, not a break from those things.
Anyway, I think you were simply making a comment on what the book said. It was just interesting for me to think about.
Oh and, I believe that faith is a “happily ever after” or I wouldn’t believe what I believe. I live my life based off of what I believe and I have an awesome life. If I didn’t believe that I would have a “happily ever after” it is doubtful that I would live the way I do and my beliefs would be very different. I have had many trials, have current trials, and I’m sure to have more, but I know that through those trials I will in fact have that “happily ever after”; it’s called The Plan of Salvation.
I definitely found faith a general goodness much easier when I was younger and hadn’t experienced much. But it made me feel much better to know that these times of doubt are normal. And if nuns of all people go through it, it certainly doesn’t make me a bad person. I agree that it’s important to stay very close to your beliefs during such times. Even if you feel like you’re talking to yourself.
Adrianne–i imagine that is a comforting sort of faith to have. mine is more of an “all for the best, with joy and understanding to follow, insha’allah” type thing.
Marie–another interesting part of our recent church Conference was one of the new leaders telling of a story that he had heard about Heber J. Grant, who was a prophet a while ago (i’m really good on the historical stuff, huh?). anyway, when Pres. Grant was called, he told whoever called him that he didn’t know if he believed, and the person told the other apostles or whoever that he thinks he doesn’t know but he does know or something like that. i’ll look up the exact story on thursday when it’s available online.
but i completely agree about everyone doubting at some point. how could we be converted or have faith without first having a lack of faith or a non-converted state. i also agree with marcy that it’s possible to be perfect in some things or have faith in some things while struggling with others. and far from making us bad people, questioning what it’s all about is surely a good thing, so long as that is our starting point, not our ending point.
Shannon (and others, since I have butted into your conversation), there is a fascinating article in BYU Magazine about faith, at this web address:
http://magazine.byu.edu/?act=view&a=1851 (sorry it doesn’t come up as a hyperlink).
This is a long article entitled “Lightning out of Heaven” that has some really important comments about faith near the end. Here is just one paragraph:
We are, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our ego. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is in the final analysis an action that is positively laden with moral significance. Men and women are confronted with a world in which there are appealing arguments for God as a childish projection, for modern prophets as scheming or deluded imposters, and for modern scriptures as so much fabulous fiction. But there is also compelling evidence that a glorious divinity presides over the cosmos, that God calls and anoints prophets, and that his word and will are made manifest through a sacred canon that is never definitively closed.
* * * * * * *
If you get a chance, read the whole article–it is excellent and says a lot about the character of those who believe and those who don’t.
And, for the record, I, too, like House, but I think I’m going to swear off it. I’m kind of tired of his glib dismissals of belief and his bad behavior in general. One of the problems I see in TV nowadays is the absence of consequences, particularly when it comes to human relationships. The heartbreak and turmoil that accompany short-term sexual relationships seem beyond the grasp of network writers.
Nancy,
thanks for the article reference. i’ll read it. i still really like what my f-i-l quoted “It is the final proof of God’s omnipotence that He need not exist in order to save us.” i don’t know why that strikes me as so deep. maybe it is a solipsism that impedes true faith, but to me it means that even when we doubt, we should do as He asks, because what He asks are good things anyway. or something.
re: your last paragraph, we just watched Knocked Up (filtered on clearplay) and it dealt only with those consequences. very interesting.
Shannon- tha is a really good quote. I nver thought about that before, but it’s true!