• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Official website of writer Aaron Johnston

  • HOME
  • PORTFOLIO
  • BLOG
  • ABOUT
  • CONTACT
You are here: Home / Content/Sidebar

Content/Sidebar

The English and Anti-Mormons

January 26, 2006 By Aaron Johnston

There are two kinds of people in this world: polite people, and those who would just as soon see you fall down and give your knee a good scrape.

Recently I’ve received a batch of emails from both groups and here’s my conclusion:

1. The English are polite.
2. Anti-Mormons are not.

Allow me to explain.

In my last column I made a jab at what I thought was an obscure event in English history, one — I was sure — even the English had forgotten. The Gunpowder Plot.

Imagine my embarrassment when after the column was posted I received several emails from English readers informing me that the Gunpowder Plot was NOT in fact an obscure event but instead a monumental one that is remembered and commemorated every year.

In fact, it’s such an important event that a nursery rhyme was written with the explicit intent of encouraging schoolchildren to NOT forget it:

Remember remember the 5th of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason why gunpowder treason,
Should ever be forgot.

How’s that for an editorial boo boo? It’s like me saying, “It’s too bad Texans have forgotten about the Alamo” when of course the Alamo is the last thing any Texan has let slip his memory.

In my feeble defense, the celebration of the Gunpowder Plot is not called Gunpowder Plot Day — as any ignorant American like myself would assume. Nor is it Gunpowder Day or even the more mysterious sounding Plot Day.

It’s called Guy Fawkes Day.

Guy Fawkes — as any Englishman can tell you — is the name of the would-be assassin who with a group of fellow conspirators tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament back in 1605 with several barrels of gunpowder (hence the name of the plot).

So when I didn’t find any information on “Gunpowder Plot Day,” I jumped to the wrong conclusion.

I know. An inexcusable error. And one I regret. My most heartfelt apologies to any English reader who may have taken offense.

Fortunately for me, all of you who wrote in to set me straight were extremely polite. Rather than fill my inbox with insults and justifiable complaints, you merely patted me softly on the back and said, “My dear sir, thank you for giving some notoriety to a bit of English history, but if it wouldn’t be too much trouble and if you would permit me this slight indulgence, I’d like to clarify a few points of fact.”

Proof, folks, that the gentleman and lady-ness of English Society is still alive and well (thank goodness).

One email went like this:

“I just read The Back Bench Gunpowder Plot stuff and as a full-time Englishman am about to weigh in (not by way of correction just, Oh, call it enlightenment, and because I”m bored at work).”

See what I mean? Polite. This person even went out of his way to NOT offend me by reassuring me that it was not his intent to correct me (even though I was clearly in the wrong).

He goes on to clarify the event:

“Every November 5th across the nation there are bonfires, hotdogs, millions of dollars worth of spectacular fireworks (as a damper country we don”t have the firework regulations had by most of the more flammable U.S.), and very scared pets. I think I”m right in saying it”s the only celebration unique to the British Isles.”

Now compare this sincere politeness to a batch of emails I received about the same time from someone who is not a fan of our faith. In other words, an anti-mormon.

For the record, I dislike the term anti-mormon. I think it’s silly, to be honest, and more than a little melodramatic.

Plus it’s one-sided. Those we label anti-mormons probably don’t consider themselves such. In fact, they don’t consider themselves anti anything, except maybe anti-Satan. And who can fault them for that?

They’re generally devout Christians who believe as much as we do that the message they have to share is as vital to the listener’s salvation as ours is.

More specifically, I define an anti-Mormon as anyone who actively works to break down the Church and disenfranchise its members. These are the guys who wave banners and shout scripture outside the Conference Center during General Conference. Or the guys who pass out anti-Mormon literature at all the temple open houses. Or the guys who invite Mormon missionaries into their home only to start an argument and stir up a cloud of contention. Or the members of the Church who became “disillusioned” with the gospel, leave the Church, and then do everything in their power to take other members with them.

In my experience, these people are hard to deal with. Get them on the subject of Mormonism and they become downright hostile. The conversation quickly becomes not a dialogue, but a monologue, with the anti-mormon lecturing you on how ridiculous and evil Mormonism is and making it impossible for you to get a word in edge wise.

But even if you did get a word in edge wise it wouldn’t make any difference.

Nothing you or I can say will budge an anti-mormon one inch from the soapbox he or she stands on. They’re immovable, unshakable, so determined to prove how wrong and silly we are that they will never hear a word we say to them.

Logic is irrelevant. Fairness is irrelevant. A person’s right to believe how he or she wishes (see the Bill of Rights) is irrelevant.

Which leads me to a list of sad truths one should always keep in mind before firing up a conversation with an anti-mormon.

Sad Truth #1: Anti-mormons don’t care what you think.

If an AM (my cute abbreviation for anti-mormon) asks you a question, it’s not because he doesn’t know the answer. Nor is it because he’s interested in your opinion. AMs could care less what you think or believe. Asking questions is merely a set up.

For example. Someone might say to you, “Don’t Mormons believe that God lives on a distant planet called Kolob?”

WARNING! WARNING! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!

If a stranger asks you that question with the most innocent of expressions on his or her face, make sure you’ve got your tennis shoes laced up before answering. Chances are you’ll want to run away as quickly as possible.

“But don’t Mormons believe that God had sexual relations with Mary to conceive Christ?”

RUN! RUN LIKE THE WIND!

This isn’t to say that we ignore people’s sincere questions about our faith. If someone approaches us, motivated by sincere curiosity, then we should by all means answer their questions.

But those people will phrase their questions differently. They’ll ask, “Is it true that Mormons believe . . .”

Or simply, “What do Mormons believe about . . . ”

And they typically won’t ask about controversial doctrine. It will be simple questions about Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon or temples or family, etc.

Anti-mormons, however, ONLY ask about controversial doctrine (or supposed doctrine) and phrase the questions in a way that suggests they already know the answer, which they think they do.

So they’ll say, “Don’t Mormons believe . . . ” Or “Isn’t it true that Mormons believe . . .”

Can you hear the difference? It’s a leading question.

And here’s the funny part. If you tell the AMs that we don’t in fact believe whatever hokey doctrine they suggest, they will promptly inform you of how wrong you are.

Which brings me to:

Sad Truth #2: AMs believe they know Mormon doctrine better than you do.

If you’re foolish enough to initiate a conversation with an anti-mormon, keep that in mind. Nothing you say or do will convince him or her that you know more about Mormon doctrine than he or she does.

The AM who began emailing me recently asked several leading questions that, I can only assume, he hoped would initiate an argument.

Some of the questions made me laugh. The doctrine he was proposing was downright preposterous.

When I tried to tell him that no, in fact, Mormons don’t believe what he was suggesting, he promptly told me how wrong I was.

You see, he knows what I believe better than I do. I don’t know how this is possible. He must have some secret power that allows him inside my head and gives him the ability to not only see the knowledge I’ve retained and consider credible but also the knowledge I haven’t retained but consider credible. It’s an amazing trick.

Sad Truth #3: AMs gleefully stockpile obscure quotes by general authorities and former members of the Church.

AMs love to keep a record of all the odd statements made by members (or purported members) of the Church. This is their ammunition. They can’t wait to throw it at you. They’ve got emails just waiting in their outbox to send to you.

I’m not kidding. They really get a kick out of this.

I can almost hear them slam the quote down on the table in front of me and shout, “Booyeah! Get a load of them apples, Mr. Returned Missionary.”

And if I try explaining to this person that the quote was taken out of context I’m only wasting my breath. Because . . .

Sad Truth #4: AMs will never, under any circumstances, admit they’re wrong.

If talking to someone until you’re blue in the face is your idea of a wild and crazy time, then by all means sit down and have a lengthy chat with an AM.

Just keep in mind that no amount of evidence or counter-evidence will disprove the allegation he or she has made.

For instance, say the AM has a quote by a general authority saying the world is flat.

Even if you present to this person fifty or a hundred different statements from general authorities clearly stating that Mormons believe the world is round, the AM will never waver from his accusation.

He’ll frown, cross his arms and say, “I know what Mormons believe. Nothing you can show me will disprove this.”

All righty then.

Sad Truth #5: AMs will not leave you alone, even if you ask them nicely.

Warning flags went off the moment I began reading the first email I received from an AM recently. I could see where this conversation was going.

So I politely congratulated him on his beliefs and wished him well.

This was not enough apparently. I promptly received a reply filled with obscure quotes and argument-inducing statements.

My response was simple and polite. “I’d rather not get into a theological debate. You obviously believe very strongly in your faith, as I believe strongly in mine. If we begin swapping scriptures and citing people, one of us will end up with hurt feelings, and I’d like to avoid that. So let’s simply allow each other to believe what he wishes and end it there.”

How silly of me to write such a response. How silly of me to suggest that we merely respect one another.

I forgot that the AM’s objective for writing in the first place was to prove how smart he is and how stupid I am. By denying him the argument he so desperately craved, I was denying him the opportunity to prove his wisdom.

I received another email with more obscure quotes.

I politely emailed him back and asked him to not to email me again. And trust me, I was polite. It took all the power of restraint I could muster. But I was polite.

I wrongly assumed that this would be the end of it. After all, that’s how civilized people operate. You ask someone to leave you alone, they leave you alone.

Silly me.

The following day I received yet another email, this one clearly stating what the AM had been waiting to say all along: I’m smarter than you; you’re an idiot; I know more about the Mormon “cult” than you do.

I only read about three lines of the massively lengthly email — which this person must have spent hours constructing — before moving it to the trash bin.

How sad, I thought. All that time of his wasted.

I’ve since put a block on his email address. If my AM friend emails back, he’ll find his email where I won’t: in my trash folder.

Which brings me to the final and obvious truth:

Sad Truth #6: AMs are not courteous.

Try to talk to that sign-waving guy outside General Conference and he’ll only scream louder. Try to politely end a conversation with an AM, and they’ll only get more hostile.

I distinctly remember the day on my mission when we tracted into the home of an anti-mormon. The man, upon seeing our white shirts and name tags, began yelling at the top of his voice at us. Vile and terrible insults. My companion and I tucked tail and ran. What else could we do? A civilized conversation was out of the question. So we skeedaddled.

A block away we could still hear him yelling.

Sad sad sad.

Don’t these people have better things to do with their time and energy? Why be rude? Why disrespect someone’s freedom to believe what he or she wishes?

The answer? I have no idea.

But take my unsolicited advice. Don’t try to fix the problem. Avoid it. You can’t indoctrinate an anti-mormon. You can’t even explain simple facts to them. So why bother? It will only leave you scratching your head, not because you suddenly doubt your faith but because you’ll be wondering where in the world people like this come from.

If you really need someone to talk to, call the English. They likely have some nice refreshment on hand, and you won’t find more pleasurable company.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: FEATURED

The House of the Scorpion by Nancy Farmer

January 21, 2006 By Aaron Johnston

You can’t see me, but I’m applauding, having just finished Nancy Farmer’s masterful sci-fi novel, The House of the Scorpion, which tells the story of young Mateo Alacran, the clone of the world’s most powerful drug lord and dictator.

In the future where the novel is set, clones are considered foul, disgusting creatures, no better than livestock, and Mateo has a difficult time growing up among this evil and twisted family of aristocrats.

Actually it’s unfair to call these people aristocrats. They’re simply members of a murdering drug cartel, one that relies upon slaves with implants in their brains that force them to be obedient.

Mateo’s only initial friends are his bodyguard Tam Lin and the servant woman responsible for raising him. More friends come along as he ages, but life is never peachy for Mateo, who has inherited the original Mateo’s physical features, but not his desire to destroy or own everything around him.

El Patron, or The Godfather, is everything Mateo is not. And yet the boy can’t help but love the evil old man whose DNA he holds. It’s an interesting commentary on the old nature vs. nurture argument, though whether this was the author’s intent I can’t say. It doesn’t feel like an editorial though. This isn’t a sermon. It’s a story. And an amazing one at that.

The book reminded me somewhat of a Dickens novel in that there was this young innocent boy battling for survival among some of the most vile and wretched people imaginable. But I guess that’s why I kept reading. Mateo’s struggles are real and painful. You can sense his isolation and feel his confusion as he struggles with his own identity. And certain death was always just a page away. I was hooked.

Farmer has an uncanny ability to mix cultures and characters in a way that is both captivating and realistic. This is world-creation at it’s best — the sounds, the smells, and the sights of a country whose only crop is opium and whose only purpose is to satisfy the insatiable greed of a self-serving despot. A wonderful read. Heartfelt and well worth your time. Five enthusiastic stars.

Winner of the 2002 National Book Award, Young People’s Literature
A 2003 Newbery Honor Book
A 2003 Michael L. Printz Honor Book

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Blog

The Amber Spyglass by Philip Pullman

December 19, 2005 By Aaron Johnston

The third and final book of Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy is a wonderful conclusion to one of the best fantasy series ever written. For the uninformed, His Dark Materials is the story of Lyra and Will, two young teens from two different worlds who must choose sides in a war between Lyra’s father, Lord Asriel, and the Authority, or God.

As I mentioned before when I reviewed the second book, Pullman is no fan of Christianity, or at least no fan of the Catholic Church, who in his opinion has committed far too many atrocious acts over the ages in the name of God. Yet despite Pullman’s personal belief’s I wouldn’t call the books anti-Christian by any means. They’re books of fantasy. They’re not books of religion. If it bothers you that leaders of the Church are villainous murderous, then perhaps this isn’t the book for you.

The characters are pure magic and include talking polar bears who wear impenetrable armor, witches, angels (both good and bad), small people who ride dragonflies and attack normal-sized adults with poison-tipped spurs, ghosts,and the list goes on and on.

Pullman is a master of world creation, and since His Dark Materials feature so many worlds, the read is a fascinating one. It makes you wonder how one person could have an imagination so immense. Comparisons to J.K. Rowling are fitting. Like Harry Potter, His Dark Materials is sure to delight anyone hoping to escape into a yet imagined world of wonder.

A brilliant book and a fascinating read.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Blog

The Island on DVD

December 19, 2005 By Aaron Johnston

It’s easy to dislike Michael Bay, the director of The Island and other action packed movies like Pearl Harbor, Bad Boys (1 and 2), The Rock, and Armageddon, not because he’s a bad director, although many say that he is, but because he’s so in love with himself. Michael Bay loves Michael Bay. Every special feature on the The Island DVD exists to remind us how smart, clever, and daring Michael Bay is. The first special-feature documentary opens with Michael Bay looking at camera and saying “I told the writers not to write any action [in the script]. Just write the word ‘action’ and I’ll do all the rest.” Oh, Michael Bay. Aren’t you brilliant? Bless you for being the ONLY person who made this movie.

The fact is, filmmaking is a collaborative art. It’s the product of a lot of talented people combining their skills to make something imaginative. Together. And to have Michael Bay, or any director for that matter, so happily take all the credit for a film annoys me beyond end.

But an inflated ego isn’t Michael Bay’s only problem. Apparently he’s a real tyrant on set as well. Actors learn to hate him. Like James Cameron, Michael Bay sees people as tin soldiers to be ordered around, commodities, set pieces, not as artists themselves.

Compare Michael Bay with a much more talented director Ron Howard, aka Mr. Humility, aka “My films are the result of the great talent around me.” Actors love Ron Howard, if for no other reason than the respect he gives them.

After the Michael Bay lovefest documentaries, I didn’t even bother listening to the director’s commentary. I typically don’t listen to commentaries anyway, but a commentary that features Michael Bay yapping about how intelligent and ingenious he is — which doubtless is what the commentary was — is even less appealing.

As for the film, I loved it. It’s the best film by Michael Bay I’ve seen. Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson are clones, copies of people in the real world, living in an underground research facility just waiting for their organs to be harvested. They don’t know they’re clones of course. They think they’re one of the few survivors of a global contamination, the fortunate few, all waiting for their chance to be sent to the last contaminate-free place on earth, a garden of Eden, the Island.

When McGregor learns the truth of the facility, he and Johansson escape. Bullets fly. Engines rev. And lots of running, car chasing, and explosions follow. Besides a few eye-rolling “no one would survive that” moments — such as the heroes falling out of a fifty story building — the film was a pleasure to watch. Lauren loved it as well.

A warning for those with weak stomachs: The Island is violent. Weapons used include a nail gun, a large plumber’s wrench, grappling hooks that sink into human flesh, chains, an incinerator, and of course bullets. Lots and lots of bullets. But if that’s your cup of tea, grab a big glass and pop in The Island. You’re sure to get your fill.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Blog

Rent and Read Millions

December 5, 2005 By Aaron Johnston

A few months ago I read the young-adult novel Millions by Frank Cottrell Boyce and thought it one of the best books of the year. It tells the story of Damien Cunningham, a young British boy who, after the death of his mother, develops a near obsession for Catholic Saints, learning their names, the dates of their lives, and the various responsibilities they now have as those on the Lord’s errand. (Saint Peter is the patron saint of locks, keys and security. Saint Catherine of Alexandria is the patroness of fireworks).

Damien’s mother died in a catholic hospital where the tiny figurines of saints were plentiful, and Damien believes that his mother, because she was so pure and virtuous, must be a saint as well.

Damien finds all these facts about saints at totallysaints.com, a real website created to correspond with the book. It’s a fun site if you have a moment or two.

Damien’s life changes — and the real story begins — when a bag of nearly 230,000 British pounds (that’s money) falls from the sky onto his cardboard hermitage. Damien, believing the money has come from God, sets out to do good and help the poor. But Anthony, Damien’s older and unnaturally money-smart brother, has different plans: they’re going to invest the money. And spend it.

But the clock is ticking. The British are destroying all their pounds and converting their currency to the Europe-wide one, the Euro. So Damien and Anthony have only a limited number of days to get rid of all that cash. And as Richard Pryor taught us so many years ago in Brewster’s Millions, blowing a big wad of cash isn’t as easy as it sounds. And Damien and Anthony, because their children, have an especially hard time of it since no adult will give them the time of day.

The story is wonderful. And the narrative, written from Damien’s point of view, is so sweet and endearing that you want to reach into the pages and adopt the kid.

And that’s why the film is so wonderful as well. Alex Etel, who plays Damien, and who had never acted before in his life, is so convincing as the pure-hearted true believer that you want to sign whatever paperwork is necessary and adopt this kid. Special kudos goes to Danny Boyle, the film’s director, for bringing all of the magic of the book onto the screen.

And the score is wonderful, some of the best upbeat choral music I’ve heard in a long time, the kind that when you listen to it, you just feel grateful for life.

And bravo to Frank Cottrell Boyce for adapting his own novel into one of the best screenplays this year and proving to the Hollywood establishment all clean, family-focused storytelling is alive and well.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Blog

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

November 22, 2005 By Aaron Johnston

Fans won’t be disappointed by the newest film in the Harry Potter series. I saw it last night. It was fantastic. Of a possible four stars, I give it four and a half. Lauren and I went with our friend Scott, who had actually seen the film already but liked it so much the first time, he wanted to see it again. And with theater tickets at ten bucks a pop, a willingness to see a film twice in the theater is no small praise.

The story surrounds the Tri-Wizard Tournament, a competition between representatives of the three schools of magic, one of which of course is Hogwarts, Harry’s school. Harry’s name is somehow selected to participate even though a representative of Hogwarts had already been chosen and only students seventeen or older are eligible. (Harry is fourteen.)

Harry’s forced participation, as anyone who has read the book knows, is all orchestrated by dark wizards hoping to return the mack-daddy of bad wizards, Voldemort, to power.

The stages of the competition are so suspenseful that I found myself grabbing Lauren and bringing my hand to my face in a oh-no-Harry’s-going-to-get-it-for-good gesture. This is edge of your seat action.

In fact, the dragon sequence was better than the book, with the horntail chasing Harry all over Hogwarts and clawing along steep rooftops in an effort to burn him into a charbroiled wizard on a stick. (Harry was riding his broom at the time.)

But action sequences don’t make a movie. Great movies are the result of great storytelling, and Goblet achieves that and then some. For starters, the characters and performances are believable, with particular kudos going to our three stars: Harry, Ron and Hermoine. Hermonie has always delivered, but Harry and Ron are finally keeping pace, showing emotion that most actors their age can only dream of pulling off believably. And, yes, the emotion is high in Goblet. Bad things happen. Terrible things. People get hurt. And evil is more apparent than in any other Potter film to date. This movie earns it’s PG-13 rating. But thank goodness it did. Anything less would have been water-downed grade-school pandering. This is a coming-of-age story for Harry, and director Mike Newell delivers exactly that.

Look for other great performances by Brandan Gleeson as Mad Eye Moody, the new Defense Against the Dark Arts Teacher, and Miranda Richardson as Rita Skeeter, the self-loving tabloid writer for the Daily Prophet.

Oh, and watch for the unrecognizable Ralph Fiennes as the Dark Lord himself, who is actually more evil than I could have imagined him. Don’t bring the kids for this one. They won’t sleep for days.

So the Potter films have improved with each installment. Goblet is the best to date. If the franchise can keep that up, I’ll be a very happy fan indeed.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Blog

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 30
  • Page 31
  • Page 32
  • Page 33
  • Page 34
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 40
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Follow Me

  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this site and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Click the image to browse titles.

Copyright © 2025 Aaron Johnston

 

Loading Comments...