Last Sunday

I attended my old single's ward this past week and it was interesting.

The first speaker was a very educated girl...and she had all the liabilities of an education--not the least of which is the tendency to flaunt it...this is a pet peeve of mine. I hate it when people feel the need to club others over the head with their education. One of the most common ways to club others over the head is with sesquipedalian vocabulary.

I love words, and I really love cool vocabulary words, but I think they should only be used when they are effective. If there is a direct synonym to a complicated word you should use the direct synonym. Why? Well, if no meaning is lost, and you can communicate your message to more people (cause you can now include those without your extensive vocabulary) then the more humble the word, the better the choice (if you're really trying to communicate and not just impress).

However, there are some words that are quite large and intimidating, but also very effective. These are words that are rare, but they are rare because they are so specific (so they are only properly used in very specific (and less frequent) circumstances). These are efficient words--you should use them whenever you can

Here are some words/phrases that are unnecessary and sorta annoying.

1) prima facia: putting latin into everyday discourse is just insulting. I think a humorist once pointed out that a latin phrase in a conversation translates to "I speak latin and you don't." You might as well say "at first glance" or "it appears" and not sound like a pretentious snob. (oh, and under this complaint you can also put vis-a-vis, Q.E.D., ergo, et.al.).

2) aesthetically pleasing: just say beautiful, pretty, attractive..come on. I knew a girl who said this all the time and it was quite painful for me.

3) thusly: this should never be used. Firstly, because it's incorrect (it should always be thus...if you use it at all), Secondly, it's incorrect for the sole purpose of sounding highfalutin. (this peeve includes firstly, secondly, et.al.)

But this is a tangent. All I really want to point out is that this speaker used many words that were condescending and meant to impress rather than instruct. But beyond her word choice, I was annoyed with her descriptions. She spoke prettily, but so spoke so flowery that it detracted from the point she was making. Here are some notes that I took of things she said:

my heart swelled (who really says this? If you talk about heart swelling you better be a surgeon or a general authority (or both)).

Those solitary starry sentinels in the sky (the word "stars" is obviously too banal, mundane, plebeian etc.)

Our beloved atmosphere (while I'm grateful for the atmosphere, I would not call it beloved)

There were a few other gems, but I think you get my point.

Anyway, after the talk she ended up sitting next to me and asking me what I thought of her talk. I was in an awkward position and I told her "it was very flowery."

She said "is that a compliment."

I said "if I were you I'd take it as one."

I felt that was as honest as I could be. It was certainly true. She couldn't have been that flowery on accident so for her that must be a good thing..It's just important to emphasize the "if I were you" part.

Anyway, the third hour was where things got crazy.

The teacher was a heavy set boy fresh off his mission. He is one of those guys you just know took public speaking classes and thought of himself as a bit of an orator.

He always said everything twice. It went like this:

I am so glad to be here today....so glad. I hope you learn from this lesson....this lesson which I have prepared for you....for YOU!

I could have looked past this habit, but it got worse.

The next thing he did was have a person in the class come up and sit in a chair. He then told us to close our eyes.

We all closed our eyes.

He then said "imagine you're going back in time, way way back, even further, going back in time, okay, you're in high school, ,you're getting the priesthood, you've got acne (laughter), even further...okay, you were just baptized, everything is wet, back further, keep going....okay, you're staring into your mother eyes...but even further...okay, where are you?"

Everyone said "pre-existence" and he became so excited his cheeks flushed as he bounced from side to side (this time machine bit really meant a lot to him).

He then recounted (with slight omissions) the history of the world up to the apostle Paul. It turns out the guy in the chair in front of the class was Paul...and since Paul helped stone Stephen we were now going to stone Paul. You see, at the beginning of the class this teacher had given us all a piece of paper...but rather than writing on it, he told us to crumble it up, pretend it was a stone, and chuck it at the guy at the front of the class.

I was surprised by how obedient everyone was...most of the quorum threw the paper at the poor unsuspecting kid who had the gall to participate in the lesson... but I didn't throw my paper, whether out of mercy or maturity I don't know (probably not the second).

As the lesson continued to degrade into even greater levels of childishness, the teacher did the one thing that I can't accept...he recited that poem "footprints."

If you're not aware of this poem, it's basically a story of a guy walking with Jesus on the beach. At the end of his walk he looks back and notices that at the hardest times in his life there was only one set of footprints. He asks Jesus why this is the case and then Jesus says "'twas then that I carried you" or something like that.

Well, not only is this remarkably cheesey, it's also bad (some might even say dangerous) thinking. It's horrible to think that Christ carries us through the hardest parts of life. He works with us certainly, he helps us carry our burdens, but he doesn't' carry our burdens. If he did...what would be the point of suffering the burden at all? If God can accomplish his ends without human suffering, then human suffering is nothing more than divine sadism. We are here to lean, and to learn we must suffer...but what God does is he lessens our suffering, he suffers with us, and he suffers for what we cannot....but he doesn't suffer while we take a nap in his arms (and on that note, how did the guy in the poem even know that those were the hardest parts of his life if he was being carried? From his perspective those would be the easiest parts of his life ('cause he's being carried and all))...but I don't think people were meant to think about this poem...just gush over it.

But, I digress again. Back to the story.

As he was sharing this, perhaps the most frustrating piece of sentimental writing in a culture that prizes such, I remembered that I still had my piece of paper(the stone to throw at Paul). Before I could even think about what I did I threw the stone. I think if I'd thought things through I would have been more careful...cause we were way past the object lesson and we were now in the lesson proper..but for some reason that's when my paper needed to be thrown. "Paul" was still in the front of the class, and I was at a strange angle...so it looked like I was aiming for "Paul"...but I wasn't aiming for Paul. My throw was high and to the right....and it hit the teacher as he was reciting "Footprints."

It was just a piece of paper so it bounced off ineffectually, but everyone looked at me cause the throwing stones was from 5 minutes ago and we'd completely moved on. I just looked at everyone sheepishly and said "sorry, was a bit late."

The lesson continued on, and I felt content knowing that I'd been able to express my feelings via paper "rock."

I realize my behavior was out of line, but I guess that's one of the perks of visiting a ward: you can be a little bit crazy without having to see everyone the next week.

Well, hope you're all doing well.

Disclaimer: and sorry for a post trashing my church meetings. Just so you know, the second hour was great and the other two speakers in sacrament were wonderful....I'm just recounting the less spiritual (and more humorous) aspects of my Sunday meetings.