Sunday, March 3, 2024

Quick Keyser Soze addendum, and watch out for Lore Masters

I realized I forgot to include one other observation in my post yesterday on Keyser Soze and The Usual Suspects.  Spoiler ahead, including a clip of the final scene.


Part of Verbal Kint-Keyser Soze's strategy and effectiveness lied in his physical appearance (assuming, again, that Verbal is Soze... there is still room for debating even that point, as nothing besides a few things is past questioning).  No one suspected that he could be THE Soze because he took on the disguise of a cripple with Cerebral Palsy.   By appearance alone, people who met him assumed they were smarter and more powerful than he was.  Special agent Kujan, for example, thought of himself far superior to Verbal as he interrogated him, no doubt partly driven by Verbal's perceived disabilities.


This notion of disguise and not judging danger and power by appearances stood out because a similar message was conveyed to me through that dream of Mr. Potato Head.  Here is what I summarized about that particular dream sequence:


First, I observed that Mr. Potato Head was bald, and this seemed important because of the other times this theme has come up (though I guess technically there are hair attachments one can get to make him not bald).  Second, my focus was directed toward the seemingly important detail that Mr. Potato Head could change faces very easily, being able to put on a face that was very pleasant in order to hide a darker, truer face that he might show to others.  A faceless one, in a sense, that could put on multiple faces as it suited him... and thus potentially dangerous in terms of being able to adopt disguises.  At least that is what I remember waking up:  be careful when it comes to Mr. Potato Head!


So, this notion of Evil adopting disguises - in this specific case potentially pleasant ones rather than sick ones - was emphasized as something to be on guard for.


There was something, however, about Verbal-Soze's disability that caught my attention:  he was club-footed.  His (pretend) disease had made him this way, and thus gave him his signature limp-shuffle throughout the movie.  In the ending scene, as Kujan looks around his office and realizes he has been played for a sucker, we see just the feet of Verbal walking along the street after he left the police station.  At first he is walking with that same limp due to his foot, but then his gait slowly transforms and we see him now walking normally.  This is when we, as the audience, are supposed to also share in Kujan's revelation:  we have been duped as well.  Verbal never had a disability, and the cerebral palsy, including his club-foot, was all a ruse.


Here is the ending clip.  Sorry, there is is one f-bomb in the clip, but I couldn't find one without it. The part where Verbal's walk transforms from a limp to a normal walk starts at about 2:40.


Why did the club-foot stick out to me?


Doug hasn't entered into this blog for a bit, so let's bring him and his writings back for just a second.


I have referenced two of Doug's books on this blog - Words of the Faithful, and Words of Them That Have Slumbered.  I also mentioned he has written a third book.  This book is titled Words of Them Liberated.


I said that I haven't read this third book, and I have no intention of doing so.  When I noticed it was out on Amazon, however, a few months ago, I did click on the book sample, which brought up some of the first pages.  I did read though these to see if it gave me a sense for what the book was going to be about.  Quite a lot of that sample material turned out to be writings that I already had based on emails and documents that had been sent at various times.  I assume that the rest of the book would probably be less familiar to me were I to read it.


Anyway, in my review of those sample pages, there was a description that Jesus had been born with a disability - specifically, a club foot.  Here is the quote (I will just include the specific sentence - no need for more.  If you want to look at the broader sample or the book itself, you know where to go):


"Born club-foot, common man, of Mother-Varda herself neglected..."


In these writings, Jesus takes on a disability in his birth, this being the club-foot.  And on the surface it makes sense, perhaps.  In the Book of Mormon, Alma taught the people at Gideon that Jesus would take on infirmities, in saying:


And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people


And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities. (Alma 7)

So, having Jesus born with a club foot seems to fit the bill here (and perhaps is a nod to Satan's power to bruise heels?  I don't know - perhaps the disability comes up more in the rest of the book).


However, my guess (aided by The Usual Suspects, no less!) is that whatever version of Jesus that Pengolodh is sharing is one that is not good.  Satanic, in other words.  


Again, I am talking about something I haven't read nor intend to, but it was interesting to me that what little I did read (the sample from Amazon) included this description of Jesus having the exact same club-foot that Soze has been pretending to have throughout the movie.  


There are definitely other explanations, so make of it what you will.



Lore Masters and their words and works


In what should be fairly apparent to readers of the Book of Mormon, the Learned and the Wise will, in the end, not have the Truth.  In fact, at one point, when faced with words of absolute truth, they will reject them (See 2 Nephi 27 and 28).  Why?  Because it will both destroy their craft and take honor and power away from them.  In other words, these high and lofty ones will be brought down very low indeed by words that will come forth by the Unlearned.


One issue with Doug's writing that he cannot now escape, since they are published, is they are attributed to come from a Being named Pengolodh i-Earnu.  This Being is referred to in these writings as a "Lore Master".  In fact, in his writings, he talks about Earnu and his writings with some reverence, and says in a few different places that if you have problems or difficulties with his writings, it is your problem, not his, because Pengolodh is a lore master.   For example, in his introduction to the second book, Doug writes:

I'm not going to tell you this reading will be easy.  Pengolodh is a lore master, after all.


And, in the 3rd book, the sample I saw on Amazon contains the following dedication right before the Table of Contents:

For Pengolodh
Lore Master


What is a "Lore Master"?  Well, turning to etymonline.com for 'lore', we get "learning, what is taught, knowledge, science, doctrine; art or act of teaching"


Thus, the title would seem to suggest that whoever this Pengolodh is, he could be accurately described as a Master of Learning.  Or, as I will call him in that light, a Learned Master.


I mentioned 2 Nephi 27 and 28 above, and you can reference them yourself if you want.  I think they are both relevant now, and will perhaps be more so in the future.


What am I trying to say?  Perhaps we should be very cautious or skeptical of writings which are explicitly said to come from Beings holding the title of Lore or Learned Masters.  They don't know as much as they think they know, in my opinion, nor is the knowledge that they have meant or designed to set you free.  Just the opposite, I think.

6 comments:

  1. I still don’t really understand how you reject Doug so totally and yet build so much of your worldview on his content.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am not even sure you know what you are saying, to be honest, and that isn't an accurate or fair characterization of my own worldview, or my own experiences.

    Just seems like an extremely lazy take. I mean you haven't even read the other content that you are so certain my worldview is built on.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What I mean is that the whole idea of reading the Book of Mormon as taking place within the Tolkienian world comes from him, as do some specifics like the idea of Asenath as a major player, and yet you seem to distrust him totally.

    Perhaps you have independent confirmation of those of his ideas you have adopted, so that they don't depend on him as an authority even though they were first suggested by him?

    ReplyDelete
  4. This whole blog is based on my own strange experiences that started in the summer and fall of 2019, and continue up to the present day. I have been pretty clear and open about that.

    I think if you were more familiar with Doug's writings, worldview, and even actions, you might more easily see why I distrust him and just how different my own worldview and beliefs are from his.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You're right that I don't know that much about him. Sorry for apparently rubbing you the wrong way by bringing the subject up.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I waited to read these posts until I watched the movie b/c you mentioned there were spoilers in the posts. I watched last night and first I'll say that it was entertaining and worth the time investment but I was not at all surprised by the reveal at the end. I called it and now I'm patting myself on the back! But the truth is....I may have seen this movie long ago. I can't guarantee that but it just seemed familiar to me so maybe that's why I was able to call it.

    Anyway, regarding WJT's question, I understand his question and think it's a legitimate thing to wonder about. I think the crux of his question is that your blog possibly wouldn't even exist if you hadn't first read those books so you must in one sense see them as valid while also calling into question the writer and his motives. I don't think it's that difficult to resolve, for the record, but I understand the question. I think a good comparison would be something like Joseph Smith and the Bible. Smith's entire worldview was informed by and revolved around the Bible and yet he brought out an entirely new Story that calls into question the supremacy of the Bible. Actually not just the supremacy of the Bible but whether it's even a trustworthy source. Someone might ask Smith "I still don’t really understand how you reject [the Bible] so totally and yet build so much of your worldview on [its] content."

    It's not terribly difficult to reconcile really. I would say William Wright (WW) views Doug's writings much like Smith viewed the Bible, "the word of God as far as it is translated correctly". That's a pretty politically correct way of framing the Bible. Smith leaves room for it to include the "word of God" but gives it a wide berth to be really anywhere on the spectrum as far as how many truths/untruths it contains. I read WW as saying something similar about Doug's book. Meaning, there are some/many truths there but also some/many untruths mingled in and that much like the Bible, those untruths have the potential to be pretty devastating. Not to speak for you WW; that's just my guess. And to WW's point, the Story WW is building here is as much independent as Smith's Stories became relative to the Bible. There are several meaningful differences and departures in thinking between the Story told by WW and the one told by Doug.

    ReplyDelete