This week in football ....

Almost one week later and still the recrimination and regret rage on. England will be staying home while the 16 other European nations battle it out at the European Championships in Austria and Switzerland next summer.

Abysmally and toothlessly, England lost the must-draw match against Croatia. The same match that I had expected to lack zing because England needed only a draw and Croatia had already qualified. I had not reckoned on the idiocy of the English fans that booed the Croatia national anthem and verily lit a fire under the Croatian players. SCS received his marching orders barely twelve hours after the match. Both Ferguson and Wenger had labeled the decision as "hasty" but it would seem the FA had little choice if it was to maintain any creditability at all with the public. The search for a replacement has taken on a circus-like quality, with every out-of-work (or soon to be out-of-work) manager having his name thrown into the ring. Several of the gainfully employed are also in the mix, willingly or otherwise. Most amusing of all has been the parade of managers that have graciously withdrawn their names from consideration. I don't think anybody wants this job!

And frankly, despite the 2.5 million pounds salary, who would really want to be England manager? Whenever something goes wrong, the manager is almost the first to have the finger pointed in his direction. I usually have no time for McLaren or his bland platitudes, but I felt some real sympathy for him during his farewell press conference. He had always tried hard, too hard, to appear impervious to the pressures of the job. At the end, when he allowed the cracks to show, it was clear that the pressure had been too much for him, and had been too much for longer than he cared to admit.

In the wake of the non-qualification mishap, there has been the miles of analysis on what went wrong, who to blame and how to fix it. Was it all McLaren's fault? Would things have been different with a different coach? Would firing him and getting the right man in fix this malaise in the England national team? Or do the problems go deeper than that? Is there a systemic failure that starts from the very grass-roots of soccer development? In which case, maybe SCS was just the unlucky SOB that got caught at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I reckon it's probably contextual. If Croatia had not scored that last goal (for instance, had Petric struck the ball just a fraction earlier or later), the attention would be focused on Beckham's heroics. It would not have masked England's poor performance (even a victory would not be enough to divert attention from how badly the team played), but perhaps the autopsy might have been staved off for another few months. They were playing atrociously and were so obviously outclassed by the Croatians in terms of ability and tactics, but somehow managed to score two goals and to only lose by one. It is not inconceivable that they could have pulled off the draw and qualified, even though they did not deserve to. And how different might the reactions be had they managed it?

So, was it all McLaren's fault that England stays home next year? I think the FA was right to fire him, if only because he should never have been given the job in the first place. But it wasn't all his fault. If anything, the English FA is probably more culpable than McLaren, for putting someone so blatantly unsuited into the position, and expecting him to be what he cannot be. I personally think that England was unfortunate to be missing Rooney, Owen et al., and especially Terry and Ferdinand in defence. England's players are not so poor that the first choice team would not be regarded as among the top 16 in Europe.

Whether English players are good enough for an England team to win a major tournament? That's another kettle of fish altogether. McLaren's England was never going to win anything, not even with Rooney et al. fit and playing. Sven's England also never won anything. Might Mourinho's England be good enough? Or O'Neill's England? Or Capello's England?

Frankly, it was only Ramsey's England that ever won a major tournament. That was 41 years ago when England had the advantage of being World Cup hosts. Since then, zilch. I don't even think this lack of silverware has much to do with the quality of the players or the coaching. English teams go into all tournaments with expectations far out of proportion to their actual accomplishments. Teams like Italy, Germany and Brazil equally sky-high expectations, but importantly, they also have the track record to justify the expectations. It makes all the difference; at some point, English players probably become stifled by self-expectations, but the teams with traditions of success can feed off expectations to instill self-belief and a sense of destiny.

Perhaps it is time for England to stop regarding itself as a major footballing nation on the international stage. The English Premier League is certainly a major footballing league and top English clubs are certainly major clubs, but the national team? Not so much. England should stop going into tournaments with any expectation of victory, and just be happy to have qualified at all. Freed from the straitjacket of unrealistic expectations, perhaps they might start playing to their potential and achieve something - not a tournament championship, perhaps, but at least respect and the admiration of the footballing world. And who knows, if they get their act together, England as minnows might even win something. After all, Denmark and Greece came from nowhere to become European Champions.

Managerial Musical Chairs

Steve Bruce is now the confirmed new manager of Wigan.

It's not yet Christmas and a quarter of the EPL clubs have changed managers.

Wigan
Birmingham (by default, I wonder who's going there?)
Chelsea
Tottenham
Bolton

Surely this must be some sort of a record?

Lucky England??

I had it all worked out in my head. There was a way for England to qualify for Euro 2008 and get a new manager. It was an unlikely and convoluted scenario, which involved Russia drawing with Israel and Croatia losing to Macedonia over the weekend. This would have left the mid-week qualifiers as such: Croatia still needing a point against England, Russia needing Croatia to achieve said point while securing a win in their own match against Andorra. In my unlikely scenario, Russia crashes to a spectacular defeat against Andorra by some massive goal difference and England loses in the customary uninspired manner to a Croatia team that has something to play for. The upshot is that England qualifies, but only through the furthest back of backdoors and despite an abysmal performance. The vultures begin circling and McLaren's head goes on the chopping block for the umpteenth time.

Well, never mind all that. Israel beat Russia in exactly the sort of improbable circumstances that prompt comments about balls being round and there being no sure-things in soccer. The football was more chuck-bin than champagne, but it was dramatic stuff, complete with a last gasp winner for Israel after Russia had just hit the post moments earlier. For much of the 2nd half, I was resigned to a Russian victory given the lack of action in Russia's half of the field. Then, mayhem in the closing minutes and England was alive again.

My scenario could still happen (Andorra beating Russia and England losing to Croatia), but some sting has been taken out of the Wembley encounter. Croatia does not need to play for a result and England needs a draw and not a win.

McLaren might still find his job endangered. Certain factions of the England support base are actually disappointed that Israel has handed their team a lifeline, perceiving this as an unwarranted extension of McLaren's stint. Such is the degree of utter disillusionment with Second Choice Steve. I have said it before; it's part of why I find it enjoyable to support English sporting teams - they have the most fascinating fans!

Should SCS be kept? Frankly, until Wednesday's match, all arguments for or against are just so much tosh for column inches. If England falls to an abject defeat (possible), the hatchets will be out. If they stumble to an unconvincing draw or eke out a narrow win (probable), debate will rage. If they manage another 3 goal win at Wembley, all the while playing like Manchester United in recent weeks? Maybe the New Dawn would be heralded again.

It was just two matches ago when England was on a roll of 3-0 victories and the team was being praised. You're only as good as your last game. Sure, McLaren's hand was forced by injuries and suspensions; he probably got the team balance right despite himself. But he did manage to marshal limited resources and to work around the loss of key players. This is part of football management and he does deserve some credit for this.

Not that I am a McLaren defender by any means. I do realise that much of my dislike is completely subjective. I find him off-putting in his interviews, with his vapid smiles and usually meaningless utterances. He's not very interesting when he talks and he compounds it by being a charisma vacuum. He inspires neither affection nor respect. I am sure he's a regular likable fellow to those who know him, but he's also a regular PR nightmare. Part of the job of a national manager is to project intelligence and conviction; a sense of knowing what needs to be done and how to do it. He does not come across as being particularly astute and most gallingly, he does not even seem passionate about his job.

Are these reasons enough to give him the axe? Well, they should have been reason enough for him not to be hired in the first place. And since they did hire him despite these, I suppose they owe it to him to assess his performance based on the team's results. If England ends up topping the qualifying group, the objective yardstick would suggest that McLaren has succeeded. Yes, lucky, yadda yadda yadda, but seriously, have England been all that lucky? They've had to play several matches without various first team players, with Rooney, Terry, Owen, Lampard, Ashley Cole etc being unavailable at different junctures. As the luck factor usually does, it probably evens out in the final analysis.

So, until Wednesday, I am willing to give Second Choice a moratorium on the "stay or slay" discussions. He still has to get the result against Croatia and that is certainly far from being a formality.

I personally would like to see England in Euro 2008, even if I am not convinced that their football consistently warrants the spot. It's just always much more fun to follow the English media's coverage of any sporting event when they have a home team to support, despair over or sarcastically write off.

Calling 'em out: The Aftermath

IT WORKED !!!

Sadly, I missed most of this 8-0 drubbing of Besiktas, having nodded off at some point between the first and second goals.

Amazingly, Liverpool now holds the record for the most goals scored in a Champs League match.Two weeks ago, the team was playing poorly and losing points, and their collective confidence, at Besiktas. Arsenal equalled the previous record of 7 goals and dazzled everyone in the process. Now, Liverpool has beaten that record. This is just whack, as the kids say.

I should have launched the offensive right at the start of the season. Liverpool might actually be above both Blackburn and Portsmouth, had I done it. Obviously, these guys need a dose of the call-out voodoo to get their acts together. They all rose to the occasion.

Rafa finally picked Crouch!! And he actually had an attack-focused game plan!! It's almost too much to take in.

Gerrard scored a good goal.

Soccernet said that Voronin played his best match for Liverpool and Kevin McCarra at the Guardian praised his "irrepressible movement". Okay, I am willing to cut him some slack for not scoring. But he's not off the hook completely. This was a night that the team managed 8 goals and he started the match as a striker, yet he managed no goals?? (I figure I need to keep this up, if he's ever going to score for Liverpool again.)

Ryan Babel scored 2 goals, doubling his tally in one fell swoop. Prior to this match? 2 goals from 12 appearances for Liverpool.

Hattrick hero was Benayoun, determined to prove himself anything but "aimless". Now for the really important fall-out from this performance: Can Benayoun do it for England Israel against Russia?

Calling 'em ALL out

Okay, I am giving this another shot. Keeping faith is not working, so the "call out" strategy has to go into full-gear.

This has rarely failed me before. In the past, I have called Rio Ferdinand a has-been, Didier Drogba a no-hoper, Frank Lampard over-rated, Emile Heskey a non-striker, Christiano Ronaldo burnt-out, etc. In all those cases, they proved me resoundingly wrong. It's practically a guarantee that once I write someone off, they spectacularly make me eat humble pie.

No more pussy-footing around. I am calling out the whole lot of 'em at Anfield, beginning with Senor Benitez himself.

Rafa Benitez - He's NOT a Liverpool manager (with apologies to Steve "Macca" McMahon). He's just NOT. The most adventurous thing he has done this season is his redesigned facial hair, which looks about as convincing as his team does on the pitch. Attacking football is against his natural instinct and the team seems completely stymied by his devotion to his system. I don't particularly mind his much pilloried rotation policy, but why does he never play Crouch and keep persisting with the non-performing Kuyt and Voronin (yeah, I am getting stuck in early)? He has not spent wisely, cannot seem to inject any imagination into the team and has now achieved a win-ratio which is poorer than Blackburn's, of all indignities. And Liverpool is behind Portsmouth on points.

Voronin - At the moment, in the running to be the dud buy of the season. From the looks of him, it's probably the only running he's been doing lately. To be fair, he is likely a better player than recent performances suggest, but I don't care. If he does not score soon, he can go and be that better player at a different club.

Kuyt - Sigh. Possibly THE dud buy of last season, considering the amount that Benitez spent on him. He seems particularly lead-footed this year and even less threatening than Emile Heskey during the low-point of his Liverpool years. No pace, not much imagination, can't head, no killer instinct for the finish. Why is he a striker again?

Babel - Not liking what I have seen so far. Touted for versatility, but no penetration as a forward and a poor crosser as a winger. Possibly another expensive Rafa mistake? Looking like a 'yes' to that.

Gerrard - I know he's a Liverpool legend, but he hasn't been all that hot in recent matches. Missed passes galore and seems a less intelligent player than last season. Other than his tradedmark stampeding runs and the odd lucky goal, what else is he contributing lately?

Agger, Carragher - Okay, the defenders are probably less culpable than others but need to do a whole lot more to propel the team forward once they clear the defensive line. Got get involved in the attacking action, yo!

Hyppia - Own goals. Enough said.

Benayoun, Pennant, Mascherano, Sissoko - Lack urgency and seem to be rather aimless in midfield. And all that back-passing when they should be building forward momentum. Maybe Rafa's fault, but use some damned imagination, willya? I sometimes get the feeling that this bunch is having a tiff with the strikers, because they refuse to get the ball to the forward line.

Arbeloa, Finnan, Riise - More width, people, more width! And better crossing, please! You're not supposed to be aiming for players on the opposing team. Or for the stands, or for open patches of turf. Memorise your team colours!

Torres - Leaving him alone for now since he's injured. But the jury is still very much out on him. So far, too profligate for comfort, especially in this team that doesn't create enough to afford profligacy.

Champions' League tonight. Home match vs Besiktas. Must win and all that. We've been there before.

What price one point? Liverpool 1 - Arsenal 1

Well, Liverpool managed a draw against Arsenal. Good enough, given the balance of the match and the performances of the two teams. One might even say that Liverpool was lucky to come away with this one point. Arsenal missed several good chances, had a seemingly legitimate shout for a penalty turned down and dominated the midfield after Xabi Alonso's substitution.

Compared to the performance against Baksitas, this was a marked improvement by Liverpool. They defended much better, for one thing. It was positively godsent not to concede an own goal for the third match running. But there is an obvious lack of creativity going forward, more pronounced than ever in light of the recent exploits of Arsenal and Manchester United, both teams achieving a brand of football to which Liverpool dare not aspire. Heck, even Chelsea managed a 6-0 hammering of Manchester City over the weekend.

Still, it could be said that creative, attacking football is not a pre-requisite for successful teams. Chelsea won two Premiership titles without ever much caring to be entertaining while they were grinding out results.

The problem is that Liverpool is not grinding out the wins. Although undefeated in the Premiership, the team lies sixth and behind Blackburn, of all indignities. After just one quarter of the season, they have already settled too many matches in draws that should have been victories. At the end of the season, surely the team will lament the points dropped in the draws againt Portsmouth, Birmingham and the beleaguered Tottenham.

Of course, this draw against Arsenal is not one of the ones Liverpool should or could have won.
All things considered, a point against a clearly superior Arsenal team is a good point to have gained. However, this is a point earned at the expense of injuries to Torres, Alonso and Mascherano. Without Torres, one hardly knows where the goals are going to come from. Crouch seems the best bet of the forward line, but I am afraid Benitez's persistence with not starting Crouch might even drive him away from Liverpool.

I am reserving space for yet another mention of Voronin, the non-striking wonder. Benitez must have liked something about him, but all I am seeing so far is a rather cumbersome player with a distinct lack of pace and grace, and the unfortunate tendency to waste good chances. Whenever a good pass or cross falls to him, I groan in anticipation of an off-target shot or a complete failure to connect. It's gotten to where I am hoping not to see a pony-tailed figure in the penalty box when Liverpool is mounting an attack.

I am beginning to think that the Premiership is a no-go zone for Ukrainian strikers named Andriy. Maybe Benitez should have learnt something from the Shiva experiment at Chelsea and there is no doubting that Shevchenko is the more accomplished player. Looking at the Guardian's ever-so helpful players statistics page, I find that Voronin has played 10 internationals (with 8 starts) this season and not yet managed to score. Hmm, I suppose Liverpool is actually lucky that he is managing a better goals:games ratio with club than he has with country??

Here's hoping that third time's the charm! Prove me wrong, Andriy!!

B&S Watch Update - Episode 14

Last week's episode clocked in at 50 minutes, ads included.

Kevin's story line with Chad was censored almost to nothing. In fact, I have a feeling the average non-Internet-checking viewer might not know that Chad and Kevin have been involved for a couple of episodes now. We did get to actually see Jason Lewis in person, which makes a nice change from just seeing his name in the guest star list. Kevin's ex-boyfriend, Scotty, also put in an appearance in this episode. It was supposed to be a romantic triangle of sorts, not that we would know based on what we get to see. The way that Kevin's story lines are censored, one has to wonder why Scotty and Chad randomly pop in and out of his life to have strangely truncated exchanges and share the occasional meaningful glance.

Again, I must give props to the censors for an adroit job in excising mentions of Kevin's sex life from the episode. The opening scene was a multi-way conversation about the Valentine's Days shenanigans of the brothers and sisters. Whoever wielded the scissors did a fantastic job to eliminate all evidence of Kevin's confession that he had slept with Scotty, mentioned initially by Kevin himself and then repeatedly brought up with both his sisters. It was masterful editing; as ever, the unsuspecting viewer would probably have thought of Kevin as celibate. However, one could easily tell from Matthew Rhys's expression that he was not simply lending a listening ear to his siblings' laments about their ill-advised hookups. Besides, the humour in the situation was that ALL of the single Walkers had somehow managed to sleep with someone against their own better judgment. This was censorship that undermined the comedy.

Istanbul: Happy memories no more

I went to Youtube and watched Arsenal put 7 goals past Slavia Prague, including the perfect team goal (goal number 6).

Then I watched the live telecast of Liverpool losing 2-1 to Besiktas at Istanbul.

Liverpool plays Arsenal in the Premier League on Sunday. I am NOT looking forward to this. The timing could not be worse.

But then again, the team that will play Arsenal on Sunday will probably bear no resemblance to the one that lost at Istanbul today. Benitez will make at least 7 changes. But I bet he will start Voronin again (who once again missed a few chances tonight).

And Chelsea, supposedly the team in crisis just a few weeks ago, scored a 2-0 victory against Schalke. Man Utd scored 4 to beat Dynamo Kiev 2-4 in the Ukraine. Everyone is winning, except Liverpool!!

Bleeargh.

Live the Dream Finale or How I Learnt to Stop Griping and Admire Ken Lim

Tonight sealed it. Ken Lim has won me over with his acerbic jibes and his ability to drip with disdain without being rude.

He is still a manipulative, miserable old SOB most of the time, but I have to give him huge props for being manipulative and miserable with style. It's no mean feat!

Peformance Show:

Victor Tang: He sounds better this week than he did two weeks ago. That's not necessarily saying a lot, but it is a marked improvement. The first song was pitchier than a cricket training ground. The 2nd was much better in terms of pitch but had about as much oomph as flat beer. He has nice enough vocal tone when he manages to keep in key, but why does he sing everything in that simpering manner?

Fendi: He's sticking to his R&B comfort zone and all the better for it. The first song (Change the World) was very nice indeed with the semi-scatting and a cool, relaxed vibe. He went for ultra high difficulty levels on the second song (Isn't She Lovely). Seriously, we are talking the equivalent of coloratura fireworks here. He came very close to pulling off all the vocal tricks. There were a few flat spots but in the face of such impressive vocal pyrotechnics, it seems churlish to nitpick.

By Definition: They are so very entertaining and dynamic, never a dull moment on stage. The first song was typical By Definition - dramatic, musically tight and fun. The second song (Elvis Presley's A Little Less Conversation) was a complete blast! The energy level was off the charts! I think it's possibly the best performance I have seen on this show. This is a band in the best sense where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Catsine Cradle: I really like the way they sound. And the lead singer is in great voice tonight. He is definitely among the best singers, if not THE best singer, in the competition, in both categories. The first song was authentic classic acoustic rock - cleanly sung, aurally a pleasure. The second song was more of the same - great singing. It was Jeff's (the lead-singer) show and the two guitarists could have been a minus-one track for all we knew.

Judges: Well, it is all about Ken Lim, isn't it? He is more entertaining than most of the contestants. Next to By Definition's 2nd song, the most entertaining segments of the show were Ken's critiques of Victor Tang. The second critique was a thing of beauty, with its underhanded "compliments", references to politicians and veiled suggestions of ruthlessness, insincerity and possibly corruption. The crack about Victor having "qualities lacking in Singapore's opposition parties" was classic! I hope someone uploads this to Youtube, because it's worth hearing again. And he also cleverly slipped in a jibe at Victor when he was commenting on Fendi. It takes real style to pull this off. Definitely not for amateurs.

The judges were totally unsubtle about whom they want to win. Once Dick started the ball rolling by telling Fendi out right, "We knew you would win", the guest judges similarly showed no compunction in declaring their favourites.


Result Show:

Victor Tang is SO very out of his league. When the top four finalists performed together, his vocal shortcomings were showcased and amplified several times over. Not good.

I must say that Taufik Batisah has taken very well to musical Idol-dom. He has always been a good singer and a very cool, confident performer. Nowadays, he is exuding star power while retaining his hometown-boy charm. Mediacorp pulled out the stops for his performance, giving him a full complement of back-up dancers and special lighting effects.

The Top 10 finalists were trotted out to perform a medley of songs. First the top 5 soloists. Boy oh boy oh boy. Victor Tang was so outclassed by the other 4 soloists. The contrast in quality was painful. Olynn and Robert Tsunga were probably the best two singers in the solo category and were naturally the first two eliminated. Olynn was especially impressive to me. Shauna Simon looked very nice despite wearing horizontal stripes and sang well too.

In the group category, Catsine Cradle kicked things off with a really lovely performance of a song that I know but cannot remember the title of (this was just beautiful, they should have done this in competition). The Sugarettes sounded pleasant, Revelina was adorable as usual and By Definition put on another one of their signature roof-raising performances. Sadly, After the Rain brings everything crashing down around our ears with a weirdly screamy and off-key performance.

The Papaya Sisters sang that old standard about the beautiful roses, but I was hopelessly distracted by their costumes.

The Click Five came on and sang a couple of songs, including one where the finalists joined in. Theirs is not the kind of music I usually listen to, but it is very listenable. And they are rather pleasant on the eye, though I do not approve of the hair.

Results time:

Fendi wins the solo category!! Utt then asked Ken the most rhetorical question ever - "Did the right person win?". Hahaha, Ken was scoffing and even asked if it was meant to be a trick question. He then proceeded to congratulate Fendi and make a crack about Shrek 2.

And it's By Definition winning the group category! Wow, the judges get the winners that they want. Dick got the honour of telling Utt that yes, Singapore got it right.

Mormon Memories and Current Skepticism

I have been re-reading Jon Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven" (full book review to come at An Unused Voice) ahead of HBO's telecast of Big Love. This HBO Original series chronicles a polygamist family in Utah living the Principle of "plural marriage", a Principle originally revealed by god to Joseph Smith, founder and first prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints, also known as the LDS church or simply the Mormon church.

Of course, the modern Mormon church has eschewed polygamy for many years. Current adherents of the Principle are typically followers of "Mormon spin-off" faiths and usually collectively known as Mormon fundamentalists. The core of Krakauer's book is the tale of two Mormon fundamentalists who commit a senseless double-murder while in the grip of a religious fervour. Around this central narrative, Krakauer recounts the thoroughly fascinating history of Mormonism, from Joseph Smith's first encounter with the angel Moroni, through the Brigham Young years, to the 1890 Manifesto reversing the church position on plural marriage and the subsequent proliferation of polygamist sects splintering from the mainstream church. He also tells us a little about the modern Mormon church, including how many believers go on missions to convert the masses to the one true church.

While reading all of this, I suddenly remembered that I have had an encounter with Mormon missionaries. This was back in my days as a university student in Australia. Two very friendly, neatly dressed women knocked at my apartment door. They asked me if I was a believer in god, if I had ever gone to church, if I ever thought about what might help make the world better. I can't remember what I told them. Back then, I would sometimes tell the evangelist types that I did visit church and was "considering the faith", just to get them off my back. Perhaps this is what I told these two friendly ladies. I remember that they were not overly persistent, but they did say that their church was different. I also distinctly remember one of them saying "Not to worry, we are not Jehovah's Witnesses". Come to think of it, that was a pretty strange thing to say!

They did not ask to be let into the apartment and left me with a pamphlet, urging me to read it. I think one of them said that if I prayed upon reading the pamphlet, the truth of its message will be shown to me.

I vaguely remember the pamphlet; the front page was green in colour, possibly with a tree/ leaf or earth motif. But I might be confusing this with other church materials that I have seen over the years. I mean, the average church pamphlet designer does tend to like the Garden of Eden / God's Heaven on Earth theme - the "nature" clip-art collection must get a thorough ransacking.

What I definitely am NOT confusing with other church materials are the contents of the pamphlet. In a few paragraphs and not many words, the pamphlet told the story of the angel Moroni giving Joseph Smith the golden plates, upon which were written the Truth of the coming of Christ to the New World, the message of his 2nd coming and the salvation of man. Joseph Smith, the prophet of god, then translated the golden plates into the Book of Mormon and founded the one true church, the LDS church.

Okay, I admit I did not pray as the missionaries had suggested. However, there was something about the pamphlet - the conviction of its proclaimations, the font, the layout, the way the words "Book of Mormon" were made to seemingly glow on the page - well, I half-expected to be visited by a flash of light or something. It was all so far fetched, I almost thought there must be some truth to it. I knew nothing about Mormonism, apart from the fact that Donnie and Marie Osmond, whom I had seen on their eponymous TV show as a child, were Mormons.

Well, there was no flash of light, nor the "burning bosom" that I now know that Mormons talk about. The truth was not shown to me. I did learn that the LDS church had some pretty non-orthodox beliefs. I had not earlier connected Mormonism to LDS. I had some vague knowledge of the existence of the LDS church (they have been in Asia for quite a while), but I could not tell from the name of the church that there was such an outlandish story behind the faith. Jesus visited America, an angel visiting a 19th century American prophet, sacred golden plates - I mean, this seems the stuff of bad Victorian-era fiction!

Since then, I have read a few more things about Joseph Smith and Mormon history. Boy, they were wise to leave some of this stuff off the pamphlets. The thing about the magic translating spectacles would have been an instant deal-breaker for me. And the fact that the magic translating spectacles conveniently disappeared without a trace. Magic spectacles that Joseph Smith put on to read the sacred golden plates! It's like something you read to kids as a bedtime story! This was all very fine and well for people in the 19th century to believe, but I cannot imagine myself ever getting past this. I guess my own half-Buddhist, half-secular-humanist leanings have something to do with my predisposition towards skepticism, but come on! Magic spectacles! A magic quill would have been much sexier. Look what it did for JK Rowling!

And I haven't even gotten to the hat! Once he had lost the magic spectacles, Joseph Smith had to resort to translating the golden plates by sticking his head in an upturned hat, into which he had placed his special magic peep stone. See how "magic" is everywhere in this story? But never mind the magic for now - he translated sacred scripture by looking into a hat!! Again, this was probably quite appealing in the 19th century. It probably struck people back then as being refreshingly down to earth and balanced out the grandiosity of the angel and the great glittering golden plates.

But .... he was looking into a hat. Not wearing it, or touching it, or even pulling a rabbit out of it (which would have been more in keeping with the magic theme). Sticking his head inside the hat. It's all rather ... undignified, no?? If the magic spectacles had not sent me fleeing, this definitely would have done it.

And that is all without getting in the story told in the Book of Mormon itself. The convoluted tale of Lehi who journeyed with his followers from Israel to the New World six hundred years before Christ, his sons Laman and Nephi, the rival clans of Lamanites (the baddies) and Nephites (the goodies), Jesus visiting them in the New World after his resurrection and the final doomed battle between the two clans which killed off the Nephites, leaving as their last survivor a man named Moroni, who would later visit Joseph Smith in angel form to deliver this story inscribed on the golden plates.

There is one telling detail in this story. The Lamanites were an unruly, ungodly bunch and were cursed by God with dark skin as punishment. Later on the Lamanites wiped off the Nephites from the face of the earth and went on to become the forebears of the native Americans (or American Indians). All this is purported to have happened pre-Columbus and the complete annihilation of the fair-skinned Nephites explains why Columbus found no whitemen when he discovered America.

See, this is the sort of story that would have made perfect sense to your average 19th century American. Historians agree that many Americans in that era were proudly, prodigiously racist. That people of colour were "cursed by God" was something they could readily accept and believe. That the "savages" of the native American tribes were descended from a cursed race only enforced the righteousness of the godly pale-skinned true believers. Joseph Smith's home-spun saga of Good versus Evil fed and flattered the preconceived notions of the time. It pandered to its intended audience and it was a story with great purchase because of that.

Seen through our more enlightened eyes (or perhaps, simply our evolved value systems), it is blatantly, horribly racist. Off-puttingly so. But also in a way that is transparently a product of its time. More than any of the logical inconsistencies of the Book of Mormon (eg. descriptions of animals, equipment and tools that had not arrived in the Americas till after Columbus), this little detail tells me that this was a story of Joseph Smith's creation, not one that is divinely revealed. It's bad fanfiction of the 19th century vintage - riffing off a familiar story or character (in this case, Jesus Christ) by setting said story or character in a different time or place (in this case, America), replete with anachronisms (in this case, too many to recount), convenient and pat plot contrivances (in this case, the Nephite genocide) and consciously "knowing" references (in this case, the cursed Lamanites) that appeal directly to fandom (in this case, the average 19th century American amenable to embracing a new faith).

Even if I could get past the silliness of the spectacles and the hat, I absolutely draw the line at bad fanfiction. Really, there isn't even the consolation of a non-canon slash pairing. It's entirely unsupportable.