Ryan: Was Morrie Right?

Featuring: Ryan Matlock (y’all know who he is by now)

7 thoughts on “Ryan: Was Morrie Right?

Add yours

  1. Lee, you are giving me too many things to listen to at once, but I’m excited to hear everything.

    “So iron sharpens iron, so a friend traps another friend in an escape room and makes them think they’re gonna die.” Biblically-sound start 😭😅

  2. I love the conclusion y’all reached on this! The idea that the AiO writers would be willing to excuse all of Morrie’s lies and other wrongdoings for the sake of “bringing out the good in people” bothers me sooooo much. Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still doing the wrong thing. That’s what Wilson said in Millstones. Are they just going to ignore their own moral? Are they willing to hold Connie accountable, but not Morrie? To be fair, Connie is a Christian and Morrie isn’t, so Morrie can’t be held to the same standard as Connie, BUT that doesn’t make what Morrie did right. As a Christian show, it doesn’t make sense to let a non-Christian, middle school aged kid be the end all be all when it comes to a moral issue. That goes against everything they’ve been teaching us this whole time.

    I think Monica Stone is a great example from AiO’s past that makes this issue pretty clear. Monica does the wrong things for the right reasons. She wants to help her brother, she wants to help disabled people regain control of their lives, but to do it she commits numerous crimes and ends up in prison for them. She’s still painted as a villain because what she did was wrong. Stealing from people is wrong. Threatening their lives is wrong. Lying to them is wrong. And yet, Morrie does all of the same things, but because he wants to “bring out the good in people” it’s okay. The double standard here doesn’t make any sense.

    You guys mentioned letting the episodes stand alone and I think there’s another element to the episodes that you haven’t really talked about: Morrie’s motive. Phil paints Morrie’s motive as wanting to bring out the good in people, but how does the episode paint it? Bringing out the good in people is one of the motives that comes out of the episodes, but there are two others that we haven’t talked about, the first being Morrie’s “games” with Suzu. Morrie claims that the stunts he’s been pulling around town with the escape room and the writer’s ruse mystery and everything else were all a game he was playing with Suzu. He says it’s how they communicate. The other motive that comes from all of this is Morrie, a skeptic of Christianity, wanting to see if the kids will live up to the morals they claim to hold. Both of these motives are explicitly stated in the episodes, and honestly I think they counter the “good in people” argument completely.

    The idea that all of this has just been some crazy game between Suzu and Morrie doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me, but even if it did, it means that neither of them cared at all about bringing out the good in people. They were simply trying to outdo each other, nothing more, nothing less. Morrie’s motive being to test Emily, Matthew, and Olivia actually makes the most sense to me out of the three motives we are offered. As someone who hasn’t had a good experience with Christians in the past, it would make sense for Morrie to want to see what these kids are made of. As someone who isn’t a Christian, he doesn’t really care if he’s doing something wrong in the process, he just wants to set up choices for the kids to prove if they are who they say they are. This goes right along with what you were saying about him not being responsible for the good that came out of the scenarios he set up. He didn’t cause Olivia and Emily to do good, he gave them the choice to either act selfishly, or do what the Bible tells them to. I think that’s Morrie’s ultimate motive here. It worked out well for him because the kids chose to do good. He can conveniently paint all of this like he was orchestrating the good, but when it comes down to it, the good that happened had nothing to do with him. He simply gave them the choice. And I can see a great moral coming out of this about free will and the choices God let’s us make for ourselves. He lets us choose whether we will follow him or not. He’s sovereign of course, but he also holds us accountable for our own choices, and he isn’t responsible for our wrongdoing. But instead, Whit gave us a jumbled, unclear moral about using our talents and doing the wrong thing for the right reason.

    I’m sorry this turned out so long, but these episodes just haven’t been sitting well with me and I’m glad you guys feel the same way. I’m definitely looking forward to hearing the full interview with Phil! (Also I’d be glad to talk about this more if you want to email me :))

  3. If I can recall, in Gloobers Eugene warned them not to take off some safety lock on the game, basically they choose that situation. It was fine at first but they wanted to up the gameplay, so basically it was their fault instead of the one who was in control of the situation. If I’m saying that right?

    1. Right… but activating the Forbidden Matrix was an intended feature. Eugene says it was “all part of the game” at the end. If it wasn’t intended to be used, then we would have a different story.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Baskerville 2 by Anders Noren.

Up ↑