I have a tangent: Whit agrees with Morrie that the kids need to use their abilities “to bring out the good in people.” Yet at the same time, he tells the Rydell kids that they ~may~ have committed punishable criminal offenses. Not only that, he himself gives Morrie and Suzu consequences. One does not give punishment to an innocent party. I’m not sure what the show was trying to communicate because the last scene was thematically confusing and contradictory in that way. Whit, why are you punishing them if you think they were correct? Until that final scene, it would have seemed that Whit thought Morrie’s actions were bad. In the first scene of part 2, he was absolutely done with Morrie’s nonsense and in no way communicated that he thought Morrie was right in any way. What changed?
“You three need to use your abilities…to use them for good.”
“To bring out the good in people, ay?”
“Yeah.”
Whit, are you agreeing with Morrie’s actions or his vague allusion to generally bringing out the good in others? “Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off” will provide an answer of some kind. December can’t come soon enough.
There is a difference between reasons and actions. I agree that Morrie’s actions in A Sacrificial Escape are wrong, and he needs to be jailed. Of course, he did help capture a notorious spy, which could lighten the judgment. Perhaps Morrie won’t be punished in terms of jail time and alike, but would rather be relational, as evidenced at the end when Emily responds to Suzu’s question of are we still friends, “I don’t know.”
However, I do believe Morrie is right in his reasons. Does that justify the actions? Maybe. If no one got hurt, (which no one did in A Sacrificial Escape, I just want to say) then I believe the actions are justified. I am not justifying A Sacrificial Escape, but I am justifying lying to an oppressive regime or government to protect innocence people.
You are correct in identifying that the question of “Was Morrie Right?” centers on more than only reasons or only actions. Morrie presents that he wanted to test the Christians “to see if these people really live this stuff or if it was all talk.”
Morrie’s his original reason is to know if Olivia is hypocritical, his original plan is to test Olivia, his original tactic is to manipulate, and his original action is to set up Jordan Winword. That original reason is good, yes, but it doesn’t make him right or wrong; what comes next does. And I would argue (and have argued) that the plan, tactic, and action are what make him wrong.
I would disagree. For the reason, I’d say, “As iron sharpens iron, so a friend sharpens a friend,” or gives them a situation where no one will be seriously hurt or damaged, aside from perhaps Olivia, but thing again only perhaps. The tactic also isn’t exactly manipulation; it’s just setting up a website (which might’ve taken a while to program a legitimate-looking website) and giving Olivia an offer over the phone from an unknown number. Olivia and the drama club could have chosen to deny the offer. It was not, “and you must do this, or else there will be consequences.” It was a simple offer, where they didn’t have anything lose, and it helped motivate them to raise half the money in a week, which they could’ve done regardless. They just needed motivation.
The action of setting up Jordan Windword was also not bad. It wasn’t counterfeit, or forcing him to do it. He was presumably paid, did his job, and left it at that. So I don’t believe he is wrong in The Good in People. Nor is he wrong in Parker for President, or in Secret of the Writer’s Ruse, I do believe, though both involved mild manipulation, I will admit to that.
I’ll leave it at that for now.
However I believe you are looking at Adventures in Odyssey the wrong way. I don’t think that you should ever have thought of it as a moral authority (is that what you called it?). The Bible should be your moral authority, maybe even your only one. Even though I tend to agree with Focus on the Family, I don’t think of them as a moral authority. I always approach AIO episodes’ themes/morals with a healthy (I hope, maybe it’s not a good amount) amount of skepticism. I think this is part of the point Phil Lollar was making in some of your interviews. He wants discussions to come out of the episodes, and not have what is right clearly stated in the episode. I don’t think that The Rydell Revelations portrays Morrie as being 100% right.
Gianna said, “In the first scene of part 2, he was absolutely done with Morrie’s nonsense and in no way communicated that he thought Morrie was right in any way.”
Even in the end Whit says that they need to see about the consequences.
Having said all of this about the morals not being clear and that that’s the point, I still think that “Let’s Call The Whole Thing Off” should make it clear that Morrie did the wrong thing for possibly the right reason, we’ll find out more about his motives in this episode, and that that means he was WRONG.
I do agree that neither Focus nor AIO should be viewed as a moral authority, that is reserved for God and His Word. But the reason we’re here at all is because of the influence AIO has in our lives. If this kind of thing happens, it’s a big yikes. I said this on The New AIO Blog: “If the point of the Rydell Revelations was to present these cases and what Morrie did as morally correct, then Phil Lollar had to go against the grain. This three-parter could have been (and probably was) a lot more of Lollar’s opinion than actual hmm…truth? When he came on [AIO Audio News] in July, he compared Morrie’s situation to Irena Sendler’s. Realliously? Locking people up in a room and hiding Jews from Nazis do not compare on any level.” We should give AIO another chance with Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off. If they fail in this aspect, their moral compass might need to be questioned altogether. That’s my opinion. (Quote from odysseyandcos.wordpress.com/2020/10/21/instant-post-morrie-was-right/ )
(Looks at the title) Are we still on this discussion? Good grief!
Great post!
I have a tangent: Whit agrees with Morrie that the kids need to use their abilities “to bring out the good in people.” Yet at the same time, he tells the Rydell kids that they ~may~ have committed punishable criminal offenses. Not only that, he himself gives Morrie and Suzu consequences. One does not give punishment to an innocent party. I’m not sure what the show was trying to communicate because the last scene was thematically confusing and contradictory in that way. Whit, why are you punishing them if you think they were correct? Until that final scene, it would have seemed that Whit thought Morrie’s actions were bad. In the first scene of part 2, he was absolutely done with Morrie’s nonsense and in no way communicated that he thought Morrie was right in any way. What changed?
“You three need to use your abilities…to use them for good.”
“To bring out the good in people, ay?”
“Yeah.”
Whit, are you agreeing with Morrie’s actions or his vague allusion to generally bringing out the good in others? “Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off” will provide an answer of some kind. December can’t come soon enough.
There is a difference between reasons and actions. I agree that Morrie’s actions in A Sacrificial Escape are wrong, and he needs to be jailed. Of course, he did help capture a notorious spy, which could lighten the judgment. Perhaps Morrie won’t be punished in terms of jail time and alike, but would rather be relational, as evidenced at the end when Emily responds to Suzu’s question of are we still friends, “I don’t know.”
However, I do believe Morrie is right in his reasons. Does that justify the actions? Maybe. If no one got hurt, (which no one did in A Sacrificial Escape, I just want to say) then I believe the actions are justified. I am not justifying A Sacrificial Escape, but I am justifying lying to an oppressive regime or government to protect innocence people.
You are correct in identifying that the question of “Was Morrie Right?” centers on more than only reasons or only actions. Morrie presents that he wanted to test the Christians “to see if these people really live this stuff or if it was all talk.”
Morrie’s his original reason is to know if Olivia is hypocritical, his original plan is to test Olivia, his original tactic is to manipulate, and his original action is to set up Jordan Winword. That original reason is good, yes, but it doesn’t make him right or wrong; what comes next does. And I would argue (and have argued) that the plan, tactic, and action are what make him wrong.
I would disagree. For the reason, I’d say, “As iron sharpens iron, so a friend sharpens a friend,” or gives them a situation where no one will be seriously hurt or damaged, aside from perhaps Olivia, but thing again only perhaps. The tactic also isn’t exactly manipulation; it’s just setting up a website (which might’ve taken a while to program a legitimate-looking website) and giving Olivia an offer over the phone from an unknown number. Olivia and the drama club could have chosen to deny the offer. It was not, “and you must do this, or else there will be consequences.” It was a simple offer, where they didn’t have anything lose, and it helped motivate them to raise half the money in a week, which they could’ve done regardless. They just needed motivation.
The action of setting up Jordan Windword was also not bad. It wasn’t counterfeit, or forcing him to do it. He was presumably paid, did his job, and left it at that. So I don’t believe he is wrong in The Good in People. Nor is he wrong in Parker for President, or in Secret of the Writer’s Ruse, I do believe, though both involved mild manipulation, I will admit to that.
I’ll leave it at that for now.
Yes, I believe Morrie was wrong.
However I believe you are looking at Adventures in Odyssey the wrong way. I don’t think that you should ever have thought of it as a moral authority (is that what you called it?). The Bible should be your moral authority, maybe even your only one. Even though I tend to agree with Focus on the Family, I don’t think of them as a moral authority. I always approach AIO episodes’ themes/morals with a healthy (I hope, maybe it’s not a good amount) amount of skepticism. I think this is part of the point Phil Lollar was making in some of your interviews. He wants discussions to come out of the episodes, and not have what is right clearly stated in the episode. I don’t think that The Rydell Revelations portrays Morrie as being 100% right.
Gianna said, “In the first scene of part 2, he was absolutely done with Morrie’s nonsense and in no way communicated that he thought Morrie was right in any way.”
Even in the end Whit says that they need to see about the consequences.
Having said all of this about the morals not being clear and that that’s the point, I still think that “Let’s Call The Whole Thing Off” should make it clear that Morrie did the wrong thing for possibly the right reason, we’ll find out more about his motives in this episode, and that that means he was WRONG.
I do agree that neither Focus nor AIO should be viewed as a moral authority, that is reserved for God and His Word. But the reason we’re here at all is because of the influence AIO has in our lives. If this kind of thing happens, it’s a big yikes. I said this on The New AIO Blog: “If the point of the Rydell Revelations was to present these cases and what Morrie did as morally correct, then Phil Lollar had to go against the grain. This three-parter could have been (and probably was) a lot more of Lollar’s opinion than actual hmm…truth? When he came on [AIO Audio News] in July, he compared Morrie’s situation to Irena Sendler’s. Realliously? Locking people up in a room and hiding Jews from Nazis do not compare on any level.” We should give AIO another chance with Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off. If they fail in this aspect, their moral compass might need to be questioned altogether. That’s my opinion. (Quote from odysseyandcos.wordpress.com/2020/10/21/instant-post-morrie-was-right/ )