But then people started saying that "just desserts" meant having something bad happen to you. My six-year-old self was like, "How the heck does that work? Was this phrase invented by a vegan? I don't understand." How could it be a bad thing to get dessert?
Eventually, I found out that the phrase didn't refer to pastries at all, but that the word had an alternate meaning. Okay, I could go with that, but I still found it weird. After a while, Google became a thing, and I looked it up for myself, realizing as I did so that while it was true that the phrase didn't refer to pastries, I had still been lied to: the phrase wasn't "just desserts" at all; it's "just deserts." Although audibly identical, the spelling makes all the difference.
"Desert" has at least two pronunciations and three meanings. The first that generally comes to mind is DE-zurt, like a wilderness or place without a certain quantity of rainfall (yes, we all know about the North Pole. Learn new trivia). But as we know, "just deserts" uses the pronunciation of de-ZURTS, so it has nothing to do with The North Pole or San Diego (half the time). But de-ZURTS has two meanings within it: the first is a verb, "to desert," as in to abandon, run away, or forsake one's duty, e.g., a deserter from the Civil War. But the second meaning of the second pronunciation derives from "to deserve." It is a noun, meaning "something that is deserved." Ooooohhhhh. Now I get it. So "just deserts" refers to receiving what you deserve, whether good or bad (though we would find it odd to hear about somebody prospering according to "just deserts"). I doubt this requires clarification, but just in case, "just" in this case refers not to "only" but to "justice," something deserved, making this phrase technically redundant, but we won't get into that.
But therein lies the problem: as much as I would love dessert at all times of day, there needs to be something to temper it. Anyone who's eaten a Costco chocolate/chocolate cake knows what I'm talking about. Sometimes, it can be overload. It can be too rich, too sweet, to wonderful, honestly. You can indeed have too much of a good thing. Additionally, you can't even know what a good thing is unless you have something to compare it to. What is one thing without its opposite? Even "opposite" has an opposite, as does "antonym." (Fun fact: "antonym" has an antonym, as does "synonym," but neither has a synonym).
The prophet Lehi taught, "There must needs be an opposition in all things" (2 Nephi 2:11). We can't know good without bad, sweet without bitter, or joy without sorrow. Life filled with pure joy and prosperity would get old. The movie "Groundhog Day" is a great example of how repeatedly living the same circumstances eventually drives a person to claustrophobia—what seems like freedom initially is really just a prison of sameness.
As much as we hate to admit it, we need stress. We need challenges. We need trials. I'm not sure how this will work in Heaven, how we will still feel opposition while in the presence of God, but I imagine that we will there feel sadness for all those who haven't made it, who didn't take the right roads, who chose to inherit another eternity. Even in Heaven, we won't be without the broad spectrum of emotion.
But I believe that that's a good thing. Opposition, pressure, stress—only through these things can we achieve progress. Diamonds and swords are forged in extreme environments. Literally no element of life could exist without opposition. I want God to forge me, to shape me into the person I need to be. I want to improve. I want to progress. So as much as I would love a world with just desserts, I know that I'm better off eating all the courses of life.
Again, my favorite Mormon Message. Someday, we'll thank God for His influence in our lives.
Love this! It made me hungry--but I loved it!
ReplyDelete