Richard Alexander Hall

Archive for the ‘Religion’ Category

I strongly recommend seeing this film (and here is the official web site for it). I saw it at the LDS film festival last night. It is playing again in the Grand Theater at the Scera Center in Orem (Utah), on Saturday night at 9:45 (why they don’t have a better show time for this singularly great film I don’t know).

It is a documentary that follows the lives of several drug addicts in Utah Valley (a.k.a. “Happy Valley”) seeking recovery, and some families who have lost children to drug overdoses. It explores the harrowing reality of the prevalence of drug abuse in Utah Valley.

What transpires in the life of one family in the documentary, similarly to events reported in NEW YORK DOLL (which is also strongly recommended), is so breathtakingly perfect (and I will get your expectations up) that if it was a narrative film it would be dismissed by America’s deeply cynical culture as contrived and unrealistic. As Susan Jeffers said, “We have been taught to believe that negative equals realistic and positive equals unrealistic.” May this film give the world pause to reconsider that fallacy.

This film has sold out screenings everywhere it shows, and proceeds from the film go to aid addicts seeking rehabilitation, which can be very expensive for drug addiction. Those two marvelous points aside, the very potent spiritual substance communicated by the film is, in my opinion, a serious blow against evil.

I’m wondering about the environment the film seems to invite of broadcasted honesty. Before the film, two completely unaqcuainted men seated behind me audibly shared how sober they were, who in their family was hooked, and who died – now on that last, I wouldn’t hesitate to share. Death by overdose is a public warning and anything less dishonors the death. But if these men felt safe with each other, should they broadcast their secrets audibly through a theatre? If the full disclosure of the interviewees in the film inspires, the whole audience would do this. Let’s be wise. If a few “fall guys” wake the rest of us up, let’s keep our secrets in helpful circles and not parade them.

So, you fellows behind me broadcasting your addictions – as interesting as it makes you, if I would favorably compare you to any celebrity or artist, I’m not going to pay you great notice until you’re dead.

I didn’t ask the film maker afterward, but wanted to ask what his plans are for exposing the many other kinds of addiction that run rampantly through Utah Valley, some of which find love and acceptance easier to come by, and some of which don’t.

One thing in the film disturbed me a lot. Prescription pill abuse is twice as common in Utah Valley as the national average, and is often deadlier than illegal drugs. And a Police Officer interviewed in the film reported a large group of teenagers he had been with, apparently all of them members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints (LDS or “Mormon”), who in discussing such use (abuse) among themselves, said “It’s not against the Word of Wisdom. It’s just a pill. It’s nothing.” (For clarification, the Word of Wisdom is an LDS doctrine regarding careful use of good foods and avoidance of bad foods and abusive substances.) Okay, kids. A careful (and recommended!) read of the Bible renders a picture of Jesus which baffled and enraged the powers of his day by using his head; by dodging rules where they could not apply, in favor of principle. We need rules, but the Lord broadly spoke of all situations where we need to use our heads when He stated in Doctrine and Covenants that “..it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.” Use your heads, kids. Do you need the Lord or anyone else to tell you this crap is ruining your body, your self-control, your spirituality, and your life, and that that is bad? You’re smarter than that.

I like to think that awareness of addiction among Mormons is spreading. A few weeks ago at my chapel, they had a joint men’s/women’s meeting with someone from LDS Social Services about the topic, and what leaders are doing and can do about it. Only one thing disappointed me: in introduction he said that while he is sure many here know someone who needs this information, nobody here is in these kinds of situations. No, sir. First, you can’t know that, and second it may be falsely flattering, and a disservice to truth and culture. A strongly repeated point in the documentary HAPPY VALLEY is the entrenched denial aspect of the valley’s culture.

The safest guess is that every ward in every stake in the church has addicts, many of whom have not yet even recognized or confessed to themselves or anyone that they are out of control, and if or when sad circumstance arrives them at that point of total desperation, they may have no idea how to get help or that it is even available. Hopefully on the point that help is available they would be comforted, if our pretension that people in their situation are very rare doesn’t open them to Satan’s lie that their case is so rare, and so extreme, and so terrible, and that they are so far down the scale of hopeless that there is no hope. Please assume that wherever you go, there are people in the congregation who need help.

Dear Richard,

I will give this film a shot. It may surprise you to hear me speaking of going to this film as taking a risk, and you deserve the respect of hearing why I do.

[Spoiler]I know your distaste for the idea of rejecting any film because of content. And even though the trailer (and I’m guessing the story) clearly is exploring the idea that the woman at the audition loses her innocence by auditioning nude (and loss of innocence in that way is a pretty compelling and possibly never addressed theme in film), I don’t know that the idea sits well with me, of having an actress nude in a film – even when there is nothing whatever tantalizing about it, in fact it’s properly unsettling in the context – but on a level to me it may feel too far, that a woman was topless on set (and, well, jeepers, from the shot it seems the other actor was leering at her, whether that’s acting or not). One thing I loved about STATES OF GRACE was it portrayed nothing at all when it came to one character’s worse mistake, and it was more powerful for it – it made the audience think “Wait, did what I’m thinking happened just happen?”

But because I trust you I’ve given it thought. There are upright, religious artists at my work who lead faithful lives of service to their church and family who frequently attend nude figure drawing sessions to improve their skill. I’m probably not made for that but I’ve come to think it could be just as innocent as nudity in a doctor’s exam – it’s for learning and improvement, there is no part of it that’s unseemly. I’m open to but uncertain about the idea whether the same principle can apply to nudity in films, and it looks like your film may be a testing ground in my exploration of the idea.

But for heaven’s sake, even if I love FALLING, have you given up on THE PROPHET? I never imagined THE PROPHET might challenge the cultural assumptions of Mormons, other than presenting the full breadth of the origins of Mormonism, which contains some facts that some folks prefer to keep buried as “irrelevant” history. Now I’m wondering if it isn’t written in ways that would make one of your most loyal fans wonder if he should go to the theater

Oh, wait, you said it doesn’t seem it will be your privilege to carry on in the Mormon Cinema movement. Well that happens to work out okay anyway, because THE PROPHET isn’t Mormonism’s story. It’s the world’s story

And as a fellow son of Adam under whatever common or uncommon ground we share, and as a most loyal and insistent fan, I am here to say that if you have given up on THE PROPHET, I have not, and if I have anything to do with it, you won’t either in the end.[/spoiler]

(as they moderate comments)

This was my comment responding to a comment in this CNN article.

[spoiler]—-
Regarding several comments:

“..those whose skins are not white and fair may detect the odor of racism in the quotation.”

Wouldn’t Mary, as a 0 century AD Jew in the region of Jerusalem, likely have a light complexion? But whatever her skin color may have been, and that aside, to suppose any observation of skin color of any person in itself necessarily negatively contrasts with others is absurd. If two people in a room have different skin colors, and someone points out that they have different skin colors, is that by itself racist? Does mere observation of differences between people constitute slander in itself? To say so has to outright invent a whole lot of bad context that doesn’t even exist in singular, harmless statements.

And regarding this:

“..Of course, Mormonism came of age during a very racist time in American history and it is reflected in the books that Mormon leaders concocted back then. The Old Testament has some very creepy stuff in it too, but let’s not start quoting chapter and verse.”

Why not quote chapter and verse? You have commented on the supposed racism which you yourself inject into a particular verse. This is the equivalent of Huckabee’s saying that he won’t say something but then saying it. And it isn’t said only about mormon scripture – but also a book that wider Christianity supports – the Bible.

Also, “concocted” is a statement of opinion given as fact. A person who believes Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon would not use the word “concocted”, they might say “translated” To say “concocted” is to say he made it up, pulled stuff together to form it, or made it from nothing. It would be more direct and open to say, assuming it is even relevant to a political discussion, to say something more direct like “By the way, Joseph Smith didn’t translate anything. He made it all up.” Frankly, the rather inderect yet plain use of the word “concocted” smacks of an attitude that assumes everyone thinks Joseph Smith made it up, or that this is the only rational, right, or reasonable point of view. I hope you would be aware that this implicit assumption casually overlooks a differing point of view which millions of people hold, which frankly smacks of a whole lot of disrespect. Implicitly asserting that something is “just so”, and against the religious views of others, is disrespectful of their right to hold that view. And that strong assumed bias is very ironic, considering these next statements:

“Romney himself benefits because of the sympathy he is now getting as the victim of bigotry, so supporters of Romney may be behind it (and perhaps not known to Romney himself).”

We would assume that someone asserting that others are a victim of bigotry or strong bias would make diligent effort to free their own points of view from disrespectful assumptions, or bigotry or strong bias. But even while bigotry is pointed out elsewhere it exists in the words of the one doing the pointing. Worse, it speculates that the source of the victimization is the victims themselves. Please draw up proof. Otherwise, drop the insulting speculation.[/spoiler]

Just beautiful.

A cross raised over a church in Iraq. Religious liberty arriving. Just beautiful.

I am grateful that, as I learned at a display of horrible spiders at the Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum (on Brigham Young University campus), there are not any spiders, or creatures in their broader species branch, that have wings.  It’s horrible enough that they scamper around on eight hairy legs, trap and impale their victims and live on their blood.  If they could do all that and fly, which I’d never have thought of were it not for this display – that would be so many times worse.  But if, as my religion states, God will mute the wicked and send flies to cause flesh to fall off their bones and their eyes out of their sockets, I’m sure a God capable of inflicting such horrible vengeance (indeed to match the greatness of His mercy) would have had the idea cross His mind.  Of course He’s had every idea.  If He has some terrible tricks up His sleeve for the apocalypse, I hope if this is one of them I’ll find myself on the side of His mercy – away from the flying spiders.  Away from the flying giant spiders.

Okay, I had to look around – and now I have a testimony that the Monte L. Bean Museum is true.  There is a “flying” spider – but it doesn’t fly, it has attributes that allow it to jump very far (yoink!), and no spider can fly, they say.  ..but are they right?  I’m doubting my testimony of the Monte L. Bean Museum.

Boo!

With his permission, I’m copying these words of Mahonri Stewart (an LDS playwright and active voice in the LDS literary/art community, and who occasionally writes over here) which he wrote at the AML-list, where the topic emerged (in response to a link to my Harry Potter predictions at this blog) of the morality presented in the final Harry Potter book. I liked what he had to say about the book; here it is (with minor edits for clarity/syntax). There will be spoilers here if you haven’t read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

[spoiler]

[Rowling shows repentance] in Dumbledore. In Harry’s near death experience where he meets up with Dumbledore, Dumbledore gives a pretty heart felt confession. As to the use of the forbidden curses, Rowling makes it pretty clear that the worst of them, the Death Curse [Avada Kedavra], Harry won’t use flippantly. When he’s being chased by death eaters at the beginning of the book, Lupin insinuates that he should have used the curse since his life was in danger, but Harry tells him flatly that he doesn’t work that way. He’s not just going to fling that curse around whenever he feels he is in danger. And with the Imperius Curse, Harry does show remorse for feeling like he had to use it– Rowling doesn’t dwell on the point because the characters are in mortal danger at that point and don’t really have the time for a remorseful inner monologue– they’re being chased by Goblins and encountering a dragon and trying to destroy the Horcruxes which put their whole world in peril! Yeah, under the circumstances they’re going to make some rash decisions.

As to the use of the curses in general, I believe MOST of the cases in which it is used, it is justifiable because it is used in time of war (and let’s not forget that at that point it’s about survival) and there is a time when extreme measures need to be taken (Nephi and Laban, anyone?). In time of war, we Muggles do our own Crucio curses– they’re called guns, tear gas, pepper gas, tanks, bombs, grenades– and let’s not forget that most horrible of curses, the Atomic Bomb, which won the war against Japan. Against Voldemort’s Army, pretty much the wizarding equivelent to Hitler, the wizarding community took up arms against what they considered the face of evil. Many of the rules of war went out the window in WWII (including the previous ban of attacking civilian communities in Germany and Japan). It’s not pretty, it shows humanity’s viciousness, but at that point in the books, it was about survival. And the scriptures themselves show plenty of examples where God overrides his own rules when extremities have been pushed to their limits. I think Rowling is showing what would really happen in that community when it really came down to a war.

Concerning Snape, [his sacrifice was not lightly dismissed, but treated seriously] by Rowling. His death was “casual” in the way of the killing, because it was Voldemort who did the killing, and we’ve come to expect that from him, but then his last moments with Harry were quite touching and then (in the middle of the climax, mind you) she devotes an entire chapter explaining his life and showing that he was indeed a misused hero. I don’t consider that a dismissal, I consider that an eulogy. She was heralding what seems to have been one of her favorite characters. Harry even named one of his children after him! How many of your children have you named after your mother’s old boyfriends? [me: I'm named after one of my mother's old boyfriends.] [A melodramatic deathbed monologue wouldn't work there - what was given worked.]

[Rowling doesn't condone any of the bad behavior of Harry's parents.] I think it’s pretty obvious that she roundly condemns it (Rowling loves the sinner, while hating the sin). And we only see the bad side of them because we see them through Snape’s eyes, and Snape was desperately trying to show Harry that things weren’t as black and white as Harry had assumed. That doesn’t mean that they were moral reprobates, it just means that they made many of the mistakes a lot of people in high school do– cruelty in the name of popularity. And although many people have made that mistake, often they grow up, grow out of such attitudes and go on to be really decent folks. And in the case of Lily, she actually isn’t tainted by that particular sin– she doesn’t do anything for the glory of the crowd, she remains a true friend to Snape until she feels betrayed by him by what she sees as immoral behavior in his taking on the Dark Arts. An overactive sense of betrayal and perhaps a little bit of judgmentalism are the only sins Rowling pins to Lily.

The fact that Harry’s parents weren’t the saints of his childhood dreams makes the book all that more effective to me. They are no longer static ideals, but flesh and blood human beings who are imperfect and in need of Grace. This seems to be a theme in the last few books, as Dumbledore undergoes the same re-definition in Harry’s mind, not to mention that Harry has to come to terms with his own failings. Rowling, instead of cultivating attitudes of judgmentalism and moral puritanism towards her characters, instead shows sympathy for the worst of her characters and shows shadows in the best of her characters. This, to me, is one of the most moral worldviews that she could have taken, for not only is it more realistic and rooted in actual human behavior, but it also teaches forgiveness on the part of the reader. Too often, I think, we are too prone to label good guys and bad guys in our reading. Rowling pushes us out of our comfort zones there and shows that we are all mutts, good and evil mixed. But then she shows that eventually we can transcend that and do something truly good and powerful with our lives (some of the most effective examples being Snape and Dumbledore).

[Moral nitpicking over this book] disheartens me, as I think it damages a work that portrays so much goodness and spirituality: Rowling’s Christ and Grace imagery; her criticism against Lupin for considering leaving his family to re-live the glory days of his youth; the theme of forgiveness and redemption; Rowling’s criticism against those who would judge people’s lives only by the negative aspects; the breaking down of class systems and labels that happens in the books; the understanding that there is nothing to fear from the death of the body, but rather everything to gain from concern for the life of our soul; the power of loyalty and friendship; the power of courage; the power of love.

Deathly Hallows was one of the most edifying books I have read for a long time. I put that book down filled with love and light. The national market rarely receives such a moral work and even more rarely embraces it so heartily. I think it’s quite the feat that Rowling has accomplished and I don’t believe for a moment that she doesn’t deserve it.

[/spoiler]

[Incidentally, the day of this post is Harry's birthday.  Happy Birthday, Harry!  Someone said that with the dates from the books, the world has been Voldemort-free for 10 years.]

A review from the Christian Science Monitor (here syndicated at Yahoo) in moral disdain of Harry Potter came to my attention. But I have a moral disdain for the views expressed in those criticisms. They are far off-base.

These are spoilers for anyone who hasn’t read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

[spoiler]

This seems to be that writer’s core criticism, the center of her argument:
“As envisioned by Rowling, [Harry] walks the path of good so unwaveringly that his final victory over Voldemort feels, not just inevitable, but hollow.”

Essentially, she is unsatisfied because Harry didn’t brood, mope, and sin enough before he had his victory. Well, gee, maybe Rowling should be sorry. Maybe Rowling should have written a novel which she knew millions of children would read which contained references to adolescent sexual skirmishes, or perhaps Harry should have used sectumsempra! on Snape to leave him limbless. I’m exaggerating quite a bit for effect, though I think the writer of that article also exaggerated quite a bit.

I do not take to her argument kindly. I find it frankly demoralizing, quite ironically contrary to it’s claim to stand for higher moral absolutes. The charge of relativism regarding Harry Potter I simply don’t comprehend or see where that comes through in her argument. I don’t think support for it is there unless her arguments hold up, which they don’t.

The entire following paragraph sets aside that she places Harry in an idealized, misrepresented holy sphere, supposedly devoid of hesitation, which the books never place him in. She apparently misses Harry’s very real dark side and hesitation. If Harry is as idealized as she falsely puts forward, he’d be easy to rhetorically knock down. But Harry has detestable weaknesses, and multiple times the books make it clear that he dearly wishes to abandon course, jump ship, give up, give in, it expresses his raging resentments, he is often very rotten to enemies and friends, it expresses his desire to succumb to darkness: but also, and this is important, it expresses his clear decision to carry on despite it all. Harry certainly has his own great temptations to darkness, and his moral setbacks, and is not (of himself) invincible or ideal.

Now having noted that distortion, to engage her argument I’d say that I am for literature which depicts evil and allows characters to make awful choices.

Snape has a wonderful place in the books for that reason, by making us hate his bad behavior, by making us feel disgust. But her argument would have all literary characters at some point make not just bad, but really bad choices. She suggests Snape should have been the main character; Snape, who betrayed former schoolmates to a Dark Lord who murdered them, Snape, who is at times so inexpressibly cruel and hypocritical to turn your face as pale as his own. Snape creates a useful disgust in the reader, but should shock and indignation be the only and sum point of literature? In arguing that Snape should have been front and center she gives away her game: she would have literature only present characters who choose great darkness before choosing light: the format of this dogma is that all things must be x before y. This hint at an overly rigid literary rule alarms me. In the end it lacks principle. How? What she misses is that there are people who choose a right path without ever wavering into a terribly wrong path. Her implication is that all people inevitably will or must do great wrong at some point. It’s surely possible for anyone to do great wrong, but that sidesteps possibility and puts forward the idea of inevitable great wrong. That’s demoralizing and disrespectful of the nobility which humanity is capable of. The theory doesn’t apply to human nature (unless you believe Calvinism. I don’t) Suppose she were criticizing the Bible (be it regarded truth by many, and fiction by many). Then let’s take her argument against her (falsely idealized) Harry and frame it on a truer ultimate ideal:

“As envisioned by Rowling, [Jesus] walks the path of good so unwaveringly that his final victory over [Satan] feels, not just inevitable, but hollow.”

How does that sound?

I didn’t think so.

Speaking now from my own religious frame. Supposing we are to be the manner of men, or man, to use Jesus’ own admonition, that He is. Is it conceivable any of us might follow him and never fall into sins so great as, say, betraying a friend to a murderer? Maybe I’m very imaginative, but I imagine that is possible. And while I am cloistered in my library reading so many books on literary theory that I may not be aware whether such a person exists in the outside world, I have had occasion to think, by mere turns through the Bible, that it might be so. So maybe I could only choose for my sins, or my literary departures into darkness, as it were, such vices as Harry’s – a bit of unintended dabbling in dark magic, a fair amount of raging resentment, a fair amount of cruelty to friends, betimes wishing to give up the quest, but opting for the noble choice, forgiving, and carrying on.

Her theory – widespread among literature or media professionals – destroyed parts of THE LORD OF THE RINGS films. In the books, Faramir, Lord of Gondor, upon encountering the Hobbits and the Ring of Power, does not for a moment give in to any temptation to wield the Ring against the Dark Lord Sauron and his dark forces, but straightway sends the Hobbits on their way further into Mordor and Mount Doom; to get the temptation of the Ring away from himself, and in hopes they will succeed in their quest. But for the film, the screenwriters decided that isn’t dramatic enough. No, somewhere back in their story theory classes they either overtly or subversively assimilated a doctrine that all literary characters must first make really bad choices before making good ones. So they thought they’d take Faramir and have him trap the Hobbits, and his men-minions beat them up a bit, and when he learns of the Ring, lust for its power and attempt to seize it by force. This took a character who always chose the noble path and perverted him; took an unflagging standard of hope for the race of men and defiled it. So goes the fruit of overly rigid literary theory. Same thing with the first film of THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA. They took all of the aspects of the story that didn’t hesitate to do right and corroded and dehumanized them a bit for dramatic effect. It turned the thing into an entirely different creation; base, presenting the diabolical as an absolute necessity in advancing toward the divine. To youth, something as wonderful as the Narnia stories may as well be scripture. Look what we’re doing to wonderful creations by way of our thoughtless philosophies.

No, the diabolical must be allowed for us to advance on the divine, but it doesn’t mean that everyone will tread far into the diabolical before (or if) they turn to the divine.

Now as for this charge:

“Numerous characters get a pass for the bad things they’ve done, not because of any remorse they evidence, but apparently just because they happen to love Harry.”

Firstly, saying that the characters we are supposed to regard as turning from wrong to right did not evidence any remorse I disagree with. What about Snape’s presented memory where he was beside himself and bawling with remorse in front of Dumbledore? What about Ron coming back to Harry and saving his life? Should we hope Harry would turn on Ron and chew him out for cowardice and abandonment after that? Hermoine tried it, and I thought she was rotten for doing so. Oh well, I’ll forgive her and she couldn’t keep up her contempt for long in the face of Ron’s heroics. And of course Snape was still often a very rotten person even after his remorse (for reasons of his twisted psychology which Dumbledore briefly and amusedly illuminates at the end of book one, his remorse may have made him much less kind to Harry, if he still did everything in his power to preserve Harry from the many dangers threatening him). But Snape turned into something far better than what he had been. I don’t understand this charge. What is the expectation? That nobody should ever do bad things at all if they are to be regarded with human respect and forgiveness? To suppose that all characters must tread through terribly dark paths to ring with any authenticity, that begets a hopeless view of mankind; supposes there is naught but very dread despair before anyone can be alloted (if ever) happiness and grace; that humanity is doomed to terrible punishment and failure before it can have any hope. That view would be unnecessary and unforgiving. Of course the characters in the book had their unkindnesses and wrong choices, sometimes greatly so. All of us do bad things despite our best intentions because we are human. Speaking again from my religious vantage, which is the only place I can speak on what I think to be the topic here – grace and forgiveness – I can’t personally see any realistic conception of grace other than one that gives a free pass on bad behaviors so long as we are doing our best and continuously improving. Our best is unacceptable to God. What’s He going to do? Scowl at us? Be stingy and mete out forgiveness in the tiniest possible morsels with the greatest possible (or on the other side of that unrealistic coin – no possible) requirements? I don’t think so. His graces are far weightier than our measly penance. Intent and sincere effort are His only concerns; sincere and continued efforts at good cause Him to “pass” on the bad.

But I’ve realized what I’m arguing with: modern Christianity. If I understand correctly, Mormonism is the only faith which believes that Christ offers us grace in answer to our earnest labor (not all of His grace – a great deal of his grace is given freely no matter what we do; Resurrection, for example). I thought I’d read – and I may display ignorance – that most of Christianity believes there is nothing you can do to earn grace; that it is a gift given (or arbitrarily not given) regardless of what you do. That would lead to a plethora of confused views: 1. we’re completely hopeless and incapable 2. We’re supposed to be that way; that’s how we’re designed 3. the natural order of things is that we fall into terrible, unavoidable sin an misery; we can’t help ourselves; and since this is the right order of things, the degraded state should be focused on: our necessary evil, but 4. God will save us anyway, and depending on the doctrine, if we do this or that (which, baffling to me, I’d think would be seen as work with faith), or whether or not we do this or that.

Beh! Bad doctrine screws up interpretations of literature and life.

What is great about Harry Potter is his lack of hesitation to do right, despite his great desire to the contrary. That is nobility, that’s why we love Harry, and if that critic doesn’t see that light, she can just go on in her “noble” contempt for something truly noble – which sold more copies on its first run than any book in history

Please do me a favor. If you agree with my disagreement of that article, go to that syndication of it at Yahoo and rate it ONE STAR. Of course I wouldn’t mind my own article here being rated highly, but that depends on what you think.

[/spoiler]

[This entry is rated PG-plus-ish!]

[spoiler]

[11:25] Alex: Thus saith the [LDS] Church magazine Friend, in reference to some books it was reviewing:
[11:25] Alex: Warning: Occasionally, characters who are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will drink coffee or tea. Selections where this occurs are marked with an asterisk (*).
[11:25] MoD: hehe
[11:26] MoD: “Warning”
[11:27] Alex: Occasionally, unmarried non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints will engage in *naughty business in bed*. We regret that one fifth of the earth was populated this way. Alert your children.
[11:28] MoD: oh my heck!
[11:28] MoD: This is serious?
[11:28] Alex: No – not that last – I made that up LOL
[11:28] Alex: That you can wonder makes me seriously wonder.
[11:29] Alex: Yes, the Friend can be odd, but..
[11:30] Alex: Okay.. can I post this IM at my blog?
[11:30] MoD: sure
[11:30] Alex: Okee.
[11:30] Alex: (skipping merrily on my way now..)

[he told me he had missed that I was talking about a magazine - he thought the latter quote was some actual book review.][/spoiler]

Whatever kind of duck you may become this year, be a good one.

My wise, resourceful mother found this a while ago at an eBay store. The original is an image with text that is very hard to read, and I’ve ripped out the text and put it here with effectively the same images.  Here’s the link to the original, and if that goes down my own copy is here.  You know this is good from the combination of that picture of a duck with the first line. 

Read the rest of this entry »

This is an excerpt from an Episode of South Park that has a bit of fun with Mormonism.

I think Rhapsidiom’s comments in his post here are right on target.  We exchange comments after his post.

[Update: I dunno.. I think I'm just too dang cantankerous. Ditto for so much of this blog.]

So, I’m really obsessed with the film States of Grace. Here are my responses to three (aging) BYU Newsnet/Daily Universe printings that relate. Unfortunately, thier articles contain spoilers and treat the film as if it is gratuitious (which it isn’t). If you read only one of these, please read the third (jump ahead).

Here’s the first. My response: this writer totally misses it – everything, meaning, life. When you get closer to the Atonement things are “..grittier, heavier, darker..” – and that’s all!? What about the amazing bright light on the other side of that!? He totally pulls focus from that. He completely misses the point. And attending other people’s churches to understand thier religion is connected with being more “pessimistic”!? How about connecting that with being a neighbor to your neighbors, like our President Hinkley keeps asking us to do?

Here’s the second. This guy gives a review of Mormon Cinema apparently in its present State, without any mention of States of Grace, or of New York Doll (which is also excellent). How about States of Ignorance? Hello, Columbus! Have you even set sail?

(I borrowed that Columbus injunction. I think it’s funny. Also, States of Grace is still at the Provo Wynnsong theater at this writing.)

These are your future newspaper columnists and pundits, people – the BYU newsnet and Daily Universe writers. Talk back.
Read the rest of this entry »

This is a taping of a pitch of this film concept, Extreme Mormons, to several producers in LDS film in Utah – some HaleStorm folks, and the woman who at the end says “Yeah – I doubt it” is Stin Hansen who was a producer on God’s Army and States of Grace. The folks pitching it didn’t make the trailer – they had interviewed the HaleStorm folks about LDS film for a documentary about the LDS and offshoot religions, and they were showing it as a favor to an LDS filmmaker in Australia who had used some of their equipment to make this.

The concept trailer is apparently clips from, or based on, an episode of a television show in Australia entitled “Saffron vs. God” with a premise of a (discontented?) Jew trying out various religions, this round being mormonism.

This to me is very funny – especially that the producers were very charitable and didn’t laugh: they probably see stuff that rediculous pitched all the time that is not farce. I don’t know.. if I were a producer and that was pitched to me I think I would lack the charity to not laugh my head off. Or at least, I did when I saw what was being pitched.

I wonder if the folks pitching it weren’t pulling a gag on the producers – the whole tone of thier pitch is serious, but the concept trailer they show is completely over the top. It is just way too extreme to not be farce.

If I had money to burn I’d pick this up for production in a heartbeat. It’s made me laugh my head off. But I’d market it to non-mormons.

As I said last entry, I watched Sons of Provo recently. It is a mockumentary surrounding an LDS “boy band”.

Oh. My. Gosh. Though fictional boy band, yet real for the sales of an album accompanying the film – I am all over this for how brilliantly stupid the music is. Besides that, I was really amazed and moved that, per the credits, these actors wrote and recorded the fake boy-band music which is in the film! More than this – and let me first disclaim that I am easily moved – the final song, which it would seem Kirby Hayborne wrote, so perfectly addressed the whole arc of the story of coming out of lunacy and shame, and was performed on the stage of my old High School, and was so beautiful, it made me weep!
Read the rest of this entry »

Nico Roscoe at sponbustion.com writes a load of fallacies and unfavorable comments about Mormons. The only thing I hope he’s right about is that the film Mobsters and Mormons will be great – of course, I have a vested interest, since I’m in the movie.

His fallacy: the LDS scriptures were pulled out of and translated while in a hat.
Truth: they were dug out of a hill where they were buried anciently. They were hidden in various places during translation while various thugs attempted by various and often violent means to get them. I do believe they were translated by the gift and power of God.

Fallacy: our founder’s name was John Smith.
Truth: his name was Joseph Smith. If you don’t get such a basic, founding fact right, you lose a lot of credit for everything else you say.

Fallacy: the plates were only seen by “John Smith”.
Truth offered in rebuttal at his website: there were 11 other witnesses to the plates.
Fallacious rebuttal to rebuttal: – first, he never minds conceding that he had the fact of no other witnesses wrong. Next, he immediately says without any historical or other references that Joseph Smith (also without concession that he had the fact of that name wrong) abused and battered them into “[CLAIMING]” what they saw, and only as a “spiritual” experience. Wowsers! First, a thing of importance needs a witness, and here there were 12. Second, this fellow cites no reputable witnesses to the contrary. Third, such witnesses are only hearsay, and the direct witness offered by these 12 is what should be given most weight. Lastly, if this fellow actually read their witness as put forth in the opening pages of the Book of Mormon, he dismisses their witness that they did in fact hold and handle the gold plates and see them with their own eyes. That is talking about a physical and not a spiritual experience. And it is not fair at all to equate a spiritual state with a brainwashed one. To really do that, you have to say that the vast majority of THE WORLD is brainwashed, where uncounted hosts of humanity witness belief in a living God by their spiritual feeling of the matter. There is no evidence of brainwashing because it did not occur. That is simply an invention, a fiction.

Fallacy: Mormons don’t use eBay.
Truth: Mormons use eBay as much or more than other groups (I would wager more) – I know at least five including myself who do.

Possible truth: I’d rather not explore that topic here – suffice it to say Mormons believe in abstinence before marriage, including abstinence from self-indulgence.

Topic breached without admitting it’s complexity: There are same-gender attracted Mormons that have their own community.
Overlooked complexity: such folks who actively pursue such a lifestyle aren’t kept in the church. Folks with such inclinations who don’t make it a lifestyle are kept in the church.

So, one of the rare places I agree with this fellow is in hoping the film Mobsters and Mormons is “great”.