HBO's showing a film version of "Angels in America," the play by Tony Kushner about the early years of AIDS in America. Part I was on Sunday night (12/7), it's supposed to be repeated this week, and Part II is on next Sunday night (12/14).
It's really good, I'm looking forward to Part II. The writing's good and Al Pacino and Mary-Louise Parker are both great, as are a lot of other folks in it.
I've only seen Part I, so I'm not gonna comment on it here; I'm waiting to see Part II to see where it goes... anyway, just wanted to give an alert to folks who might be interested.
[ December 09, 2003, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: plaid ]
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Great play. Some friends of mine staged a rather enjoyable (though way too long) production of this a couple of years ago.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I only want to point out, if you care or not, that many Mormons find this play highly offensive in the way the blacks see the KKK as offensive.
[ December 09, 2003, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
quote:I only want to point out, if you care or not, that many Mormons find this play highly offensive in the way the blacks see the KKK as offensive.
Well, as offensive movie about the KKK, maybe, and I could better understand the correlation. But has this play gone out and lynched, killed, raped or otherwise beat the crap out of Mormons or Mormon ancestors and I'm just not aware of it?
Seriously, I haven't seen it or a staged version. Why would Mormons have an issue with it?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why? Posted by martha (Member # 141) on :
I haven't seen the HBO version yet, but from what I remember from when I saw the play a few years ago, I'll try to answer your question.
Kushner makes no effort to hide his views: namely, that the accepted LDS position on homosexuality is unrealistic and cruel. He has, however (in my opinion), done his research into Mormon culture, and I find his Mormon characters well-fleshed-out and deeply truthful.
The play is generously populated with Mormons, but also has some Jewish characters; Kushner grew up and remains Jewish. As far as I can see, he treats Judaism with the same familiarity he uses with LDS.
One conjecture I will make (at the risk of offending some people here) is that perhaps Mormons who are offended by Angels in America are more offended by the casual presentation of homosexuality, and unquestioning assumption that homosexuality even exists; than by the portrayal of the Mormon characters.
Posted by dangermom (Member # 1676) on :
I saw it in the theatre years ago, when it was new, and I'm LDS. I don't have HBO and have no plans to see it this time. Interesting play. A friend of mine did walk out when she saw it. It's been a long time (10 years?), but I think the main objection from an LDS standpoint is the use of garments, or facsimiles thereof, on stage. The portrayal of homosexuality isn't really here nor there on the LDS offense-o-meter, though obviously a lot of people aren't going to particularly approve of the play. But that's true of many, many plays; this one stands out because of the garments.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Of course, if there was a scene on film with a temple-married LDS couple in various states of undress that DIDN'T display the garment, it would be heralded as 'unrealistic' and 'unresearched'.
Anyway - I don't think those characters were at all supposed to be stereotypical of Mormons. I believe they were just characters who happened to be Mormon, even though this aspect of their faith is an important part of their character. It's obvious the playwrite didn't just make them Mormon as instant laugh-targets. It was a conscious choice - a major theme in part one is of the state of and future of America. The LDS thought on America's special place in the scheme of things is brought up as a counterpoint. It's not ridiculed - it plays out seriously, if not desperately.
Both the husband and wife already seemed pretty lapsed in their faith, even if ingrained habits and taboos remained. These aren't Molly Mormon and Peter Priesthood - these are people suffering, whose faith is dying.
If anything, the man can perhaps be viewed as one unable to overcome temptation. I found that character to actually be one of the most fascinating (and sypathetic) characters in the piece. His wife, on the other hand, I found to be the most enjoyable character, and hands down the best performance.
I can't wait to see part 2, and won't review the entire work as a whole until I do so.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Is there a place I can read the play?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
way I understand it, the play itself was performed in two parts, just as the Film version is, with both parts being around 3 1/2 hours. there were only a few presentations where both parts were combined in a single night - imagine a 7 hour play performance. I'm sure the actors were EXHAUSTED.
[ December 09, 2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Just found a SALT LAKE TRIBUNE review of 'Angels' which actually states it as being 'very respectful' of the LDS faith. Check it out.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Salt Lake Tribune is traditionaly the "anti" paper - their main rival is owned by the church. *shakes head* They're a fine paper, but not a good gauge of what will be found offensive.
*follows link* Uh... any way to not pay for it?
Library, I guess.
[ December 09, 2003, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
My thoughts.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
There are two most highly offensive things about this play. The first is using LDS theology and imagry to preach against the religiously conservative views of Mormonism. This includes the strong belief in the very holy nature of traditional family relationships, and the strict understanding of morality and ethics. It is an attack pure and simple. As usual in this kind of treatment, every character either loses faith entirely or gains faith in such a way that they come out crazy, insane, or socially disfunctional. Or, if not that, they gain a faith so foriegn and different from the orthodox understanding that it pretty much nulifies their membership therein for all practical purposes. The latter characters are, of course, put up as what the religion SHOULD BE, ignoring that is not what the religion IS. For those who agree with the message of the film/play they don't see the subtle meanings behind the above mentioned transformations.
But, the real kicker is the use of temple garments in an open and public manner; even luedly presented. Showing, explaining, producing, or otherwise having temple related garb in public is as close to a "stoning offense" as you can get in Mormonism. It is actually more offensive than nudity as far as sensibilities are concerned. If you want to make sure to offend a Mormon (unfortunately I am probably giving some people fire to use in trying to explain this) than open use of these things is the number one way to offend. If you are honestly trying to be respectful, you DO NOT include these things for public consumption.
[ December 09, 2003, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If you are honestly trying to be respectful, you DO NOT include these things for public consumption."
Out of interest, why not? You're not ashamed of them. Everyone knows what they look like. Everyone knows they exist.
What about actually looking at them is insulting?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's like having a Miss World pageant at the Dome of the Rock. Why's that insulting?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would argue that verisimilitude is on the side of showing Mormons in undergarments, but rather AGAINST swimsuit pageants in mosques.
Then again, I've never understood the whole "it's holy because we're sensitive about it, and we're sensitive about it because it's holy" logic, so maybe I'm the wrong person to ask. It seems to me that it basically turns someone into the kind of person who's very easily offended by even the most basic curiosity.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*grin* That's because that's the wrong logic.
I don't like sex scenes in movies, either, because if I'm not convinced by the couple, it'd be skeevy, and if I am, don't they want privacy?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Mormon undergarments are skeevy? I know THAT can't be your logic....
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nope, try the second option.
You couldn't be trying to imply it isn't sincere...
[ December 09, 2003, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sincere what? They're wearing Mormon underwear because they're pretending to be Mormon. Are you saying that they're not pretending to be Mormon sincerely enough?
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
Tom: It's kinda like Indiana Jones and the Raider's of the Lost Ark. If you're not careful, your face will melt.
...
...isn't it?
^_~
Actually, I think it's very like the Ark (though probably not the raiders thereof). Holy is, by definition, off limits, set apart. It goes with the territory. OT theology puts that kind of thing under the heading "God's portion: keep out"
Being a non-Mormon, that's the best I can do.
Q.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Actors pretending to wear them is incredibly skeevy.
What Q said.
The world's eyes are the Miss World pageant. Whether or not the boobs on Miss World are real has nothing to do with it.
[ December 09, 2003, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Being a non-Mormon that is the best I have ever heard. I don't know if you are Jewish, but the way they felt about the Temple is how Mormons feel about their Temples and anything associated with it. Same concept of "set apart from the world" and therefore not to be placed in front of the world.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Skeevy Skivvies, eh?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Not being a Mormon is probably the number one reason they shouldn't be wearing them. Of course, if they really were Mormon, that would be even worse and they would most likely be ex-communicated.
Posted by Jill (Member # 3376) on :
I'm not too familiar with the Mormon culture and beliefs. What are "garments," and why would people be offended by them in Angels?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
They're special undergarments which represent God's protection and covenant, as I understand it. Many Mormons believe that they offer actual divine protections; others believe they're merely symbolic.
The garments, as with many of the more unusual elements of Mormon doctrine, are considered "holy," meaning in this case that they should be kept relatively secret from non-members (in order, as I understand it, to protect these and other rituals from being cheapened by mockery and misunderstanding.)
Posted by martha (Member # 141) on :
Okay, I understand how it might be extremely offensive if an actor (LDS or not) wore Temple garments onstage for all the world to see.
HOWEVER, surely everyone in the audience must understand that these are not, in fact, actually Temple garments, and that they probably bear no resemblance to real Temple garments.
It's all representational. No matter how well-written it is, or well-acted, nobody actually believes that this is for real. It's still just actors in costumes on sets. How can mere storytelling be so mortally offensive?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
My hometown paper carries a local question and answer section (think of it like a help desk on just about anything), and someone once asked about Mormon underwear. The paper answered in some depth.
The next few issues all carried letters from local Mormons complimenting the paper on the fair minded treatment
Just an interesting anecdote that seemed peripherally related.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
In the HBO version I was only vaguely aware that those might be "undergarments" -- I didn't notice the symbols at first (they were pretty subtle) and later when I did I thought it was some kind of brand name underwear (it took me awhile to realize, "Oh, undergarments").
I'm curious -- OSC mentions undergarments in "Lost Boys." Is there a difference in OSC's using them for verisimilitude in a novel, and the play using them? (Like martha said, we non-Mormons don't know if those were actual undergarments, the undergarments weren't shown in any detail, and the undergarments weren't the focus of the scene at all.) Obviously OSC doesn't describe them in his book... but the film showed them in such a fuzzy way that I don't feel like the undergarments were really shown there either.
(Also, does "verisimilitude" set a record for the number of times the letter "i" occurs in a word?)
Posted by Jill (Member # 3376) on :
quote:The garments, as with many of the more unusual elements of Mormon doctrine, are considered "holy," meaning in this case that they should be kept relatively secret from non-members (in order, as I understand it, to protect these and other rituals from being cheapened by mockery and misunderstanding.)
Then wouldn't Mormons be mad at OSC for writing about them in Lost Boys?
Plaid beat me to it...
[ December 10, 2003, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: Jill ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I know there would be some that might be, although I have never heard of complaints. Its not just the mentioning of them, as we are talking about them. Rather, it is in the use of them in a time, place, and with people who have no business having, talking about, or using them in any context; expecially in a relatively critical play.
[ December 10, 2003, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom, come on... quotation marks around holy? Stuff like that is EXACTLY why I object to the depiction. You just proved the point.
You're saying they think it's holy, but, you know, it really isn't, those funny, superstitious Mormons.
----
And, in answer, yes, it did/does bother many Mormons when OSC put it in Lost Boys. Those it doesn't, it helps that it's done with sympathetic love and understanding.
[ December 10, 2003, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I think Mormons are generally prickly about Mormons portrayed in the media for a number of reasons:
1) Often when Mormons are portrayed it is for purpose of ridicule
2) I have never seen or heard of Mormons being portrayed by non-Mormons where the depiction has been remotely accurate
3) Mormons are hypersensitive to ridicule because A) There has been a long history of it and B) Mormons (and Christians in general) seem to be one of the few remaining valid targets (ie no one would think of attacking blacks or some other group in the same ways).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Jacare, would you say that the depiction of Mormons in "Angels in America" is remotely accurate?
-------
And yes, kat, I put quotes around "holy" for two reasons, neither of which are meant to indicate that I don't think they ARE holy (although, of course, I do not):
1) To indicate, using scare quotes, that the use of "holy" in this context means something a little different for Mormons than for mainstream Americans.
2) To indicate that the word "holy" is in fact a preferred term used to describe these undergarments, and that items and rituals matching this description fall into a specific category in Mormon doctrine.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bad use of punctuation then, because that's not what quotation marks currently signify. You're a writer - you know that.
1. He's being "sincere." 2. He's being sincere, although I believe he's wrong about the facts.
Those are entirely different sentences.
[ December 10, 2003, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Scare quotes are used for many purposes, kat.
Consider this sentence:
Al Gore said today that he was "disappointed" in the election results.
Does this mean that he literally used the word "disappointed?" Yes. Can it mean that the reporter specifically quoted just that word in a cynical way? Yes, it can mean that, too.
You choose to interpret my quotation of the word "holy" in the most negative possible fashion, perhaps due to the aforementioned hypersensitivity. I assure you, however, the reasons I gave for my use of quotes were the only ones.
That said, you KNOW I don't think these undergarments are holy. In fact, you know the overwhelming majority of non-Mormons (at least, those who know about them) not only don't think the undergarments are holy but think they're actively silly. Perhaps you should be less sensitive to this reality.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Your argument was Mormons shouldn't be too sensitive about the depiction of something they consider holy. Why throw gasoline on the fire in the middle of that discussion?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Jacare, would you say that the depiction of Mormons in "Angels in America" is remotely accurate?
I haven't seen it so I can't say.
Posted by dangermom (Member # 1676) on :
quote:Like martha said, we non-Mormons don't know if those were actual undergarments, the undergarments weren't shown in any detail, and the undergarments weren't the focus of the scene at all.
In the movie, perhaps. When I saw it on the stage, it was pretty hard to miss; as we all know, plays have far less scenery and whatnot, and the actor was just standing on the stage in what was obviously supposed to be the old-style garments (which AFAIK no one under 60+ wears). You couldn't mistake it for plain ol' undershirt-and-pants, and while it wasn't the topic of discussion in the scene or anything, it would certainly not strike any Mormon as remotely appropriate or respectful.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
The thing that most people are trying to understand is that if they're not mentioned, or discussed, or referred to in any reason, but used as realistic costuming, where si the offense? They're not being ridiculed. I honestly would bet that most people NOT familiar with LDS beliefs and culture wouldn't even notice anything out of the ordinary.
I also remember people having a fuss because a scene in one of Dutcher's films portrayed an actual Sacrament Meeting. Seeing as he wasn't allowed to shoot in any in-use meeting houses, I understand he ended up having to find one that was no longer in use to film at. And even then, he got flack for it, even though he IS a devout members of the LDS church.
... but yet the complaints are that when people protray Mormons, they aren't portrayed accurately. But when things ARE tried to be shown accurately, it results in this knee-jerk reaction.
Think about it from THAT perspective for a moment. How does that reflect on the Church if when people DO try hard to 'get it right', they're attacked? It's a Catch-22 folks.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: but yet the complaints are that when people protray Mormons, they aren't portrayed accurately. But when things ARE tried to be shown accurately, it results in this knee-jerk reaction.
Think about it from THAT perspective for a moment. How does that reflect on the Church if when people DO try hard to 'get it right', they're attacked? It's a Catch-22 folks.
I don't agree. To portray Mormons accurately must they be shown in their skivvies? I don't reckon that an accurate portrayal of Catholics requires that they be shown in their boxers or huggers or what have you. The question arises: is it necessary that they be shown in their underwear at all? And if so, is it necessary that their underwear be garments? Their are plenty of Mormons who have not gone to the temple and do not wear garments. I think it is the same issue as any number of other issues of accurate portrayal. For example, in order to learn in a play that the characters had sex is it necessary that they be shown having sex? Must we see their flesh?
It is one thing to be realistic and quite another to deliberately cross the bounds of taboo of the society in question.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'm not a member of the LDS church, and I didn't notice anything unusual. To me it just seemed like they were wearing undergarments. I guess I wasn't paying that close attention.
In the context though, they really couldn't have been wearing anything else. The male character in particular would want to wear them I think,with what he was going through and his attitude about it.
Thats just my opinion though.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Jacare: didn't I just point out an instance of Mormons being portrayed by non-Mormons in the media that was realistic? I didn't specify they paper was run by non-Mormons, but I thought it was implied.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It is the very fact there is taboo associated with them which makes, from a historic/literary perspective, it necessary to portray Mormons in their "skivvies". Should a historian edit out all references to things that other cultures hold sacred? Should an author not portray a group of people realistically because those people do not want to be portrayed realistically?
It is hard to protest the unrealistic portrayal of Mormons while also condemning the realistic portrayal of Mormons. If you insist that garments not be shown you will never have a realistic depiction of a situation where garments would be worn.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Katharina, don't you think you're a little too much on the offensive about this issue with Tom? He doesn't hold your faith, but recognized the importance of the costuming for the play. Why are you trying so hard to take offense, and find any way you can to imply that offense was meant?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Okay - Part 2 is in progress, and I've already noticed quite a few things in PART 2 that I agree can be offensive to members of the LDS church. I still hold my thoughts on the events of PART 1, but PART 2 is a different story - at least this far (in the middle of hour 2).
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
So I personally have no idea what these garments are that people are talking about? If someone could explain, thus far all explanations have sorta left me going huh?, I might understand.
I guess that I'm never surprised when art of any type takes something from religion to make a point. I'm a Catholic and I can think of a good number of movies that generally use Catholic ritual/ beliefs in some way that could be offensive or are at least a misrepresentation. And I don't really take offense. I know this next statement is going to probably get me yelled at. But I generally see art as a form of communication that often challenges the fundamentals underlying some belief system. Most of the time I just go interesting...hmm. And if someone is interested and asks me to explain I do. Maybe I should get more upset about the representation of my religion by art and the media. *senses she's about to ramble and runs away*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So I personally have no idea what these garments are that people are talking about? If someone could explain, thus far all explanations have sorta left me going huh?"
IIRC, all Mormons who have entered a "covenant of righteousness" in the Temple are given robes to wear while in the Temple, and white undergarments that are meant to be worn at all times. These undergarments are manufactured by an agency of the Church, and have undergone several style revisions over the years.
While I've never seen one of the newer garments, I've heard that they are still printed with four Masonic symbols (meant to suggest different meanings to the LDS church, of course) but are otherwise deliberately plain.
The official line on these garments is that they are symbolic of the covenant and a reminder of the duties of the priesthood, much the same way that a Catholic priest's collar is. I've heard several Mormons additionally voice the view -- which I don't think is official doctrine -- that the garments also offer a form of enchanted spiritual protection from harm when worn.
-----
Did I get that right, guys?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Actually, sarahd, you just said EXACTLY what I was about to say just as this film ended.
Yes, I can see Chapter 4 especially containing elements that could offend Mormons. Not only do we have The Return of The Garment in a situation members would find highly offensive, but a character asks about it, and mocks it. In another instance, a character is deemed a prophet in a way that you could take as a mockery of Joseph Smith - he is given a book of golden plates, and told to read it using spectacles with rocks in the eyepieces, the 'instruments'.
But, of course, context is everything. And now that I've seen the entire piece, this is what I have to say:
The character who above I stated as the most empathetic is also the biggest failure in the film. He is the only character in the film who isn't redeemed in some way. HE is the only person who doesn't stick to an ideal. And yes, he's Mormon. The way the garments are defiled, well, it's just as he himself has started down the road to defilement. He can't stop betraying all that he holds dear. He is NOT the hero of the piece. He is not being pictured as the ideal. He is above all not being shown as the ideal Mormon. If anything, he's what most films depict as the 'Lapsed Catholic' - because seriously, how many films or shows can you name where you have the Lapsed Catholic? Or lapsed Person Of Any Faith? And most of the times, the character doesn't rediscover their faith. They 'put their childish things aside', and its viewed as a virtue (The only film of late where I can say showed one of lapsed faith fully regaining their faith and zeal is in M NIGHT's 'Signs'). You can choose to watch this and believe that this film is trashing members of the Church and the Church's beliefs just because the main depicted member end up becoming a despicable person. OR, you could open your eyes and WATCH THE MOVIE, and realize that the filmmaker doesn't mock the faith, the character does with his actions.
His mother, on the other hand, IS a very respectable character. She cherishes her beliefs. She clings to them. She practices compassion even in situations where it makes her uncomfortable. She's the character that proves to me that the writer ha srespect for the faith, even if he doesn't hold it to be 100% truth.
One thing that is clear is that he's fascinated with the LDS culture. He's fascinated by it, and has tried hard to understand it, and depict it as accurately as he can. But, he also indulges in some 'fun' branching off from the ideas.
Just like there's TONS of movies based on Christian doctrines and theology that totally take in a totally non-scripturally supported direction - it's fantasy. The Devil's Advocate. Fallen. Just two examples of films that take religious ideas, and twist them to make an interesting plot. Whether or not you think those are good film s are not is besides the point - what they do, in my opinion, isn't WRONG, or should even truly be offensive. It's artistic licence. They're not syaing 'this is what they believe', they're using religious stories as a basis for a plot - just like so many films and stories take basis from Mythology. The fact that people believe these elements to be true often time is not brought into account. But many times, it is, and it's done with a wink wink, nudge nudge way where it's understood that the filmmaker is JUST HAVING FUN. They're not mocking, they're what-iffing.
The way the calling of the Prophet in this film occurs, I believe, in the above manner. While the faith followed by The Mother and her apostated son is based in reality, the 'calling' fantasy sequence is taken from the screenwriter having fun with some of the elements of the STORY of the faith he's become fascinated with. In fact, the angel delivering the task views herself merely as copying what 'the text' says anyway. If it appears like a mockery of the Joseph Smith vision, well, in a way, it's more of a botched re-creation. THe angel is filled with splendor, and self-importance, is trying to do things by-the-book - but things keep going wrong. It turns into something which is DEFINITELY 'Not The Way Things Were Meant To Go'.
So yes, you can view the film, take leements ON THEIR OWN, be offended, and immediately decry the film as a blasphemous attack on Your Beliefs.
Or, you can watch the whole whole thing and take it in context.
In short, don't walk out of Last Temptation of Christ and start protesting the film until you see the end when he decides the sacrifice is worth it all anyway, and gets back up the cross.
:gets down off his soapbox:
[ December 14, 2003, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But many times, it is, and it's done with a wink wink, nudge nudge way where it's understood that the filmmaker is JUST HAVING FUN."
In fairness, one of the reasons Mormons are often accused of not having a sense of humor about their religion is that, by and large, they don't. IMX, they have a very clear idea of what is and is not definitionally "sacred" -- and those things that ARE sacred aren't even to be looked at sideways, much less openly poked at for amusement.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Isn't it that way because they don't want those traditions to be sullied and devalued the way that other Christian faiths have had theirs turned into a childish mockery?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yep. And as was indirectly pointed out in the post prior to mine, there IS a legitimate danger of this; simply because some people don't take it as seriously, there's the inevitable possibility that they might well decide to run with it in an amusing way.
Heck, I'll freely admit to devoting huge portions of a comic book I once wrote to making fun of certain aspects of Mormon doctrine -- because, let's face it, unless you happen to believe with the seriousness that comes from, well, something I apparently have never experienced, some of those doctrines really are pretty funny.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
I agree. I didn't mean it to say that believing as much gives people a right to take such blatant offense. If anything, it denotes a bit of self-righteousness about one's faith that seems rather counterintuitive to the rest of the fundementals of the faith. Also, there's a difference between the idea of keeping and observing sanctity and the idea of keeping sacred things practically hidden from the nonmembers. If you behave like a secret society, expect to be treated as one. I think this is why both the LDS and the JW get the bad rap they have.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
But I do think there also can be a major difference between MOCKING and HAVING FUN WITH. Some people don't believe that this is possible.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I still think, and don't know why I am even trying at this point, you are missing the point entirely.
It is wrong, not because it mocks (althought that is a problem), not because it doesn't show some positive outcome ("that would better explain the respect at the end if you were to consider context"), or any number of reasons. It is wrong because IT IS THERE AT ALL, IN POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE REPRESENTATION! PERIOD! The very fact they are shown is a disrespect.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Comments by others trying to explain the sacred and secret nature of Temples, using historical presidence:
"The ancient Temple rites involved things which only the High Priest would perform or have access to receive, in the Holy of Holies. Then within the Holy Place there would be others who could enter in on prescribed occasions. But the general public, and even Israelites could not enter these two places. Within the outer court, Priests generally could enter, and all Israel could see, but were not permitted to enter. Then in the later Temple mount, there were areas in which Gentiles were permitted to enter, as well. This historic division (the full import of which I don't have time to explain) should be sufficient for you to recognize that God has not always given permission to everyone to receive or participate in everything."
I will add to this that if anyone did cross over into the Temple anciently who was not allowed, they would be killed.
"The temple is the holiest of places. It is not the only place where revelation is received, but it is a refuge from the world for members to go to be in a more celestial environment to be better personally prepared in heart and mind to receive revelation, pulling the "curtain" back more."
The Temple is a Holy Place where it is seperated from the World and in return is not to be part of the World in any way. This is not completely to keep it from getting mocked by those who don't understand. Rather, because it belongs only and completely to God and Heaven. To show it is to mock it, as it shows a lack of respect for its Holiness, or at least those who hold it Holy.
Examples of sentiments from early Christianity about God and secrecy:
"The Lord did not hinder from doing good while keeping the Sabbath; but allowed us to communicate of those divine mysteries, and of that holy light, to those who are able to receive them. He did not certainly disclose to the many what did not belong to the many; but to the few to whom He knew that they belonged, who were capable of receiving and being moulded according to them. But secret things are entrusted to speech, not to writing, as is the case with God."(Stromateis 1.1)
Clement again: "Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome, he wrote [an account of] the Lord's doings,fn not, however, declaring all [of them], nor yet hinting at the secret [ones], but selecting those he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died as a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge [gnosis]. [Thus] he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven [veils] .... and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries."
St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "When the instruction is over, if any catechumen tries to get out of you what your teachers told you, tell nothing, for he is outside the mystery that we have delivered to you, with its hope of the age to come. Guard the mystery for his sake from whom you look for reward. Never let anyone persuade you, saying "What harm is it that I should know as well?"... Already you stand on the frontier of mystery. I adjure you to smuggle no word out." (Procatechesis, 12)
St. Basil: "Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in a mystery" by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force .... For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. ... Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught?... Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents." (On the Holy Spirit, 27)
4th cent. Lactantius: "God orders us in quietness and silence to hide His secret and to keep it within our own conscience...For a mystery out to be most faithfully concealed and covered, especially by us, who bear the name of faith. But they accuse this silence of ours, as though it were the result of an evil conscience; when also they invent some detestable things respecting those who are holy and blameless." (Divine Institutes VII, 26)
Athanasius on apostates: [They] "are not ashamed to parade the sacred mysteries...even before the heathens: whereas, they ought to attend to what is written, 'it is good to keep close the secret of the king;' and as the Lord charged us, 'Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine.' We ought not then to parade the holy mysteries before the uninitiated, lest the heathen in their ignorance deride them, and the catechumens [i.e. investigators] being over-curious be offended." (Defense against the Arians, 1:11)
Similiar reactions as what is going on here from history:
2nd century anti-Christian Celsus: "The cult of Christ is a secret society whose members huddle together in corners for fear of being brought to trial and punishment." (Celsus, 53)
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
And then there were those were killed for translating God's Holy Word into the ugly, unsacred English language. Those who believed God's Word was too holy for the laypeople.
And I'm sure they got the Historical Prescedence from the same place. They thought they were protecting something sacred as well, and had also sworn on-threat-of-death oaths for 'revealing' their 'sacred' knowledge as well.
--
Before I'm flamed, I'm just playing Devil's advocate here - I fully know that I'm comparing apples and oranges - I'm mainly pointing out that historical prescedence can help to 'prove' a lot of beliefs.
But back on topic, if those were actual garments on screen that had been blessed and consecrated by Your Proper Autorities - then yes, I can see where offence would be taken. But, chances are, these are replicas. Not even made by the people who made the Official Garments. They are not, and never were, Consecrated.
Or is the very KNOWLEDGE of them sacred? Because using the above example of Old Testament Temple services, the very fact that the items within used for the ceremonies (including the ceremonial clothing) were described IN DETAIL in their historical records precludes this as a posibility. Historically, that is.
[ December 15, 2003, 02:09 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by dangermom (Member # 1676) on :
quote:In fairness, one of the reasons Mormons are often accused of not having a sense of humor about their religion is that, by and large, they don't. IMX, they have a very clear idea of what is and is not definitionally "sacred" -- and those things that ARE sacred aren't even to be looked at sideways, much less openly poked at for amusement.
We have a sense of humor; we just don't think the same things are funny, and we don't appreciate 'outsiders' cracking the jokes. Rather like siblings who beat on each other, but won't stand for anyone else doing it. And we have definite lines drawn on what is and isn't OK to joke about; garments are not one of the things that are OK. That's not a bad thing--not everything in life is up for poking at, and our society has largely forgotten that.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Occasional, is it blasphemy when a television show or a movie shows a Catholic going to confessional? When a Muslim stops for prayer? Is it offensive to show a protestant baptism? How about all of those church scenes in film and television, from various faiths?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I understand, and would also hold that the way it was handle din the film was in good taste. During a walk on the beach, the Mormon who is currently defying his faith, and cheating on his wife with a man - is finally asked by his casual lover what's with the 'goofy underwear'? The Mormon kind of blushes, looks a bit uncomfortable, and corrects him. "Garment." The other man laughs. The Mormon stifles a nervous chuckle and says something about it being for his protection before swiftly changing the subject.
Even while 'living in sin' and defying all the garment stood for, he still felt a bit of reverence for it, and felt uncomfortable discussing it.
'least, that's how I saw it.
If the filmmaker were really up for mocking and exploiting it, there could have been a 5 minute discussion on the origins and purposed of this garment - as an expose to the world at large.
But he didn't. The characters acted just as they would in a real life situation where that akward moment would have come up.
Ignoring the issue would have played false.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Are we not allowed to know the reason for the garment if we are not Mormon?
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I've done medical physical exams on several different Mormon men over the past 7 years who were wearing special undergarments. Strangely enough, although I immediately recognized what the garments were, I have absolutely no memory of what the garments actually looked like. They were a lot more ordinary looking than I expected, I recall. The last time I did a physical exam I even remember thinking that this time I would remember what the garment was like.
Nope. I still have no idea what the garment looks like.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:Occasional, is it blasphemy when a television show or a movie shows a Catholic going to confessional? When a Muslim stops for prayer? Is it offensive to show a protestant baptism? How about all of those church scenes in film and television, from various faiths?
This isn't about Catholics, Muslims, Jews, or Rastifarians. This is about Mormons. You can show a Mormon going to church, you might get away with showing a Mormon giving a Priesthood blessing even if it can be uncomforatable to watch. But, you cannot show anything what-so-ever in any capacity the things that are related to the Temple other than photographs of the outside or publically released inside architecture; garments included.
I am not trying to "prove" anything other than to try and explain the religious teachings associated with this subject. Obviously you don't understand, and still refuse to understand, what I am getting at. Its not a matter of personal discomfort for showing it, but to us a direct Commandment of God that it is NOT to be shown, talked about, represented, or otherwise revealed outside the specific designated confines of the Temple. That there are moments that outsiders will see them will be a part of life, but that is only when there is no other choice. To do otherwise, even with respect, is a blasphemy.
quote:Are we not allowed to know the reason for the garment if we are not Mormon?
Only in a very limited and vague way. It represents Covenants individuals make to God in the Temple. Other than that, nothing else is to be mentioned. Even Mormons are not supposed to talk about this stuff among themeselves.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Luckily, for those who are really curious, a Google search will produce a number of sites -- some biased and hostile, some not -- that answer your questions on the topic.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Are we not allowed to know the reason for the garment if we are not Mormon?
I think this has been covered a few times, but I'll give another response:
The purpose for garments is much the same as the purpose for wedding rings: As a physical reminder of important covenants one has made.
[ December 15, 2003, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Jacare Sorridente ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:In fairness, one of the reasons Mormons are often accused of not having a sense of humor about their religion is that, by and large, they don't. IMX, they have a very clear idea of what is and is not definitionally "sacred" -- and those things that ARE sacred aren't even to be looked at sideways, much less openly poked at for amusement.
IMX, this is true.
I think I'm funny. I'd like to think I'm funny. I don't have a terrible sense of humor.
But I honestly have none at all when it comes to the church when the jokes are made by non-members. I also don't have sympathy when someone claims it's merely a joke. They can't joke - they don't love it enough.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There are some cultures whose members have no sense of humor about their mother. These are also the cultures where mother jokes seem to abound.
There's not as much of a stigma about mother jokes in other areas, and that kind of joke doesn't seem to exist. For religious jokes, many of them seem to be funny only BECAUSE they are offensive. In the choice between treating things lightly and being disaproving of the offensive jokes, devaluing sacred things is too high a price to pay.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The showing of sacred garments was not done in such a way as to appear offensive or humorous to non-members. That is, they don't see it as something putting down Mormons. Therefore, no harm is being done to the image of the Mormon church as it appears to non-Members.
Since members obviously love the church, no damage has been done to the Mormon church or its image by the showing of the sacred garments.
What do you guys think of this?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:Since members obviously love the church, no damage has been done to the Mormon church or its image by the showing of the sacred garments.
What do you guys think of this?
It shows only that you are ignorant of or ignoring what we are saying. What part of NO and NEVER do you not understand?
[ December 15, 2003, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
No, I recognize that it is distasteful to you. However, your feelings don't change the fact that no harm is being done to either the Mormon church or religion in any way that I can see.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: no harm is being done to either the Mormon church or religion in any way that I can see.
Aye, there's the rub.
Ought not they have the right to determine what is offensive or harmful?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, it's not a matter of a right, is it? How is anyone going to stop them from being offended? Is anyone saying that Mormon's shouldn't be offended? I'm not.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh, wait. You're asking whether Mormons should be able to say whether something is offensive or not for the rest of us when it comes to their religion? Nah.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That didn't come out right. Look, Mormons are more than welcome to explain their side of things, but the rest of the world, and the artist, has the right to ignore them. This doesn't really have anything to do with what I said and is a tangent.
I recognize that Mormons are offended by these things, but I'm just pointing out that in real world terms, it's...not hurting anything, is it?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No, actually. But I am saying that just because you or I see no harm, does not mean they do not.
And I happen to respect that.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Uh..O.K. I respect that, too. Seems a little odd to expect non-members to treat your beliefs with the same veneration you do, though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Storm, what does hurt mean?
If you say something that hurts the feelings of one person but would not hurt the feelings of the other, does that mean the first person WASN'T hurt? Are they making it up?
It means respecting other people and what they think. You can't tell someone what to feel, and you especially can't tell someone that they don't actually feel what they feel.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Wow. Lol. I am seriously not communicating well. I'm not arguing that Mormons shouldn't feel hurt. They are free to do so.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't venerate their beliefs, nor would I ask someone else to venerate mine.
But if they say it's off-limits, then (assuming there's no concern about safety or somesuch), then I do my best to accept that.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Let me try and rephrase it another way. Isn't this another case of saying "Merry Christmas" to someone? If you recall, when we were discussing it before on this forum, there were some people who were really offended by others saying Merry Christmas to them, even though the other person didn't say it to them with the intention of being offensive. It is recognized, though, that within the culture of the receiving person, saying Merry xmas is offensive.
My position then was that allowances should be made by the reciever for the sender not being of their culture and that they shouldn't be offended.
I think I'm trying to say something along the same lines here, and I'm also asking, what's the point of being offended when someone who is not a Mormon does not hold the same things you do in veneration? Is Angels hurting the idea of Mormonism? Is it hurting Mormons? I don't think so.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I think what Stormy is saying is that Mormons have every right to be offended over anything that offends them -- it's a right given to everyone everywhere -- the right to feel offense. But that doesn't mean that whatever offends them must immediately and automatically be taken off the screen, out of the pages of a book, or off the airwaves. Cocaine use offends me, but I don't petition for movies to not show it just because of my personal dislike for it. It happens, it exists, why shouldn't it be portrayed? And again, i'd like the re-iterate the point that many have made in this thread -- that the scene in Angels in America was not intended to be offensive in the least. It was intended to show how the character had "betrayed" his faith, yet couldn't let go of some of the symbolism of it. The scene was there for a purpose, not just to make a crack at Mormon underwear.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Personally, I find plenty of other stuff in "Angels" to be offensive to me. I haven't seen it (nor will I!); but from the detailed reviews I have read, it contains a number of elements in contexts which I consider horrendously sacrilegious.
Not on par with say, Nimoy's recent photo-series, but close.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Nimoy? Huh?
Hobbes Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
This isn't going to degenerate into a Kirk/Spock love fanfic thread is it, Rivka? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok, while I am a ST fan, Leonard Nimoy's atrocity of a photo essay last year did NOT endear him to me.
Not one little bit!
And it had absolutely nothing to do with ST, thank goodness!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
What photo essay are you talking about, dare I ask? Was it very scatalogical?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"What? Offensive photos? I'm there!"
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*innocent look*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, goody!
I get to (accidentally) promote photos that I find deeply offensive! Yay!
Forget I mentioned 'em.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You mean Nimoy's nude photography? Or were you offended by the eggs?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I find nude Nimoy deeply offensive, too, Rivka. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, wait. I know which photo essay she means. The Kabbalistic nudes, right?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Jeez, no wonder.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Wow, I expected a little more intelligence from this group.
quote:It happens, it exists, why shouldn't it be portrayed? And again, i'd like the re-iterate the point that many have made in this thread -- that the scene in Angels in America was not intended to be offensive in the least.
I would suggest for those who still don't understand to re-read everything said so far and then put it into their own words as if they were trying to explain the offense. I am not saying that Mormons offensiveness will stop or ever has stopped others from showing, displaying, or talking about something considered sacred. But, this goes way beyond offensive. It reaches into areas that in some cultures would be considered worthy of death.
[ December 15, 2003, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
quote:This isn't about Catholics, Muslims, Jews, or Rastifarians. This is about Mormons.
No, it's about respect to religions. Otherwise, you are demanding that Mormons get some kind of special treatment that other religions are not allowed. It is not going to happen in the United States.
quote:You can show a Mormon going to church, you might get away with showing a Mormon giving a Priesthood blessing even if it can be uncomforatable to watch. But, you cannot show anything what-so-ever in any capacity the things that are related to the Temple other than photographs of the outside or publically released inside architecture; garments included.
This is where the Secret Society stigma comes from. Oddly, this reminds me of the Tree of Knowledge.
quote:Only in a very limited and vague way. It represents Covenants individuals make to God in the Temple. Other than that, nothing else is to be mentioned. Even Mormons are not supposed to talk about this stuff among themeselves.
This might have worked 100 years ago, but the world is too driven by the easy access of intimate knowledge today for this to last. The only thing that getting angry and defensive about it will accomplish is to call even more attention to finding out those intimate whys.
Jacare Sorridente, thank you for the link. It was both informative and helpful.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I rather like to think the US has moved beyond the idea that executing those who violate taboo is a good thing.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:Oddly, this reminds me of the Tree of Knowledge.
Well, at least your getting warmer to what I am saying.
quote:This might have worked 100 years ago, but the world is too driven by the easy access of intimate knowledge today for this to last.
Well, I am pretty sure that 1000 years from now the attitude of the LDS Church on this is not going to change.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I rather suspect it will have, considering how much the attitudes of every single church on this earth have changed in the past thousand years.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Unless of course you think that the Mormon Church is fundementaly different from the Churches that have existed for the past 1000 years (only take that comment as it relates to Fugu's statment by the way).
Hobbes Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
What?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well... if you believe that the Mormon Church is guided by Prophets chances are you'll feel that the attitudes about this type of thing will remain the same through out the next 1000 years. That's it.
Hobbes Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh. I thought you were making an argument for the death penalty for those who violated the taboo. Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Wow, Occasional, thanks for being nasty and insulting. Sure helps bring the level of this thread up to "intelligent discussion."
Your standards of morality are not the rest of the world's, and how ridiculous of you to condemn the rest of us for not agreeing to tip-toe around your belief system. You're making this into a whole other issue -- the play that we're discussing was merely being true to the background of its Mormon character. You can voice your opinion regarding the mention of Mormon garments on stage and television, but you have no right to presume to tell the rest of us where our limits should lie. If it's offensive to you, don't watch it. I don't attend KKK meetings. I don't support what they stand for, and i find it extremely offensive. But there's something called Freedom Of Speech in this country, and I do support that. And if you feel that this play delved into the realm of "obscenity" then you have to remember that it's not considered "obscene" if it's art -- as a play penned by a highly acclaimed and celebrated playwright would be.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Seems to me that the attitudes of the Mormon church about a number of things have already changed, in fact because of the leadership of several prophets.
The attitudes of the Jews in the Old Testament certainly change throughout, and they had prophets.
Heck, Jesus changed a huge number of attitudes as a prophet.
I think I'd be pretty sure the attitudes of the Church would change even if I were a Mormon.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Yes, but not about certain things. Temple ordinances are one of those things.
Hobbes Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Hobbes, with the One True Church issue aside, exactly how is the Mormon church so fundementally different? They seem pretty par for the course of protestant religions, as far as I can tell. In fact, they are even very much like the Jehovah's Witness church in their secrecy, though most protestant churches were more secretive when they first separated from the larger churches. This was usually to avoid persecution, I believe.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
My only point was that if you belief that the Mormon Church is the one true Church that has Prophets leading it right now, things like how we feel about Temple Ordinances isn't likley to change. That really was all I was saying.
Hobbes Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
That makes sense. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: then you have to remember that it's not considered "obscene" if it's art
I've heard this before. Didn't buy it then; don't buy it now. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:but you have no right to presume to tell the rest of us where our limits should lie
Actually, I have every right according to freedom of speach. Now, if I can force you to change your stance is another question.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote: then you have to remember that it's not considered "obscene" if it's art
This tends to be true, I think what it should be is "If it's obscene it's not art" (not that I completely agree with that either) but most people do seem to assume that if someone calls it art it can't be obscene.
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: The attitudes of the Jews in the Old Testament certainly change throughout, and they had prophets.
Really? Where are these changing attitudes?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: This tends to be true, I think what it should be is "If it's obscene it's not art" (not that I completely agree with that either) but most people do seem to assume that if someone calls it art it can't be obscene.
I'm familiar with the claim -- hey, I'm the one who sings Lehrer's Smut -- I just disagree with it.
I also think adults are capable of learning "New Math." Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
I think I'm going to have to agree Leonide on this one. I feel like there's two (okay probably more) arguments going on here. I think when I first posted there was more confusion about why members of the Mormon faith would be offended by this play. I think that confusion/discussion has to some degree been cleared up. But the turn of some of the statements sorta scares me. I mean in the end I think people have now been arguing about if this artist has the right to do this. Or am I misunderstanding?
I think that I can safely say now that I understand, as much as I can, why some Mormans find this offensive. However, does the artist have the right to do this. Yeah I think he does. Just like you have the right not to watch it. And people have the right to discuss it.
And for a while I had been thinking that perhaps this argument was exactly why he chose to. But I think perhaps the point was lost on the general audience. I spoke with a friend today about this debate and she actually had no clue what I was talking about. "There were garments?"
edit: Hmm well Occasional certainly isn't arguing against freedom of speech. Thus, this post is basically worthless.
[ December 15, 2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: sarahdipity ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Yes, but not about certain things. Temple ordinances are one of those things."
Isn't this ALSO untrue? I mean, I was under the impression that the Temple rituals had changed considerably over the years; this is fairly well-documented, in fact.
If the Prophet doesn't decide to change these rituals, who does?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
We are talking about the attitudes, not the actual ceremonies.
The major point I am trying to make is that Mormons will never NOT be offended. It doesn't matter what your intentions or how it is presented are going to be. It is true I cannot stop anyone from doing whatever they want with what we hold as sacred. That has been the way it has been since the very first years of Temple ordinances. I do expect, however, a little consideration of respect for the feelings and beliefs of others.
To break it down into the simplest of terms:
"I find this offensive because we hold it sacred in a secret way."
"Why should you be offended when the message is more positive than you are giving it credit?"
"Because the inclusion itself is a negative message as it devalues, intentionally or not, the Holy significants of its secret sacredness."
"Well, I can do this if I want, and the artist has every right to do this."
"You know, your right. But, it does not and will not make it any less offensive under the guise of art or right."
"If you don't like it, than don't go see it."
"Great idea as I never intended to anyway. But, its existance is no less offensive if I go see it or not."
[ December 15, 2003, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
Well then there's nothing else to be accomplished here.
Oh I'll promise to never make a robot that wears the sacred garments and call it art.
(I would have said play, poem, story, but I'm not an artist by profession at least so that was as good of a promise as I can make. )
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Two things:
1. The whole point of living prophets is that the LDS Church is not immutable, althought it may be slow to change. We can argue about whether the changes made are in direct response to societal pressures and values and are made for political reasons; however, Mormons believe that any changes that are made are sanctioned by God -- and sanctioned via revelation received by the prophet and confirmed by the rest of the members of the quorum of the twelve. We have the fortune of believing in a God that works to actively shapes his body of believers to meet [and challenge and accept] the demands of the age, and one who also lets us figure some things out on our own.
And, yes, Tom is right. There have been changes made to the temple ceremony. However it is not appropriate for us [meaning us Mormons] to discuss those changes on this site. I will only say this: while the Mormon temple ceremony and other elements of Mormon theology may be of interest on an academic level. Naturally, the true power of these rites and doctirnes [and I mean power in the most elemental form of the word] can only be appraised in the context of exposure to them through worship in the temple by worthy members who are ready to receive this knowledge. That sounds elitist. That echoes all the mystery rites from ages past and present. But it is true. And it is an expereince like no other -- one that offers a perspective of time and eternity that nothing else can approach. Yes, this is only my opinion. The subjective experience of one man. But what an experience. It is something unsurpassed, I think, in modern life.
2. I've seen the first part of Angels in America and have read many "Mormon" reactions to it. I did have a visceral negative reaction to some parts of it [although it had more to do with the incessant use of the f-word than the Mormon stuff -- at some point it lost its value as an explicative and just became boring]. And yes, at its core it is a radical-liberal, semi-Marxist political screed that in hindsight is rather shrill. It also is a decent work of art and uses elements of Mormonism in an artful way. I don't believe that Kushner was trying to defame Mormonism with this play. I believe him when he says that he researched Mormonism and also when he expresses reserved admiration for its vitality as one of the few truly "American" religions. His interest in Mormonism is that of an artist deeply involved in modern American life. Mormonism reflects both a conservatism *and* a vital, mystical religious experience for Kushner. He is using its people and symbols as an artist. Mormons can object to such contextualization of the Mormon experience, but I think the proper response in not one of outrage, but of sadness -- first, that he gets many things wrong, and second, that other artists (including Mormons) have yet to capture the faith and its people in an artistically mature way.
That said I don't know that I would recommend the play to fellow Mormons. I wouldn't even say it is a 'must-see' for culturally literate people. If it intrigues you, watch it or read it or go see a production of it. It is a somewhat moving story about AIDS and a somewhat tiresome story about homsexuality and conservative politics.
In my opinion, it doesn't do much to harm Mormons or Mormonism and it doesn't operate on the same plane as truly ugly anti-Mormon propaganda and 'art.' It is not an anti-Mormon tract.
I don't have time to talk about what Kushner gets wrong, but it has to do with the way in which his Mormons seem to be cut off from the body of the Saints. Of course, there are Mormons that are like this, but the way in which Kushner reifies his characters, turns them into 'types,' don't exactly ring true to me. My overall reaction was that Kushner worked too hard to fit his view of Mormonism into his political agenda and thus missed the true spirit of the faith. Not that that's a surprise.
For a sympathetic reading of the play by a Mormon see this AML review.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
quote:The character who above I stated as the most empathetic is also the biggest failure in the film. He is the only character in the film who isn't redeemed in some way. HE is the only person who doesn't stick to an ideal.
I guess Joe is worse off than Louis, but not by much... I was surprised that Louis is let off so easily at the end of the film. Louis had abandoned his lover to sicken and die, and it takes months for him to finally change his mind and try to do better... but only after his lover had already nearly died twice. I wonder if Prior and Belize are willing to forgive/tolerate him only because they see him as a flake who they shouldn't expect much from.
Joe's sad, but it seems like he's only worse off than Louis because he's not forgiven by Harper and Louis. (Hmm, maybe his mother would have the compassion to help him, if he didn't cut himself off from her... I can't remember now, how were Joe and his mom doing at the end?) Anyway, I wish that we could've seen Joe in the epilogue... but he's such a complex character that it's better to be left wondering what he'll do...
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Kind of like why no Islamic-based films about Mohammad ever actually show Mohammed - from what I understand, it's against their teaching to depic him.
So if, say, a hollywood director were to make MOHAMMED: THE MOVIE, and even if it were a wonderful, fantastic, powerfully moving sympathetic accurate-to-the-Koran-and-Islamic-history depiction - Islamics would protest the hell out of the film if an actor was cast as Mohammed and they SHOWED HIS FACE.
This is more on the same page, neh?
[ December 15, 2003, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Yes, that is exactly on the same page. I wish I would have thought of that example before.
[ December 15, 2003, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In all fairness, I think it's easier for people to sympathize with an interpretation of scripture that identifies religious iconography as idolatry than it is for them to understand a scripture that apparently calls for top secret underwear -- underwear that is SO secret, in fact, that it must be cut into pieces before it is thrown away.
Then again, religious dogma of any stripe has always been more than a little alien to me, so I'm entirely the wrong audience for a discussion of the merits of sacredness.
[ December 16, 2003, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Kind of like why no Islamic-based films about Mohammad ever actually show Mohammed - from what I understand, it's against their teaching to depic him.
So if, say, a hollywood director were to make MOHAMMED: THE MOVIE, and even if it were a wonderful, fantastic, powerfully moving sympathetic accurate-to-the-Koran-and-Islamic-history depiction - Islamics would protest the hell out of the film if an actor was cast as Mohammed and they SHOWED HIS FACE.
Yes, kind of the same thing.
Muslims do not depict Mohammed. There are no portraits, no lives of Mohammed. It's horribly offensive. It doesn't matter how much you think it shouldn't be, it still is. When you depict Mohammed, you are offending a sea of people and disrespecting the religion.
People will do it anyway, but don't wrap yourself in a mantle of "It's Art, and Not Offensive." It is offensive. You're just making a choice to do it anyway.
------
Tom, it's not an academic discussion. I know you don't consider it a taboo subject, but many here do. Please.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
quote: the self-congratulatory, smug, condescending, and hate-filled Angels in America. You'd think they had cured AIDS with this movie, instead of merely slandering people who don't believe in their PC religion.
Wish he could've gone into more detail about why he didn't like it... though from some of his other reviews of movies like American Beauty I can guess why...
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
i do not force people to live my religion, and all i ask is not to be forced to live their sacrelige.
i don't get offended much anymore because when i feel that twinge i my stomach that is a harbinger for offense i just walk away. no point wasting energy. that does not mean i don't believe people shouldn't try their best to be tactful, considerate, and tasteful. in fact, i usually find that art that does not take this attitude to be rather school-boy sniggering instead of witty or deep. art can still be obscene, but yes, artists have a right to be so. and i have a right to burn energy by being offended, i just don't find that to be a valuable use of my time.
in fact, the one thing that really offends me in reference to different portrayals of mormons in the media or academia or the art realm is the misspelling "morman." for goodness sakes, leave the h off my first name and watch your vowels, people! silly? perhaps.
edit: i still don't know if i spelled that one dang word right. yes, the irony is not lost on me despite my current exhausted state.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)