This is topic Richard Dutcher leaves the Mormon faith? Not really sure but a beautiful farewell. in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
As some of you may know, certainly Latter Day Saints, Richard Dutcher has been by far the best (if not only) good Mormon filmmaker. I take that back, my favorite Mormon movie was Saints and Soldiers. Very good movie.
As a Mormon, I loved God's Army. Well, I liked it very much. It surprised me because most Mormon movies are...trite. God's Army was different. Brigham City was fantastic. I would still recommend that movie for anyone.
It seems Dutcher is saying goodbye to Mormon filmmaking and possibly Mormonism. But I must say he is doing it with class, humility, support for the community, and a possibility for return.
quote: As you know, it's a lot harder now than it was in 2002 to book a Mormon film into a movie theater or to get the DVD on the shelf at the local media store. Have there been too many movies in the marketplace? Of course not. Is the market glutted? Far from it. There have been too many badly-made films in the marketplace, too few good ones.
A sharp increase in quality will bring an increase in box office. Increased box office will breathe new life into Mormon cinema. It's that simple.
quote: The church would never allow shoddy, inexperienced architects and builders to create one of its temples. In its sacred commitment to excellence, the church searches for and employs those with the necessary talents, non-Mormons and Mormons alike...
quote:Look at the movies that play on the screen of the theater in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building. These films are the introduction of Mormonism to hundreds of thousands of people from across the globe. Shouldn't these be the most powerful films on the face of the earth? For whatever reason -- nepotism, ignorance ... who knows? -- this opportunity is squandered. Why not share with visitors the beauty and power of Mormonism, rather than treating them to polite, remedial and not-so-factual recitations of Mormon History and scripture? Viewers should leave those films weak in the knees, their minds reeling, their spirits soaring. Film has the power to do that.
quote: A few parting words: I urge you to put the moronic comedies behind you. If you're going to make comedies, at least make them funny. Perhaps you should leave the mockery of Mormons to the anti-Mormons. They've had a lot more experience and, frankly, they do a better job.
Reach higher. Don't just "make a movie." Make the movie.
quote: As many of you know, I am no longer a practicing member of the church. The private answers to the questions I have asked in my prayers, and in my films, have led me on an unexpected journey, a spiritual path which may ultimately prove incompatible with Mormon orthodoxy. This understanding has brought me some of the most profound surprises and also the deepest sadness of my life. It is very hard for me to say goodbye to something that I love.
Who knows? Maybe, like Oliver Cowdery (to whom I've always felt an uncommon kinship), my travels will someday lead back to Mormonism and to this effort. Such an end would be beautiful and, in a strange way, an answer to my prayers. But I don't know.
quote: I know that some of you will not understand my decisions. Please know that I will always be not only a great friend to the Mormon community, but also one of its strongest defenders.
I must say, his writing insights and topic reminds me of OSC in a strange way--apart from no longer practicing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The man has alot of talent, I loved Saints and Soldiers, and much of what he says rings true.
I am sad to see him go, I hope he returns someday.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I wish him well in his future projects.
Obviously, I disagree with him on leaving the Church, but I'm not him, he's not me...and we all have to use our agency as we think best.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
I can respect anyone's choice of faith or changing of faith that they feel deeply about, but I personally found his farewell letter to be arrogant, and megalomanic.
The fact that he MADE a farewell letter at all shows quite a bit of self importance.
Then again I've never really been down with the notion of "mormon cinema" to begin with.
Whatevs, yo.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I will say he certainly seemed to not even allow the vaguest possibility that maybe his later films didn't draw an audience because of flaws in the movies themselves.
A truly thoughtful artist allows that some projects don't connect because they aren't very good...even if they are personal favorites. Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Never saw any of his movies, but the novelization of God's Army was excellent. [/honest plug]
Saw the letter last week(end?), and my reactions were similar to porce's, including the "Whatevs, yo," though when I say it it's more like "Wev."
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: The man has alot of talent, I loved Saints and Soldiers, and much of what he says rings true.
Actually Saints and Soldiers was Ryan Little; that is why I put that as the exception to Richard Dutcher's movies being the best Mormon Movies.
I am surprised by the megalomaniac accusations and dismissive "whatever" (my unpolished word) that is placed at him.
The article reads like it is intended for a specific audience. If it truly is an opinion piece only, then it seems a little over the top.
However he seems sincere. He seems like he wants Mormon cinema to succeed. He did not proselytize against the church. I think he has earned some respect for parting words. Comparing his movies to "The Home Teachers," "Day of Defence," "The RM," "The Singles Ward," and other God awful Mormon movies should give his opinion some weight and his perspective insightful.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Hahaha, thanks for the plug, Papa
I don't actually know Richard that well, even having adapted one of his movies. However, I do believe that he's sincere, and that he was one of the best filmmaking talents the Church has ever produced. He's not the only good one (with Ryan Lyttle, Jared Hess, Peter Johnson, and a few others standing out as his equals or betters), but he is really good, and deserves the acclaim he's received.
He does strike me as an honest seeker of truth who, while he disagrees with me on some things for the moment, may yet find what he's looking for. I'm not arrogant enough to think that I know everything, and it could well be that he's entering a phase of his life that God intends him to pass through. (In other words, though I'm a serious, believing Mormon, I also think he's sincere, and thinking that doesn't threaten my own beliefs )
Anyway, I'm sorry to see him go, but I'm glad to see he's not going too far, and I wish him luck.
In the meantime, though he did kick off modern Mormon cinema with God's Army, I think that the sort of movie that resonates with him (explorations of evil, and the grey lines people waver across) was never going to be successful, long term, with Mormons as his primary audience. I think he'll do better with a broader group of viewers, and may end up making a more powerful mark as a moralist among edgy independent filmmakers, rather than as the edgy guy freaking out conservative Mormons Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:I think he'll do better with a broader group of viewers, and may end up making a more powerful mark as a moralist among edgy independent filmmakers, rather than as the edgy guy freaking out conservative Mormons [Smile]
Well said. I may have to check out that novelization I keep hearing about.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
It's not that good Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote: Comparing his movies to "The Home Teachers," "Day of Defence," "The RM," "The Singles Ward," and other God awful Mormon movies should give his opinion some weight and his perspective insightful.
Recognizing that Seven Samurai is better than, say, John Tucker Must Die, does not a genius make.
I do not say that with the intention of smearing Dutcher, just to merely point out that the existence of really bad movies, genre or otherwise, does not inflate the value of other individual films. Unless of course you have been banished for the rest of your life to a cineplex that shows five lame movies and only one semi-decent one.
My opinion on his letter stands, regardless of his artistic merit (independently or relatively).
[ April 20, 2007, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: porcelain girl ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Recognizing that Seven Samurai is better than, say, John Tucker Must Die, does not a genius make.
No, but if Akira Kurosawa commented on the likes of Betty Thomas, I would listen with a little more interest then if I heard Kurt Hale's opinion.
But to each their own. I certainly respect where you are coming from.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Is Richard Dutcher the Kurosawa in that analogy?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I did not mean to imply he is a Kurosawa, only that he is qualified in my opinion to give constructive criticism for other LDS filmmakers.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
You know, just because a lot of movies suck (movies in general, comedies, sci-fi movies, every kind of movies) does not mean that they should stop being made; on the contrary, I think they have to be made in order for people to be able to recognize the really great ones. And I personally enjoy a mindless two hour comedy now and again, Mormon or otherwise. It doesn't have to be great, just entertaining enough to distract me for a few hours. It may not be something I watch over and over, it may not be a GREAT film, but that doesn't mean it was a waste and should never have been made.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
1. I think a lot of his comments about Mormon movies were terribly grandstanding. I understand that he believes it and I think moviemaking is so hard and such a labor of love that the fact that he is keeping at it practically requires that he believes that he is the shining beacon of taste and talent and the model of how all Mormon filmmakers should be, so I don't blame him for the self-aggrandizing, but I don't think he's completely right.
2. There is no evidence that he has left the church. He's in conflict and he's not presently a practicing Mormon, but he hasn't repudiated doctrines and he hasn't taken his names off the rolls and he hasn't renounced his beliefs. He's not presently practicing. By the time they are 66, the strong majority of practicing Mormons will have had at least one period of not attending church that lasted at least 12 months.
He's definitely going through something and I won't pretend that he's sitting at home with a tie on waiting for his home teachers to pick him up, but he hasn't left the church.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
3. God's Army: States of Grace was fantastic. It was gorgeous and painful and lovely. I don't know if I can watch it again because people make choices that are going to crash down on them later and that's hard to watch, but it really is a very good movie. Matt adores it. It is also not a fun, entertaining movie - it's like watching...oh, I don't know - In America or ... Children of Men. I'm not surprised it wasn't terribly popular.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Unless of course you have been banished for the rest of your life to a cineplex that shows five lame movies and only one semi-decent one.
For many Mormons, this is roughly the case, even if it's self-banishment.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
When Dutcher became bigger than his movies, I lost complete interest in any future films he would make. The "God's Army" was good for what it was at the time. Looking back, I now see my enjoyment was that there were Mormons on the screen that were real and living.
When "Brigham City" came out I started noticing the flaws that had caused "God's Army" to not reach its full potential. Dutcher writes just like any other Hollywood by the books movie that you can guess what is going to happen. When he started to act as if he was (even listing some of them in his goodbye letter) one of the greatest modern directors, I really didn't want to pay for his overblown ego. Personally, I think he turned more Mormons off to watching his films then his movies did on their own. No matter how good "States of Grace" might be, I refuse to watch it because I don't like him (not because he left the church, but because his self-important attitude makes me angry).
The more I think of it though, it doesn't matter if there are such things as Mormon movies. I mean, how many Catholic, Muslim, or Jewish movie movements are there? In the end, it has to do with money and audience. There isn't enough of both to sustain a limited genre.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: No matter how good "States of Grace" might be, I refuse to watch it because I don't like him (not because he left the church, but because his self-important attitude makes me angry).
I feel the same way about Jared Hess.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: It's not that good
Geoff, you're not supposed to discourage the customers.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Unless of course you have been banished for the rest of your life to a cineplex that shows five lame movies and only one semi-decent one.
For many Mormons, this is roughly the case, even if it's self-banishment.
Well, that wasn't called for. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
mph - as much as how I don't like the way he said it, I have to admit it is true. The only thing I disagree with is self-banishment as I think there are too many other factors (that I mentioned above as money and audience) keeping Mormon cinema almost non-existant.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
States of Grace really was a fantastic film. I enjoyed God's Army but Brigham City and States of Grace were both big improvements.
I think that his letter had a lot of arrogance in it and I wish that he didn't feel the need to define his success as an artist by how many LDS people appreciate his kind of movie. His movies are challenging and they confront real issues in an honest way. He doesn't have all of his Mormon characters act perfect because it wouldn't be an honest representation. It reminds me of how OSC depicts the Mormons in Lost Boys.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Unless of course you have been banished for the rest of your life to a cineplex that shows five lame movies and only one semi-decent one.
For many Mormons, this is roughly the case, even if it's self-banishment.
Well, that wasn't called for.
Agreed.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'd actually like some explanation of Tom's comment.
'Cause I thought he was being funny.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
I couldn't tell, but I'd appreciate some explanation too.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Pat, you suck.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I certainly think it's true. (Tom's comment.)
I happen to be a Mormon who works very hard to find good movies that I enjoy that aren't compromising to my standards. Most of my peers simply take the selection at the local Blockbuster and cancel out all the R-rated ones. Most of what they watch IS drivel.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
Hey Buddy, how ya been?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:The more I think of it though, it doesn't matter if there are such things as Mormon movies. I mean, how many Catholic, Muslim, or Jewish movie movements are there?
You'd be surprised. I can give you titles if you'd like.
Anyway, I believe even the leaders of the Church disagree with your first statement. Look up what Orson Whitney and Spencer Kimball had to say about the need for good Mormon art - and, in Kimball's case, particularly Mormon film. Why do you think the Church keeps pouring money into making movies like Legacy and the Testaments if Mormon art isn't important?
Here's the thing - I think Dutcher is dead on. He hoped and prayed and worked to make movies that said serious things about Mormon life; that depicted the visceral beauty he saw in Mormon doctrine.
He's earned the right to blast "trite" Mormon movies, I think, because much of what he says is objectively true - the movies he dismisses are poorly made. They're poorly written, poorly acted, poorly directed. They're either the Mormon equivalent of Rob Schneider movies or use cliche and sappy music to go for cheap artificial sentiment. Dutcher, on the other hand, worked to master the language of film, and believes that Mormon films should be of the highest quality, should explore and fully use the art of movies to show beauty and to edify. And, well, according both to our host and to Mormon scripture, really accomplishing that means that sometimes your movie has to be rated PG13.
quote:Personally, I think he turned more Mormons off to watching his films then his movies did on their own.
Actually, I'd be willing to wager that the majority of Mormons who own a copy of God's Army couldn't name the director. Anyhow, I think he's right to a point - the market is limited and was saturated. That being said, the solution, I think, is not to stop making Mormon movies, but to make non-exclusive Mormon movies; movies that explore Mormon ideas the way Flannery O'Connor explored Catholic ideas.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Obviously, MattB, I disagree with both you and Dutcher. There has not even been enough of a Mormom movement to evaluate. His movies, although portraying Mormons better than the cliche's of others, were not visceral as much as Hollywood in Mormon garb. Not bad, but not worthy of his God-like status he seems to exhibit.
I am not saying he is wrong completely, but he could have said it with more tact, patience, and Christian sympathy. And, above all, with far more humility without a maryters complex.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
Mormon cinema, in my opinion, will truly come of age when filmmakers figure out that it's ok to make a film that doesn't have the blaring disclaimer somewhere in the movie that says "Hey, this film is exactly in tune with everything the brethren say, and should not in any way harm the status of my church membership in any way."
It was refreshing to me to see Jon Heder in Blades of Glory, a guy who has maintained his integrity as a Mormon actor, flip someone off in a movie, use a little bit of profanity and be seen in a movie that is a little off the beaten path from standard, mormon cinema.
Because guess what -- good,practicing Mormon's swear, fart, and have problems and issues that can be included into a great movie. I'm glad that Jon Heder and his buddy Jared Hess have figured this out. Mormons are human.
I found that when I lived in Utah people went to these 'faithful' Mormon movies because they felt as though they had the blessings of General Authorities to do so, without really thinking outside of the box. In fact, I was shopping at a Seagull Book and Tape down here in Mesa Arizona and the store manager discouraged me from purchasing 'States of Grace,' citing the fact that it's a movie that good mormons don't see because it had murder, prostitution and other things that aren't in sync with Mormon teachings. Sadly, this is the attitude of the majority of the Mormon movie attenders.
Just like I'd rather read a book by Orson Scott Card that talked about the Mormon Pioneer Trek than Gerald Lund's Work and the Glory series, I'd like to see movies that point out the warts, pimples and weaknesses of characters regardless of if they are a worthy member of the church or not.
Wow. I wrote a rant. Hope it makes sense.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Actually, I'd be willing to wager that the majority of Mormons who own a copy of God's Army couldn't name the director."
And I would wager they know darn well who directed it, and the others, because Dutcher made sure they did. That includes his name as writer, director, and lead actor.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Because guess what -- good,practicing Mormon's swear, fart, and have problems and issues that can be included into a great movie"
I think this is horrible to include such trivial filth as part of "improved" movies. You don't correct something by going in the direct opposite of its badness. What we need is profoundity and not sordity (don't know if they are real words). And profoundity can include "General Authority" approved movies. Otherwise we are talking about style and not substance.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And I would wager they know darn well who directed it
I'd take that bet, Occ.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "Because guess what -- good,practicing Mormon's swear, fart, and have problems and issues that can be included into a great movie"
I think this is horrible to include such trivial filth as part of "improved" movies. You don't correct something by going in the direct opposite of its badness. What we need is profoundity and not sordity (don't know if they are real words). And profoundity can include "General Authority" approved movies. Otherwise we are talking about style and not substance.
Then you'll continue to get movies like 'Church Ball', 'The R.M.' 'Home Teachers' and 'Mormons and the Mafia' instead of great LDS-themed movies like God's Army, Napoleon Dynamite and Saints and Soldiers. Don't get me wrong, both have their place, but in order for Independent Mormon Cinema to expand, grow and find a place alongside Hollywood-produced movies, they're going to have to make Mormonism a part of the story, not the entire story.
LDS artists who have transcended Utah-based audiences have figured this out while staying true to their beliefs. OSC is a prime example of this.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
As for Dutcher, I think he's a great filmmaker, but could use a healthy dose of humility.... in my own humble opinion.
It's sad for me whenever anyone questions their faith, I hope he gets the answers he's looking for.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't believe that OSC has done any of those things you say. Start at " . . . have problems and issues that can be included into a great movie," and I will agree. However, for me the " . . . good,practicing Mormon's swear, fart . . . " are what I think of when listing 'Church Ball', 'The R.M.' 'Home Teachers.'
Now, I thought 'RM' wasn't too bad as a comedy and 'Mormons and Mafia' was even better (not calling them artistic by any stretch). What I would like to see is more serious movies, although I don't thing RATINGS determine that. Movies can be just as good with a G or PG rating if they are written well. There is no reason for Mormons to not stick to those ratings and be good. If that is not the case then I say good riddens to the idea of Mormon cinema.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Good fir him. I hope he doesn't just change superstitions, although that's the sense I get from the letter.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:I think this is horrible to include such trivial filth as part of "improved" movies. You don't correct something by going in the direct opposite of its badness.
Aha. I think this may be the root of it. I don't believe the purpose of art is to 'correct' people. I believe the purpose of art is to explore and ponder people; and to thus come to a deeper understanding of what goood and evil are.
Edit: By the way, on OSC and evil, read "The Problem of Evil in Fiction."
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
It's also useful to note that the Provo Daily Herald asked Dutcher to write this piece; Kieth Merrill (who wrote this unfortunate piece in response) was already lined up to produce a response. The idea was a point-counterpoint on the current state of Mormon movies. So it's not as though Dutcher barged into everybody's living rooms to preach at them.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
MattB, I think we agree more than disagree. My problem is that I don't think Dutcher's way is the answer. Oh how I wish OSC was more of the pattern for Mormon artists.
That he was asked doesn't excuse the way he behaved or has behaved in the past. Still think he is a jerk. As far as I am concerned the response he got was justified.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I like that Keith apologized the next day.
This is definitely one thread that I wish OSC would post in. I would LOVE to hear what he thinks.
*hopes/yearns* Anyone want to whisper that to him?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: As far as I am concerned the response he got was justified.
The response was childish, mean spirited, arrogant, and pitiful. It is this type of Mormon sentiment I can see that may push him out of the fringe in Mormonism to actually permanently leaving it.
At least Keith Merrill will have an already established excuse for Richard's apostasy to deflect any real input.
quote:He sounds as though he honestly believes that anybody gives a rip that he's "leaving Mormon cinema" and will no longer "have the honor to make these movies." Give me a break! The guy's lost it! Apparently, unchecked arrogance is even better than Red Bull to synthesize feelings of worth and self-assurance.
Oh the irony. Pathetic. Compare that to:
quote: I know that some of you will not understand my decisions. Please know that I will always be not only a great friend to the Mormon community, but also one of its strongest defenders.
My brothers and sisters, I respectfully leave Mormon cinema in your capable -- and now seasoned -- hands. I hope that someday I will hear a few of your names mentioned in the company of the handful of filmmakers who have dared to explore human spirituality in film: Bergman, Bresson, Tarkovsky, Dreyer, Ozu, etc. One of my greatest hopes, of course (in true competitive spirit), is that one day my name will be at the very top of that list.
Knowing that Richards was requested to write that only makes Merril seem more small.
EDIT
quote: I like that Keith apologized the next day.
I didn't see the apology until you wrote that. It was classy. Sorry I got so worked up.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
lem, I agree with you abot Merril's response, and I think Merril agrees with you as well. He apologized the next day.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote: lem, I agree with you abot Merril's response, and I think Merril agrees with you as well. He apologized the next day.
I think we posted at the same time. I have an edit in that post. It really was a good apology that does the LDS faith and the power of General Conference proud.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree.
quote:My outrageous and over-reactive response to Richard's editorial in the Daily Herald was inappropriate and wrong. I was wrong in doing it. I was mostly wrong in what I said. There were reasons, of course, but none of them qualify as an acceptable excuse for my bad behavior. I regret my actions and my words. I apologize for my sarcasm, criticism and condemnations. I am sorry. I have asked Richard and Gwen to forgive me.
Aw, that's a good apology.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:There is no evidence that he has left the church. He's in conflict and he's not presently a practicing Mormon, but he hasn't repudiated doctrines and he hasn't taken his names off the rolls and he hasn't renounced his beliefs.
After reading the second letter, this does not sound correct. Out of respect, he does not want to list his reasons publicly, but he considers himself to have left the church. He also clarifies that it wasn't any of the commonly presumed cultural issues that might lead somebody to leave. This sounds to me like he has doctrinal disagreements.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Amancer - I agree with your second; I'm fairly sure he does have some doctrinal differences. And while the BCC post seems more conclusive than the Herald essay in regards to his membership status, I'm still not 100% that he has resigned. I'm fairly sure he's remaining involved in the Mormon community, if only as an outsider. His wife and children remain practicing Mormons, for instance.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
I hated his Buhdda/Boat reference, for I think it doesn't really apply to a spiritual journey. Of course, I'm not quite sure of his complete context of how he arrived at his decision, but I'm not sure you can continue a spiritual journey by leaving "The Boat" completely behind. If i decided to become Catholic, I would bring to that conversion my Mormon background and the truths that were what I still thought to be individual truths to my new life in the Catholic Church. I guess I wouldn't bring the whole boat, but I'd at least bring a paddle to equip me for the next stage of my journey.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: If i decided to become Catholic, I would bring to that conversion my Mormon background and the truths that were what I still thought to be individual truths to my new life in the Catholic Church.
One of the more interesting things about my spiritual journey as I have left Mormonism is keeping the Mormon teachings I like while rejecting the doctrine and priesthood. I was raised Mormon. I went on a Mission. I went to BYU for a time (until I realized it was a poor fit and took off to teach English in Asia). I even married in the temple.
In short, I think and breath Mormonism. It is not like I can just ignore it. My mind was framed with Mormon lingo and concepts during the critical time of it's development.
I can add new ideas and expand my mind--which I try to do. But I can't, nor should I, try to ignore the Mormonism in me.
I like the boat analogy because it says he is grateful for his Mormon life, he is not abandoning it, he is acknowledging it's importance, but he is moving on.
I liked his letter and subsequent blog because it resonates with me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: I certainly think it's true. (Tom's comment.)
I happen to be a Mormon who works very hard to find good movies that I enjoy that aren't compromising to my standards. Most of my peers simply take the selection at the local Blockbuster and cancel out all the R-rated ones. Most of what they watch IS drivel.
I know exactly what you mean, though I was not sure if you were saying your friends standards were too loose or too tight.
I've found when a bunch of Mormons get together to pick a movie, its more of an argument about what is OK in a movie and what is not. I've seen good Mormons who laugh when a punchline is obscene, shudder at an R rating because the movie drops the F bomb once or twice.
I was disappointed when my wife's best friend ripped into her for suggesting a movie her friend thought was bad and telling her she and her husband were bad people for thinking its a good movie.
My only problem with people who have stricter standards then me is that they never seem happy with them. They always seem to be taking pride in their misery.
When they say, "If you were a good person you would know that is wrong." Its everything I can do to not respond with, "I'm surprised I can stand sharing the same religion with you."
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
I was puzzled by Dutcher's claim of "character assassination" when somebody leaves the church. I've never seen that. Occasionally, when someone's leaving the church turns into attacking it, there's mystifued shaking of the head and sentiments like "What got into them?" expressed, but I've never come across anyone setting out to blacken someone's character for going inactive. Quite the opposite really...
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I was puzzled by Dutcher's claim of "character assassination" when somebody leaves the church. I've never seen that.
Have you ever left the church?
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I haven't, but I've had friends who have.
If anything, I've seen the brothers and sisters try to be even better friends to them. As have I.
I highly doubt yours or Dutcher's experiences are the only ones, lem. In fact, I know they aren't.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I highly doubt yours or Dutcher's experiences are the only ones, lem. In fact, I know they aren't.
I'm sure their(the negative character assassinations) are not the only experiences. I am also sure they are not just isolated experiences. Just like when you learn a new word you suddenly hear it everywhere, when you leave the church suddenly a ton of people come out of the woodwork with a need to talk about their experiences.
Their are many who have a smooth transition, but there is a significant number who feel the character assassination.
There is also a number of people who leave the church who turn to the vocal "anti" crowd. There is also a surprisingly large number of people who don't become vocal anti-Mormons.
That is just the experiences I have had and witnessed. Being in a small Mormon town probably exasperates the problem on both sides.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I'm with lem on this one. Fortunately, I stopped going to church at the same time that I moved to a different city, so I haven't noticed any backlash. But I've seen it happen to other people.
If someone leaves the church, I wouldn't expect their closest friends, in most cases, to turn on them overnight. But there is a tendancy in many organizations, the LDS church included, to explain away decisions that we aren't comfortable with, particularly from people whose motivations we don't completely understand.
Keep in mind that we're not talking about burning crosses on anyone's lawn. Dutcher didn't say that he feared for his life. He only said that he didn't want to be turned into a "Sunday school lesson." This is the route I've seen the backlash take more often than any. Many members don't maliciously spread hate or slander about people who have left the church. But reading motivations into actions we don't understand and turning complex stories into simple cautionary tales can be hurtful.
I saw this happen several times on my mission. The first time I went on my mission I left after a week in the MTC. I went back 18 months later and served a full 2-year mission. While I was out the second time I saw a few missionaries go home. Whenever they did, I always heard some explaination ascribed to their actions. Maybe this missionary stopped reading his scriptures every day. Perhaps he stopped praying, got his hands on some anti-Mormon literature, or someone overheard him talking on the phone to one of the Laurels after curfew. I rarely heard anything that was truly malicious or overtly mean-spirited. But whenever anyone said anything, it always made me wonder what motivations I was given by my first MTC district after I left.
I'm sure Dutcher doesn't expect any of his closest friends in the church to gossip about him. And he probably doesn't expect anything seriously Jim Jones-ish from anyone else in the church. But he clearly doesn't want to be turned into a cautionary tale. It's not the worst fate in the world, but still, I don't blame him.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
I can't find anything in what Speed described that remotely equates to "character assassination".
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Well, I guess it depends on what you, personally, are comfortable having done to your character.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
For someone who doesn't believe in the scriptures, whispers that "he didn't read his scriptures everyday" probably shouldn't be that disturbing. In a missionary context, though, someone who wasn't reading their scriptures every day was breaking the rules, doing something else instead of studying the scriptures during the personal study hour, failing to prepare himself to answer questions and therefore be a good missionary, and also closing himself off to the inspiration, knowledge, and blessings that come from reading the scriptures. A missionary who isn't reading his scriptures every day is being a crappy missionary, and since most missionaries are being supported by family who is often making sacrifices for them to be there, on top of everything else, they wasting their family's investment. It takes effort to not read the scriptures every day as a missionary, and doing so is breaking trust with leaders, family, investigators and the Lord.
That does NOT mean that whispers that he didn't read his scriptures every day means that people are actually thinking that someone is untrustworthy. It usually is, I think, kind of an insurance policy.
Person 1: "How could this happen?" Person 2: "He didn't read his scriptures everyday." Person 1 thinks I can prevent this from happening in my life by reading my scriptures everyday and is reassured.
That's what Dutcher meant by not wanting to be a Sunday School lesson - even if he doesn't feel attacked, it can't be fun to be seen as a cautionary tale.
quote:Perhaps he stopped praying, got his hands on some anti-Mormon literature, or someone overheard him talking on the phone to one of the Laurels after curfew.
If those things did happen, is it character assassination to say so?
Although I don't think it is, I think it's not a good idea to talk like that, for lots of reasons including the practical one, which is that it feels like crap to be gossiped about and it makes someone less likely to feel comfortable coming back.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
My experience with people leaving the church is that they are not gossiped about. Reasons are sought for "what happened", but mostly it's sadness expressed that they have left something that they used to feel was special and wonderful to them. I guess in the seeking of reasons the sort of thing Katharina talks about is mentioned, but more in a way of surprise. I think most people are careful to not be judgmental about people who do leave. I've been racking my brains to try and remember examples of personal attacks or hurtful criticism of the people who I knew who left the church and joined anti-Mormon groups, but can't recall hearing any. (Not saying it doesn't happen, just haven't experienced it.) As I said, generally these people leave friends behind, not enemies. A friend of mine who had been close friends with a couple who left the church in the 80s and set up an anti-Mormon group tried remaining friends with them, but every time they got together the time was spent in attack and defense of the church, so they naturally drifted apart. Again in my experience, gossip or personal attacks of any kind about anyone would be reprimanded.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:That does NOT mean that whispers that he didn't read his scriptures every day means that people are actually thinking that someone is untrustworthy. It usually is, I think, kind of an insurance policy.
Person 1: "How could this happen?" Person 2: "He didn't read his scriptures everyday." Person 1 thinks I can prevent this from happening in my life by reading my scriptures everyday and is reassured.
That's what Dutcher meant by not wanting to be a Sunday School lesson - even if he doesn't feel attacked, it can't be fun to be seen as a cautionary tale.
I think that's part of it. I think the other part is that it's pretty ingrained that losing faith is a failing. It's the idea that if a person had been doing everything right, that never could have happened. So for them to have lost faith, they must have done something wrong. I think that's the mindset that leads to character assasination.
And I have to say for me, my experiences with Mormons (other than my parents) after leaving the church has been mostly positive. If anything, people are too friendly as though if they could just connect with me I'd come back. But they mean well, and the only feeling I get from them is that of love. The one exception is a friend of the family that likes to talk about ex-mormons very loudly whenever I'm around and refer to them as "children of Lucifer." Takes all kinds. *shrugs*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think it's true that leaving a faith is seen as a failing. There's no getting around that - he's leaving; others aren't; those that stay aren't going to approve his leaving. I don't think they should approve and I definitely don't think he gets to pick how people react. We can choose our own actions, but we can't choose how other people feel about our actions.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: The one exception is a friend of the family that likes to talk about ex-mormons very loudly whenever I'm around and refer to them as "children of Lucifer." Takes all kinds. *shrugs*
You obviously need to start up a band and call it "The Children of Lucifer".
It's what I would do. Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I think it's true that leaving a faith is seen as a failing. There's no getting around that - he's leaving; others aren't; those that stay aren't going to approve his leaving. I don't think they should approve and I definitely don't think he gets to pick how people react. We can choose our own actions, but we can't choose how other people feel about our actions.
I'm not saying people need to approve. I'm just saying that the idea is they've done something wrong for that to have happened. Clearly not everybody is going to go from there to character assasination, but it's not exactly a huge step and some people are going to take it. I'm not trying to accuse or anything- just explaining why I think people feel that way.
quote:You obviously need to start up a band and call it "The Children of Lucifer".
If only I had musical talent. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I have always been curious if when other people leave their Churches (particularly Catholic or Jewish) if there is an equal amount of "distancing" between those who go and those who stay? Perhaps it is the strength of community connections (and not just religious) that creates such huge divisions.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
Most Mormons seem to admit only a few reasons why anyone would ever leave Mormonism. One, they obviously wanted to sin with a free conscience. (E.G. She just wanted to have premarital sex. He's probably having an affair.) Two, someone offended them, and instead of making peace, they pretended the church wasn't true. ("The Church is perfect, its members aren't.") Three, they got their hands on some anti-Mormon literature.
The first option implies that they don't have the fortitude to be a Mormon, that they value "the flesh" above what they know to be true. It implies a defective moral character and a lasciviousness.
The second option implies that they would put their own wrath over what they know to be true. That instead of forgiving people lovingly for their failings (as Mormons do), they gave vent to their anger and wounded vanity.
The last implies a certain brainwashed duped-ness. They don't mean it, they're just easily influenced and kind of dumb.
There is no way to leave the Mormon church because of something about the Mormon church-- doctrine, church policy, or finding something better elsewhere. People always leave the Mormon church because they have severe character flaws or because they were never really Mormon.
As an ex-Mormon does it offend me when I come across these attitudes (particularly from my own family)? Well, yeah, I don't want people attributing base motives to a struggle that was difficult to me anymore than someone enjoys their beliefs and way of life being called a "phase." It's pretty condescending. And usually inaccurate.
But do I do things Mormons would call sinning? Well, sure. I don't regard them in the same light as Mormons do or as I used to. Merely because I used to be Mormon doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to use new information or to come to new ways of thinking or to try out new things. People are allowed to change and to react to new situations and experiences without it being a character flaw.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Dean -- while that may be your perception of what Mormons think, I don't think your post accurately portrays what we (or at least some of us) actually do think about why people leave the church.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: You obviously need to start up a band and call it "The Children of Lucifer".
It's what I would do.
There was a group called "The Gadianton Band" in the Northern Virginia area when I was there. Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
Oh, I don't think every Mormon thinks this deep down, but these seem to be the most common reasons attributed to people who leave, and I have had these reasons attributed to me, and have had people confront me about why I would leave for such a silly reason. I'm sure that there are plenty of Mormons who would ask me why I left and would believe my answer, and the Mormons of Hatrack are more likely than the general populace to be this way. However, a few counter-examples don't change my general outside-Hatrack experience of leaving. (And as I recall, I heard several comments on Hatrack that fell within this generalization as well when I was first going through leaving the church.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:these seem to be the most common reasons attributed to people who leave
At least by the people you hear talk about it.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Dean,
I think you hit the nail on the head on what ex-Mormons go through. I have never really had the Grand Character Assassination that public figures like Dutcher and Thomas Marsh had. Well, my Bishop did question my wife whether I was physically abusive since I didn't go to church.
I think Merril protrays Mormon perception perfectly at this part in his letter.
quote:With his latest tirade, Dutcher has become a wonderfully ugly poster child for the pitfalls of Mormons who want to play in the movie business but don't take seriously the warnings of scripture, prophets and GOD -- that seeking "the honors of men" and "riches of the world" are paths into darkness. Read apostasy.
That is a character attack. Altho Merrill has apologized, he did say succinctly what I found to be common LDS feelings when I was active.
It is all about Pride.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well, something has to account for a person leaving the "Only True Church" with the "Only True Authority" on the face of the Earth. That isn't something Mormons who still believe take lightly. Some Mormons come up with excuses that would explain why anyone would want to leave such an important institution.
"Merely because I used to be Mormon doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to use new information or to come to new ways of thinking or to try out new things. People are allowed to change and to react to new situations and experiences without it being a character flaw."
Theologically, that character flaw would be spiritual insensitivity or lack of ability to recognize the Truth. There is not much room in Mormonism for gray areas.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Occ, that's not fair. I don't have time to get into it because I have to leave, but what you are not speaking for me when you say that.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Well, something has to account for a person leaving the "Only True Church" with the "Only True Authority" on the face of the Earth. That isn't something Mormons who still believe take lightly.
That is why I asked Cashew if s/he ever left the church. Until you have personally been there, I don't think you can appreciate how thick that sentiment is. And it does in many cases affect family relations as well as close friends.
EDIT:
quote: Occ, that's not fair. I don't have time to get into it because I have to leave, but what you are not speaking for me when you say that.
S/he doesn't need to speak for you; s/he only needs to speak for enough people in the church to make that a "Mormon Experience" for people leaving. I can say that has been a Mormon experience for everyone I know in real life who has left the church and stayed in their neighborhood. I would wager that only a minority of people who have left the church haven't encountered that reaction.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
No, but I am speaking for a lot of Mormons. You can question exactly how fair such ideas are, but they do exist in large numbers. Yes, I hold to them myself.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:Theologically, that character flaw would be spiritual insensitivity or lack of ability to recognize the Truth. There is not much room in Mormonism for gray areas.
That's not terribly theological; you're being quite vague, and theology is about precision.
Firstly, you have to define what you mean by character. This is important - can we, fallen beings, arrive at faith without the grace of God - that is, must we work to gain faith, or does God grant it despite our recalcitrant natures? This is a hugely important question; I've seen Mormons fall on both sides - the one from Alma's "faith is a mustard seed that we must nurture," the other from Mark (and Lamoni's) "Help thou my unbelief."
This is related to your second - I'm not sure what you mean by 'spiritual insensitivity.' Now, is it not true that scripture (see D&C 46), describes faith as a gift from God? This implies, therefore, that faith require God's participation as well as (perhaps) our own. (The balance and order, as per above, being unclear.) It's important not to assume that we know when God might chose to grant such a thing. Further, it's quite clear that people from a huge multitude of faiths have experienced spiritual confirmation and visionary experiences; assuming Mormons are the only ones who receive such things (or that they all lead one to Mormonism) is a hugely problematic assumption.
Thirdly, 'spiritual insensitivity' and 'lack of ability to recognize the Truth' are two different things; one is about sentiment and affections (in Jonathan Edwards's term); the second, about rationality (unless I'm interpreting you wrong; in either case, your statement lacks precision). What role does rationality play in faith, if any? Do we have to rationally accept Mormonism before God can confirm it for us - or can God instill faith in us in ignorance? Both legitimate questions.
quote:There is not much room in Mormonism for gray areas.
Actually, there's a huge amount of room. There are Mormons who believe every word Gordon B. Hinckley speaks is God's will; there are those who believe he has the right to receive such revelation but does only rarely (or never, so far). There are Mormons who believe the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction, and those who believe the American Indians are literally Lamanites. There are Mormons who believe women can bless their sick children and Mormons who recoil at the thought; Mormons who believe the earth is six billion years old and Mormons who believe it's six thousand; Mormons who believe that scripture is literally God's word and Mormons who believe it's the writings of sometimes inspired historical figures. There are Mormons who believe God picks out every leader down to Sunday school teachers and Mormons who believe that God merely wants us to support each other in such duties. All of these folks can go to the temple.
Heck, there are Mormons (defined as one who believes that Joseph Smith revealed the Book of Mormon through the power of God) who believe Stephen Veazey or Jim Harmston or (God help us) Warren Jeffs is God's prophet and can bear fervent testimony to the spiritual experiences that have confirmed them in that faith.
So, again, I'd disagree that it's a black and white issue.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Well, something has to account for a person leaving the "Only True Church" with the "Only True Authority" on the face of the Earth."
THIS is something that has no gray areas. Now, I know those like you listed that believe or act as if there are gray areas. I, however, strongly disagree with them! For instance I believe that those Mormons who believe that " the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction," are not really Mormons, but hypocrites. The same with the idea that the Church is simply another religious organization the same as any other, or who deny the Priesthood as Divine and the only one on Earth with the proper authority from God.
The LDS Church is the only True Church or it is not. That is what I mean by the Gray area. Edit: If it is not true then it is all a lie and at best a sick joke. If it is true then leaving it is a serious mistake with eternal ramifications.
[ April 23, 2007, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote: Now, I know those like you listed that believe or act as if there are gray areas. I, however, strongly disagree with them!
Of course, you're not the one who gets to make that decision; if the General Authorities agreed with you, the temple recommend interview would be somewhat longer. Indeed, there's a mass of evidence that Mormon leaders have held wildly diverging opinions about some of these things. For example, pick up BH Roberts's book on the Book of Mormon sometime.
quote:If it is not true then it is all a lie and at best a sick joke.
I've heard this a lot, but don't particularly understand it. For one thing, it's sort of a backhanded slap at every other religion in the world. For another, it denies all the valuable things that Mormonism does, for example, for all those millions of folks who aren't Mormon but have benefited from its welfare programs, as well as all the ancillary benefits other than salvation that Mormons receive from participation in the church. Finally, it assumes that a religion is either entirely true or spiritually worthless, a theory a First Presidency statement called "The Love of God for all Mankind" specifically rejected in 1978; rather, stated the First Presidency, all churches have and continue to receive of God's light.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
"The LDS Church is the only True Church or it is not. That is what I mean by the Gray area. Edit: If it is not true then it is all a lie and at best a sick joke. If it is true then leaving it is a serious mistake with eternal ramifications."
My feelings too. The LDS church makes the strong claim that it is the only true church, and that is why there is no grey area. Either Joseph Smith was what he claimed to be or he was a liar and a fraud; either the Book of Mormon is the word of God or it's a waste of time. That's why we react the way we do when people leave: we worry for them. And, for my part, I would be horrified to hear someone say the things about people leaving that Dean mentioned. There's no excuse for that at all, and anyone saying things like that goes against everything being LDS means.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
The whole justification for the LDS church's existence is that it is the only true and living church on the face of the earth. It's a strong claim and the church lives or dies on the truth or otherwise of it. There's no need for the church if that isn't true. There are plenty of other charitable, spiritual and social organisations out there that fulfil people's needs perfectly well. (edit for clarity)
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:Either Joseph Smith was what he claimed to be or he was a liar and a fraud
Or he became a fallen prophet at some point, or he misinterpreted genuine experiences with the divine, or he was what Harold Bloom calls a 'religious genius' who created religion as a means to explore truth in the way artists create art, or he was slightly bonkers, or he believed he was doing the will of God but improvised on his own, etc.
quote:either the Book of Mormon is the word of God or it's a waste of time.
As I noted above, there's a lot of gray area in 'word of God.' Further, it could also be a masterful but non divinely inspired literary work, a profound but non divinely inspired meditation on Christian theology, etc.
This is the same false and oversimplified dichotomy CS Lewis sets up about Christ.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
MattB, I really enjoy hearing you talk about Mormon theology (not specific to this thread). I don't remember reading your own specific theological views except that you consider yourself non-orthodox. Is sharing that something that you don't want to do? If it is something you are willing to share, I would be very interested in hearing it. If not, I understand. Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
"Or he became a fallen prophet at some point, or he misinterpreted genuine experiences with the divine, or he was what Harold Bloom calls a 'religious genius' who created religion as a means to explore truth in the way artists create art, or he was slightly bonkers, or he believed he was doing the will of God but improvised on his own, etc. "
If it's any of that then it's not something I would want to stake my eternal salvation on.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Or he became a fallen prophet at some point, or he misinterpreted genuine experiences with the divine, or he was what Harold Bloom calls a 'religious genius' who created religion as a means to explore truth in the way artists create art, or he was slightly bonkers, or he believed he was doing the will of God but improvised on his own, etc."
Yes, but any of these goes against the plain and unambiguous doctrines that Joseph Smith taught. It would be an equovication based on denying the meaning and purpose of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Anyone who believed any of these things are worthy of my personally seeking to hound them out of the Church or repent of their unbelief.
"This is the same false and oversimplified dichotomy CS Lewis sets up about Christ. "
NO, it is NOT false and oversimplified. It is WHAT IS THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER. PERIOD! Again, anyone who says otherwise I consider not worthy of calling Mormon.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Amanecer, what you say would apply if the church was equivocal about what it claims. But it isn't. It either is or isn't the kingdom of God on earth, the only body authorised to act in God's name. There's no room for grey in that.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I'm not sure why you are addressing me. I haven't really entered this part of the converation except to ask MattB his views.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: NO, it is NOT false and oversimplified. It is WHAT IS THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER. PERIOD! Again, anyone who says otherwise I consider not worthy of calling Mormon.
Whoa, did anyone say anything worthy of being yelled at, Occasional? I was just noticing how civil this thread was, and then that comes out of nowhere.
These ideas may not fit with what you believe, but they're not totally illogical or internally inconsistent. They are, at very least, as worthy of discussion and consideration as any other ideas about Mormonism that are brought up here.
You're free to believe what you want. But there are plenty of people here, Mormon or otherwise, whose beliefs will allow them to at least consider these possibilities with an open mind and a clear conscience. I know you're orthodox, but there's no need to call down a Jihad on anyone who is open to a frank discussion of theology.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cashew: Amanecer, what you say would apply if the church was equivocal about what it claims. But it isn't. It either is or isn't the kingdom of God on earth, the only body authorised to act in God's name. There's no room for grey in that.
But if it's not, does that make it worthless?
It could also be part of God's kingdom on earth, with other churches also authorized to act in God's name. Although that would mean it is wrong about at least part of what it teaches about itself. But just the "only" part.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Again, anyone who says otherwise I consider not worthy of calling Mormon.
Good thing you don't get to make that call, really.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Occasional: I completely respect your POV, I personally am inclined to lean more towards the ultimate truth of the Mormon religion, but there is no need to yell, you can vehemently disagree with a point or statement made without yelling.
Matt: Joseph Smith being a fallen prophet is problematic because as the head of this dispensation you would think God would call somebody He knew would not fall down the road. As far as I understand it, Joseph Smith turning to be a fallen prophet makes all subsequent theology fall like a stack of cards. I agree that much of what Mormonism is is valuable besides the claim to eternal truth.
But even you must admit that if it is in fact not true then Mormons are very mistaken and take alot of pride in an untrue statement.
Why do you think that Lewis sets up a false dichotomy about Christ? Unless we claim the gospel writers did not accurately record Christs words and beliefs, how is there a way to reconcile Christ's belief in his own divinity without calling him either the son of God, crazy, or a liar?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:Yes, but any of these goes against the plain and unambiguous doctrines that Joseph Smith taught.
I'd argue that most of the stuff Joseph Smith taught was neither plain nor unambiguous. Many of his views evolved over time, and it's not really evident where he might have been going had he not been killed. This isn't merely tangential; it's not particularly clear, for example, whom Joseph intended to lead the Church after him, and whether his successor would be a prophet and exercise authority in the same ways Joseph himself was and did. Brigham Young was similarly unclear about this. It seems to me this is directly relevant to the issue at hand.
Anyway, as to the issue of salvation - it's important to distinguish between salvation and exaltation. According to Mormon doctrine, the atonement is universal; it applies to all humanity, within and without the Church. Ordinances, however, are something different, and require particular Mormon authority. They do not, however, confer salvation, but rather exaltation. This is different.
Anyway, I don't believe any of that conflicts with my points about, say, the 1978 First Presidency statement and other churches, or about false dichotomies. What I'm talking about there are the ways logical fallacies artificially narrow the range of one's choices. What you folks are talking about is which of those choices one should pick. However, I believe I've demonstrated two things - first, that it's possible to hold a range of beliefs on a variety of issues and be a temple-going Mormon; secondly and relatedly, that it's entirely possible, despite Elder Holland's assertions to the contrary, to be a cafeteria Mormon (that is, to treat Mormonism as a buffet) and be logically consistent.
Further, it occurs to me that I'm actually the only one citing evidence rather than personal opinion here.
Thanks for your kinds words, Amancer. I'm definitely - even profoundly - Mormon, but I suspect that I take the church seriously in ways differently than some other Mormons do.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Hi, BB!
quote:Matt: Joseph Smith being a fallen prophet is problematic because as the head of this dispensation you would think God would call somebody He knew would not fall down the road.
This is actually the position that the RLDS hold; according to them, Joseph screwed up with polygamy. (A few irreverently speculate that God removed him). Anyway, my point was that arguing that Joseph was either a conman (Cashew's word was 'fraud') or the prophet that the SLC church argues is not logically consistent; there's a multitude of other options.
As to your last sentence, I don't believe that it's possible to believe that 1)God is embodied, 2)God has perfect knowledge of the future, and 3)we have free will all at the same time. But that's another topic.
quote:Why do you think that Lewis sets up a false dichotomy about Christ? Unless we claim the gospel writers did not accurately record Christs words and beliefs, how is there a way to reconcile Christ's belief in his own divinity without calling him either the son of God, crazy, or a liar?
You get at it with your first point. Lewis dismisses the possibility that the writers of the gospels presented the Christ they believed in rather than the historical Jesus. I'm not saying that this is what everyone has to believe, but it's a perfectly acceptable option, and makes it possible for people to believe that Christ was merely a great moral teacher and Paul made up all the Messiah stuff.
Further, as with Joseph Smith, it's possible Jesus of Nazareth had a series of powerful religious experiences and interpreted them subjectively.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I guess I will have to bow out on this issue because I find the whole concept of questioning the historical Book of Mormon, the Divine Priesthood and only True Church to be so basic to belief in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that I get as angry as a Jihadist. Such people I consider a danger to the mission of the LDS Church and will lead to its near destruction. You can go join the (formerly) RLDS Church, another branch, or set up your own. However, if you are to remain a member of the largest one in SLC, there are some things you cannot question and be considered more than a pariah.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Fair enough - and I respect you for your honesty and desire to avoid contentious feelings.
quote:However, if you are to remain a member of the largest one in SLC, there are some things you cannot question and be considered more than a pariah.
However - again, it appears the leadership of the SLC church disagrees with you on exactly what these are, and their danger.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
<removed because it is unnecessary, sorry>
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"SLC church disagrees with you on exactly what these are, and their danger."
And, of course, they will be held accountable by God if there actions are right or wrong (and yes, that goes for myself).
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I agree with the earlier point made that people get unwarranted assumptions made about them when they leave the church. Obviously, people who have left think they made the right choice for themselves, and they are the ones who have stewardship over that decision. Not anyone else.
It's equally obvious that many of us who stay feel a powerful ongoing spiritual confirmation that it's the right place for us to be. I know that some of the saints feel that it's the right place for everyone to be throughout their entire lives, and perhaps that is true but it's not necessary to believe that to be Mormon. In fact, I don't believe it. I think each person has their own path to walk, and it may be more beneficial to some people at some times in their lives to be outside the church. I have stewardship only over my own choice, and receive revelation about my own choice, but I have no right to receive revelation for anyone else.
But I think that deany is exactly right that lots of Mormons think the only reason someone could leave is if they lost the guidance of the spirit through sin, through lackadaisy or by some other moral failing of some sort, or else they possibly never acquired their own adult testimony of the truth of the restored gospel. I think there are plenty of people who leave because the church (including the people in it) doesn't live up to their high standards of morality. Because, in other words, they see the church as fatally flawed. So the failing might well have been not theirs at all, but that of other members.
[ April 23, 2007, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Orfiginally posted by Amanecer: "I'm not sure why you are addressing me. I haven't really entered this part of the converation except to ask MattB his views."
Yeah, sorry Amanecer, I was posting in a rush and misread whose post I was addressing. Meant to be addressed to MattB.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
originally posted by dkw -
"quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Cashew: Amanecer, what you say would apply if the church was equivocal about what it claims. But it isn't. It either is or isn't the kingdom of God on earth, the only body authorised to act in God's name. There's no room for grey in that. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if it's not, does that make it worthless?"
By the church's own definition of itself, yes.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattB: Hi, BB!
quote:Matt: Joseph Smith being a fallen prophet is problematic because as the head of this dispensation you would think God would call somebody He knew would not fall down the road.
This is actually the position that the RLDS hold; according to them, Joseph screwed up with polygamy. (A few irreverently speculate that God removed him). Anyway, my point was that arguing that Joseph was either a conman (Cashew's word was 'fraud') or the prophet that the SLC church argues is not logically consistent; there's a multitude of other options.
As to your last sentence, I don't believe that it's possible to believe that 1)God is embodied, 2)God has perfect knowledge of the future, and 3)we have free will all at the same time. But that's another topic.
quote:Why do you think that Lewis sets up a false dichotomy about Christ? Unless we claim the gospel writers did not accurately record Christs words and beliefs, how is there a way to reconcile Christ's belief in his own divinity without calling him either the son of God, crazy, or a liar?
You get at it with your first point. Lewis dismisses the possibility that the writers of the gospels presented the Christ they believed in rather than the historical Jesus. I'm not saying that this is what everyone has to believe, but it's a perfectly acceptable option, and makes it possible for people to believe that Christ was merely a great moral teacher and Paul made up all the Messiah stuff.
Further, as with Joseph Smith, it's possible Jesus of Nazareth had a series of powerful religious experiences and interpreted them subjectively.
A hearty salutation to you too!
Its a rare thing, but your answers completely satisfied everything I was wondering about. Seriously I can't think of a thing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
People leave for all sorts of reasons. Some people do leave because they started putting other things in life as more important or started doing things that were incompatible with the gospel and stopped going because they didn't like being reminded of it. Those are not, however, the only reasons possible.
I think the reasons people leave are often complicated, kind of like the reasons people stay. I have about 10 different reasons as to why I went on a mission, and every one of them is true. Some are more noble than others. People and their motivations are complicated.
-----
Grouping everything together and taking it as a lump sum can be useful, but it isn't the only way.
Nephi said to go line upon line, precept on precept. If the line upon line process exists (and it does), then it must needs be that not everyone has all the lines and precepts at once. In fact, I think recognizing that there are more precepts that need to be confirmed individually is a good way to grow spiritually, because it leaves room to come to a conclusion for each precept. That way if a testimony of one principle becomes shaky for whatever reason, it doesn't bring one's entire testimony down with it like a house of cards.
The all or nothing scenario can be useful and sometimes appropriate, but not only is it not the only way to be Mormon, I think staying in that mindset can close us off to gaining wisdom and a stronger testimony by seeking for answers on individual principles.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:Nephi said to go line upon line, precept on precept.
That's from the extended-Nephi-quotes-from-Isaiah chapters, so perhaps Isaiah said it first. Amyway, good points.
Thanks, BB - glad I could be of service.
[ April 24, 2007, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: MattB ]
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
i agree with MattB when he says "Actually, there's a huge amount of room. There are Mormons who believe every word Gordon B. Hinckley speaks is God's will; there are those who believe he has the right to receive such revelation but does only rarely (or never, so far). There are Mormons who believe the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction, and those who believe the American...."
There is room for the kind of differences he mentions, paradoxical in a church that places so much emphasis on doctrinal purity. The reason why there is that kind of room is the wonderful phrase "not essential to your salvation". None of those private interpretations of doctrine impact on the things necessary for our salvation. But the status of the church as the true church, the Book of Mormon as true, inspired scripture, Joseph Smith as a (not fallen) prophet, Jesus Christ as the Saviour and Redeemer, the authority of God to act in His name reposing only in the LDS church is non-negotiable. The church is unequivocal about those doctrines. A testimony and commitment to those things is the very essence of being a Latter-day Saint.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
If only I had musical talent. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)