posted
Scott, I've read just about everything you've written, and listened to all of Living Scriptures tapes you wrote (by the way, why didn't you do the Book of Mormon?) and I keep thinking that the most amazing story I want to tell (or be told) is the story of Jesus and what he went through and why, but in a fictional universe like you did with the Homecoming series.
I keep trying to figure out how such a story could be told. I mean, how does one explain that because he is God he could use his power to suffer more than anyone else could, and how the creator of the universe was born in a stable, and why not even his disciples understood what he was doing until he was resurrected? The ironies are so compelling to me!
Have you considered such a story to illustrate what went into making atonement for all creation, with the councils in heaven, the rebellions and "accusations" of Lucifer, etc.? I think the difficulty in telling such a story in fiction is the difficulty in telling the story in reality.
Anyway, I think about it all the time and I keep wondering if you have as well.
Why, then, do you think fictionalizing them and turning them into allegory will make them even more compelling?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wouldn't really. I guess I'm looking for a different medium for telling a uniquely Mormon story of Jesus. Heck, if the story were told with some fictional aspects like Rebecca, Sarah, and Rachel; I would be just as happy probably.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that if you are doing a story of Jesus during his mortal life, there is very little that would be uniquely Mormon.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You'd be surprised at how different a Mormon view of Jesus' mortal life would be ... while we stick to all the outward facts in the gospels (more closely than most post-neo-Platonic Christian churches these days, in fact), our view of what it meant to HIM would be ... different.
The reason I will never, ever write a sci-fi adaptation of the story of Christ is that I revere him too much to "fiddle" with his story. The New Testament tapes I did were as close as I'll come - and of course NONE of that was from his point of view.
If I ever wrote a historical novel with Jesus as a character, it would be the way Lloyd Douglas did it in The Robe, with Jesus coming on and off at the edges, but my full concentration on the people around him - especially on my fictional characters.
Even in Homecoming, where none of the original people I based my characters on was divine, I felt it to be a serious responsibility NOT to mess with the motives of the characters. I didn't justify the bad guys or give the good guys ulterior motives. In fact, that's the cheapest, easiest thing to do with sacred stories. It's an undergraduate trick to get attention. The REAL challenge is to be faithful to the original while still surrounding it with an interesting world and adding peripheral characters who are also interesting in their own right. I hope I brought it off in Homecoming.
But I also hope I have the sense NEVER to try to write even a single sentence from the point of view of the Savior. I'm even bothered by hymns that presume to put words in his mouth!
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing: We Mormons are very cautious about using the name "Jesus" anyway. We rarely use his name except in prayer (all prayers end in the name of Jesus Christ) or when referring to him during his mortal life. All other references, including to Christ resurrected, use either "Christ" or various other titles, like Savior or Redeemer or Lord.
Which is why Mormons are extremely uncomfortable with Christian religions that "buddy up" to the Lord by calling him by his first name all the time. Makes us uncomfortable just to hear it, mostly, because we're so careful about how we use his name. Not that we criticize others for using it differently. Just ... that's how we feel about the Savior, and how we speak about him.
So some people, visiting a Mormon service, might very well say, "How can they call themselves Christians? I hardly heard a soul say the name of Jesus!"
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a similar thing with cathilics and Witnesses of Jahwe. They often come to my home and teach about their beliefs. We just say God the Only True in Trinity. They call Him JHW.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a certain strain of Mormonism that invents quotes from Jesus and composes letters from Jesus. I think they are well-intended but weird. There is a large overlap with big time Work and the Glory fans.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't call that a "strain of Mormonism" as if it's a part of the church and/or gospel but simply the odd habits of a few of its members. Any wide-scale volunteer organization's gonna have its goofy ones. Utah's plum full of'em. Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a very good Christian friend (you can read that either way) who was involved in some activity at her church called "Jesusercize". I nearly fell over when I read that in a little brochure thing she showed me. She explained, after a while of being puzzled by my reaction to it, that they used his name in that way because they felt he was their friend. One thing that really bothers me in church (I'm LDS) is how many people, adults as well as children, who, as they are closing a prayer or talk, mumble "...in the name of JeezChristAmen", many as they are already turning away from the pulpit. Very disrespectful. They don't intend it that way, obviously, it's just unthinking behaviour, which is the last kind of behaviour a Latter day Saint should apply to using the Lord's name.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I aggree that many people(mabye even most)in the church today disrepect Jesus by miss using his name wrongly. I think people like the idea of Him as a friend or "buddy" because that's how people veiw their positive relationships. If you're going to have a relationship with Jesus and it's going to be all things good, wouldn't that remind you of a good friendhip. Obviously it is so much more than that, but I could see how people would consider him a "buddy".
Posts: 28 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"You are My friends, if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you slaves; for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you."
--John 15: 14-15 (NASB)
I think that some people read these verses, and take away the fact that Christ calls us friends, but maybe don't really use the same definition of "friend" provided right in the same few lines. It's a personal and intimate relationship to be sure, but He isn't my friend in the same way that my buddy Bill from high school is.
Or maybe I'm completely wrong. That's happened before.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
cashew, please don't take this the wrong way, but your comments have me laughing myself stupid... Jesusercize? I would have had to leave the room to laugh at that. I'm Catholic, so we're generally a quiet bunch. We do mumble through prayers, as I imagine everyone does once in a while. I got a fabulous reality check this weekend, tho - went to Louisiana for my best friend's daughter's First Communion. (got all that?) and in her church, they SING EVERYTHING. Even the Our Father. I really got into trouble at the end tho - they announced the recessional hymn, which was "How can I keep from singing?" and I blurted out "I have no idea but I wish you would". I got thwacked for that one...
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read these quotes recently, and they are appropriate, especially "As Empson observes (in a key critical principle), every character is on trial in a civilized narrative." This creates an insurmountable difficulty for an author who believes in God and wants to write about Him directly as a character in a fictional narrative, and hampers his creativity. And why would an atheist or agnostic bother? I suppose an atheist could write a parody. I wonder what Steven Brust believes? His To Reign in Hell was an enjoyable read, but as in Milton's Paradise Lost (Brust's inspiration for the novel), God, and Jesus, don't come across well.
quote: Now, Milton sets out clearly as his deliberate purpose in this poem [ Paradise Lost]the task of justifying the ways of God to man. What does this mean? Well, the key term here is justify. That seems to means that Milton is declaring in the opening lines his intent to account for, to provide adequate ground for, in short, to render intelligible the ways of God by exploring an old and odd story. If we take that statement of intention seriously (and there's no sense of an ironic purpose at work in the statement), then the narrator of the poem would seem to be indicating that we should emerge from the poem (if it is successful) with a finer acceptance of God's ways.
Prima facie, there are two obvious ways in which one might seek to justify a set of events: first, one might seek to provide a rational justification, that is, to show that the actions of a particular character are rationally intelligible in terms of reasonable purposes and means, so that, even if we have trouble agreeing with all of the actions, we can see them as a reasonable way to proceed. Second, one might seek to provide an emotional justification, that is, a sense of aesthetic satisfaction in a story. There might be little direct rationality here, but the artistic structure of the story might provide a sense of emotional closure and acceptance (as, for example, at the end of a tragedy like Oedipus the King, which cannot be explained as a reasonable outcome but which makes sense emotionally). There is, if you like, a rational justification and an emotional justification (these are not mutually exclusive of course, but either one will serve).
I wish to argue that Milton fails on both counts. This poem provides neither a rational justification for story of the fall of humanity which might include a reasonable interpretation of God's behaviour or plan nor an aesthetically pleasing account of why God behaves the way he does. On both counts God emerges as quite unacceptable, in spite of the narrator's obvious desire to make Him acceptable.
quote: it is very difficult to avoid the sense, as we read God's speeches carefully, that we are dealing with a harsh egotist whose major interest seems an inadequate defence of His own actions and grim delight in the pain He can now inflict. I find it almost impossible not to agree with Shelley and Blake, that of the two chief characters I meet in this poem early on, Satan is far more admirable than the tyrannical and querulous egoist God.
It's fair to ask, as Milton himself does in the invocation to Book 3, whether it is possible to portray God as a character in a fiction and not invite criticism from some quarter. After all, any portrayal of God in a human form, with an appearance and a speaking voice, is going to invite a evaluative response. That is quite true, and that is probably the reason why the ancient Israelites prohibited any depiction of God and made even his name unpronounceable. They insisted that God is an eternally powerful mystery and must be accepted as such. For the same reason, Dante gives no direct description of the Almighty, focusing instead on the narrator's reaction to approaching the presence of God. Both of these methods convey the might and majesty of God without inviting us to judge Him.
But Milton chooses to make God a character in the poetic drama. And as soon as he does that, he invites the readers to bring their powers of judgment to bear on the character he is presenting. As Empson observes (in a key critical principle), every character is on trial in a civilized narrative. So if the character of God becomes a problem in Paradise Lost, that happens because Milton treats him in a certain way, first, by making him a character, and, second, by presenting him the way he does.
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/Eng200/milton.htm Milton wrote Paradise Lost and had God and Lucifer as characters in it, with good and Christian intentions. But critics find Lucifer the more interesting, and often more admirable, character. Churchill even used parts of Lucifer's speeches to rally the British after the Dunkirk disaster! (at the link)
quote:I aggree that many people(mabye even most)in the church today disrepect Jesus by miss using his name wrongly.
This statement bothers me. It bothers me because this is an external judgement of what cannot be 100% known by anyone but God. Disrespect is, IMO, a matter of the heart, not behavior. Behavior is cultural, but intent is universal.
Since I came from a Mormon background, I too find frequent, familiar use of the name Jesus vaguely disquieting, but as an adult evangelical Christian, I recognize that to some degree my response is cultural. When my pastor prays to Jesus where I always pray to my Heavenly Father, I know that the difference is cultural -- largely because I know my pastor personally and respect his wisdom in spiritual matters. I know my own heart on the matter. I don't expect anyone else to come to the conclusion that my pastor is praying with genuine humility, respect and reverence just on my say-so. I expect them to come to that discernment by knowing the person speaking and by that knowledge doing their mortal best to see the intent behind the words.
I've heard jeering about churches who've used root beer to celebrate communion, calling it so casual as to be disrespectful. It's not a choice I would make, but in this, communion is a matter of the heart. There is nothing holy about the materials until they are prayed over and accepted as representative of the sacrifice made. Even then, when the celebrants accept communion -- in their hearts as well as their bodies -- root beer can be holy.
All this is to say that judgement about someone else's level of respect for God and Jesus is not, IMO, ours to make. As parents or teachers, it is our responsibility to teach the importance of respect and reverence. But it's not up to us to judge it.
quote:I find it almost impossible not to agree with Shelley and Blake, that of the two chief characters I meet in this poem early on, Satan is far more admirable than the tyrannical and querulous egoist God.
Yawn. That says more about those who hold that idea than about the merits of Milton's depiction of Satan and God.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope my comments about my friend's name for the exercise class didn't come across as a criticism or judgement of her love for Christ. I have the utmost respect for her devotion to Him. It was just that that was something so out of left field for me I was pretty flabbergasted by the use of the Saviour's name in that context.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Another thing: We Mormons are very cautious about using the name "Jesus" anyway. We rarely use his name except in prayer (all prayers end in the name of Jesus Christ) or when referring to him during his mortal life. All other references, including to Christ resurrected, use either "Christ" or various other titles, like Savior or Redeemer or Lord.
Which is why Mormons are extremely uncomfortable with Christian religions that "buddy up" to the Lord by calling him by his first name all the time. Makes us uncomfortable just to hear it, mostly, because we're so careful about how we use his name. Not that we criticize others for using it differently. Just ... that's how we feel about the Savior, and how we speak about him.
So some people, visiting a Mormon service, might very well say, "How can they call themselves Christians? I hardly heard a soul say the name of Jesus!"
That was very interesting to know -- somehow I never picked up on this aspect of LDS during my time with them as a prospect. But that does answer my mental question that was very much like your last paragraph...
posted
I didn't mean my observation about Mormon usages to be a criticism of other people's usages, just an explanation of why it makes many Mormons uncomfortable to hear the Savior's name used casually and informally.
I've never heard of these people who write letters purportedly from Jesus, but it smacks of the gnostic practice of making up "gospels" supposedly by long-dead people. My response to this would be: Why are you fictionalizing the voice of God when you should be serving as the loving hands of God in the lives of others? If you have time to compose narcissistic little letters "from Jesus," you have time to fix meals for some elderly person or research your genealogy or go to school and tutor a child.
But then, I'm a nasty judgmental person who uses bad language anyway, so I'm hardly the one to tell others how to be Christian.
posted
The truth is, there has already been a three volume LDS novelization of the life of Jesus. It was written by Lund, the same person who did the Work and the Glory series. I believe the series is called the "Kingdom and the Crown." As for me, I don't much like this author's writing style. As with much of LDS and Christian fiction, its too dime novel.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So: if a Mormon were to write about the life of Christ, how would it be different from a non-Mormon's view?
I've been various types of Protestant (Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, Episcopal) and now Catholic, but I never saw much difference in how these congregations viewed him.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mormons believe in a a premortal spiritual existence. There is also the concept that we are all literal spiritual children of God, along with both Christ and Satan.
This would be knowledge the Savior would have and be part of his point of view.
Mormons also break from the Nicean Creed, and believe that Christ is a seperate person from God.
posted
So, if I wrote about Jesus's life from his perspective, and a Mormon did the same thing (assuming we were both willing to do it!), how would the stories differ?
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will B, if you really want to know the answer to that, I recommend "Jesus the Christ" by James E. Talmage, the definitive LDS work on Christ. Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So, if I wrote about Jesus's life from his perspective, and a Mormon did the same thing (assuming we were both willing to do it!), how would the stories differ?"
Would yours have a bit in Mesoamerica?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it depends on what you consider His "life". If it's just form His birth to His death, than neither would.
As has already been mentioned, if you include both the pre-mortal life and the post-mortal life, then the stories would diverge much more than if it were just about His life and death.
posted
jeniwren, do you still hold that Jesus and Heavenly Father are different personages? Just curious. It is not a uniquely Mormon view.
I also imagine that an "LDS" story would highlight the temple more than a traditional Christian account. Christians tend to view the temple as Judaic tradition that passed away with the new Gospel, whereas Mormons see it as an integral part of true worship.
P.S. I used to not understand why the Book of Mormon had the teachings of Jesus repeated in pretty much their entirety. It came together for me about the 12 time reading through. It was a point I was very sensitive about because the guy I used to date who became a presbyterian minister used to say that the Book of Mormon was simply plagiarized from the Bible.
posted
I personally don't think that the Jesus as portrayed in LDS fiction would be much different than what most Protestants would write. The only differences would be minor theological divergences; although enough minor ones could add up to large differences. In fact, the Eternal Nature of Jesus is part of Orthodox Christian theology. Of course, with them Jesus is part of the Holy Trinity rather than the Holy Triumvirate.
Differences I might see:
Jesus would be fully immersed in the water for baptism, although that is not a completely unique idea.
Jesus would treat God far more seperate and distinct a personality. That seperation would be emphasised in such things as prayer.
The Priesthood Authority of Jesus would be centeral to his character. The Saducees and Pharasies would be more than philosophical rivals.
Jesus would do more than simply set up a new moral system. He would seek to set up a new Church with new leaders. There would be more intimate interaction with his followers.
On the other hand, Jesus would always see the Church of his time as tentative and short lived. That might color some of his sayings and behavior.
The portrayal of his Atomement would focus far more on his spiritual suffering and eventual Resurrection than on the Cross. In other words, Gibson's "The Passion" would have been much shorter and less gruesome.
Those are only a few I could think of at this time. They just aren't enough to change things drastically, although create subtle variations.
posted
It does sound very subtle (and in fact the things that you highlight as things Mormons would emphasize are also things I think other Christians would emphasize).
Everyone interested should check out OSC's review of The Passion of the Christ. He also makes the point that it was spiritual suffering, not physical suffering, that Mormons find significant in the passion of Christ . . . but, then, how do you show spiritual suffering on the silver screen? Metaphorically, as physical suffering.
I think other Christians would agree that the spiritual suffering matters more, but we'd say that the physical suffering mattered some.
Anyway, in a novel, you could show the spiritual suffering from within. But the physical suffering wouldn't disappear, I think . . . and it would certainly make the story more compelling . . . so it might not be that different after all.
And I hope not. I don't care how many church organizations we have, but I want one Church.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've never heard of these people who write letters purportedly from Jesus, but it smacks of the gnostic practice of making up "gospels" supposedly by long-dead people.
Somebody posted one of those "letters from Jesus" on Nauvoo back a few months ago. It was written as an attempt to guilt-trip people who hold secular holiday celebrations. We don't link to Nauvoo from here, so here's an excerpt:
quote:Every year there is a celebration in my honor. All of you shop for gifts, there are special Christmas programs on TV with lots of commercials, and more things are sold during December than any other month.
It is very nice to know that at least once a year, some people think of me. But sadly, most people forget the real reason for all the celebrating. They prepare great feasts in my honor and there are many beautifully wrapped gifts. But do you want to know something odd? They don't send me an invitation. I'm the guest of honor but I'm not invited!
Last year I decided to go to the party anyway. I arrived without making any noise and I stood in the corner where no one would see me. Everyone was having a lot of fun but they didn't pay any attention to me.
To top it all off, this jolly fat man dressed in red with a long white beard, came into the room yelling, "Ho, ho, ho!" He sat on the sofa and all the children ran over to him, calling him "Santa Claus," as if he was the guest of honor! Everyone at the party received gifts so I looked to see if there was one for me. It was my birthday but I didn't even get one gift. I felt that I wasn't wanted at the party so I left.
Hmmm. According to whoever wrote this literary gem, our Lord and Savior has the psychological maturity of a seven-year-old.
My theory is that these things are made up and spread by people too lazy to read and ponder actual Scriptures. The writers and disseminators of such semiblasphemous e-mail pass-alongs have been added to my growing list of People I Would Like To Whack With a Stick for Making My Religion Look Bad.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was rethinking some possible differences. Now, if one is to go beyond just Jesus' life there would be huge leaps.
In the pre-mortal life he would be along side Michael the arch angel in kicking Satan and his follower's butts out the Heavenly door. You would also see pre-mortal Jesus visiting a few Old Testament prophets and at least one Book of Mormon prophet.
On the Mount of Configuration he would be taught his mission (possibly with a Doctrine and Covenants Kirtland Temple vision motif) and gain full Authority to carry it out to completion.
The Garden of Gethsemane would have far more consiquences. The writer would have Jesus agonizing Spiritually and Physically more than most Christians allow; if they do at all.
After his death and before his resurrection, Jesus would go and found a missionary group in the afterlife. Of course, most of the dialogue and action would be a quick recap of his life and mission or what is called the Gospel.
He would be resurrected, but visit the Pre-Columbian Americas after showing himself at least once to the Palistine Apostles. There would be some interesting interactions with the locals, but most of his teachings would be similar.
Whatever happened on the Mount of Configuration would be passed on to the Palistine Apostles. That would be a difficult moment to capture in a story as this is something LDS don't claim to understand a lot about. Those things they do claim to know are not easy to verbalize.
Again, going beyond just Jesus' life, you would see him visiting Joseph Smith a few times. That would be a very ambitious inclusion in the fictional account.
Then, of course, there is the even more ambitious inclusion of the role as King and Judge after His return.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:According to whoever wrote this literary gem, our Lord and Savior has the psychological maturity of a seven-year-old.
And doesn't know when his own birthday is, apparently. No one knows for sure when he was really born, but the reasons for its being celebrated in December are pretty well documented, and they have nothing to do with his actual birthday.
Irrelevant to the discussion, I know. It's just kind of a pet peeve of mine.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The writers and disseminators of such semiblasphemous e-mail pass-alongs have been added to my growing list of People I Would Like To Whack With a Stick for Making My Religion Look Bad.
