posted
Actually, sarahd, you just said EXACTLY what I was about to say just as this film ended.
Yes, I can see Chapter 4 especially containing elements that could offend Mormons. Not only do we have The Return of The Garment in a situation members would find highly offensive, but a character asks about it, and mocks it. In another instance, a character is deemed a prophet in a way that you could take as a mockery of Joseph Smith - he is given a book of golden plates, and told to read it using spectacles with rocks in the eyepieces, the 'instruments'.
But, of course, context is everything. And now that I've seen the entire piece, this is what I have to say:
The character who above I stated as the most empathetic is also the biggest failure in the film. He is the only character in the film who isn't redeemed in some way. HE is the only person who doesn't stick to an ideal. And yes, he's Mormon. The way the garments are defiled, well, it's just as he himself has started down the road to defilement. He can't stop betraying all that he holds dear. He is NOT the hero of the piece. He is not being pictured as the ideal. He is above all not being shown as the ideal Mormon. If anything, he's what most films depict as the 'Lapsed Catholic' - because seriously, how many films or shows can you name where you have the Lapsed Catholic? Or lapsed Person Of Any Faith? And most of the times, the character doesn't rediscover their faith. They 'put their childish things aside', and its viewed as a virtue (The only film of late where I can say showed one of lapsed faith fully regaining their faith and zeal is in M NIGHT's 'Signs'). You can choose to watch this and believe that this film is trashing members of the Church and the Church's beliefs just because the main depicted member end up becoming a despicable person. OR, you could open your eyes and WATCH THE MOVIE, and realize that the filmmaker doesn't mock the faith, the character does with his actions.
His mother, on the other hand, IS a very respectable character. She cherishes her beliefs. She clings to them. She practices compassion even in situations where it makes her uncomfortable. She's the character that proves to me that the writer ha srespect for the faith, even if he doesn't hold it to be 100% truth.
One thing that is clear is that he's fascinated with the LDS culture. He's fascinated by it, and has tried hard to understand it, and depict it as accurately as he can. But, he also indulges in some 'fun' branching off from the ideas.
Just like there's TONS of movies based on Christian doctrines and theology that totally take in a totally non-scripturally supported direction - it's fantasy. The Devil's Advocate. Fallen. Just two examples of films that take religious ideas, and twist them to make an interesting plot. Whether or not you think those are good film s are not is besides the point - what they do, in my opinion, isn't WRONG, or should even truly be offensive. It's artistic licence. They're not syaing 'this is what they believe', they're using religious stories as a basis for a plot - just like so many films and stories take basis from Mythology. The fact that people believe these elements to be true often time is not brought into account. But many times, it is, and it's done with a wink wink, nudge nudge way where it's understood that the filmmaker is JUST HAVING FUN. They're not mocking, they're what-iffing.
The way the calling of the Prophet in this film occurs, I believe, in the above manner. While the faith followed by The Mother and her apostated son is based in reality, the 'calling' fantasy sequence is taken from the screenwriter having fun with some of the elements of the STORY of the faith he's become fascinated with. In fact, the angel delivering the task views herself merely as copying what 'the text' says anyway. If it appears like a mockery of the Joseph Smith vision, well, in a way, it's more of a botched re-creation. THe angel is filled with splendor, and self-importance, is trying to do things by-the-book - but things keep going wrong. It turns into something which is DEFINITELY 'Not The Way Things Were Meant To Go'.
So yes, you can view the film, take leements ON THEIR OWN, be offended, and immediately decry the film as a blasphemous attack on Your Beliefs.
Or, you can watch the whole whole thing and take it in context.
In short, don't walk out of Last Temptation of Christ and start protesting the film until you see the end when he decides the sacrifice is worth it all anyway, and gets back up the cross.
posted
"But many times, it is, and it's done with a wink wink, nudge nudge way where it's understood that the filmmaker is JUST HAVING FUN."
In fairness, one of the reasons Mormons are often accused of not having a sense of humor about their religion is that, by and large, they don't. IMX, they have a very clear idea of what is and is not definitionally "sacred" -- and those things that ARE sacred aren't even to be looked at sideways, much less openly poked at for amusement.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't it that way because they don't want those traditions to be sullied and devalued the way that other Christian faiths have had theirs turned into a childish mockery?
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. And as was indirectly pointed out in the post prior to mine, there IS a legitimate danger of this; simply because some people don't take it as seriously, there's the inevitable possibility that they might well decide to run with it in an amusing way.
Heck, I'll freely admit to devoting huge portions of a comic book I once wrote to making fun of certain aspects of Mormon doctrine -- because, let's face it, unless you happen to believe with the seriousness that comes from, well, something I apparently have never experienced, some of those doctrines really are pretty funny.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. I didn't mean it to say that believing as much gives people a right to take such blatant offense. If anything, it denotes a bit of self-righteousness about one's faith that seems rather counterintuitive to the rest of the fundementals of the faith. Also, there's a difference between the idea of keeping and observing sanctity and the idea of keeping sacred things practically hidden from the nonmembers. If you behave like a secret society, expect to be treated as one. I think this is why both the LDS and the JW get the bad rap they have.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I do think there also can be a major difference between MOCKING and HAVING FUN WITH. Some people don't believe that this is possible.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still think, and don't know why I am even trying at this point, you are missing the point entirely.
It is wrong, not because it mocks (althought that is a problem), not because it doesn't show some positive outcome ("that would better explain the respect at the end if you were to consider context"), or any number of reasons. It is wrong because IT IS THERE AT ALL, IN POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE REPRESENTATION! PERIOD! The very fact they are shown is a disrespect.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comments by others trying to explain the sacred and secret nature of Temples, using historical presidence:
"The ancient Temple rites involved things which only the High Priest would perform or have access to receive, in the Holy of Holies. Then within the Holy Place there would be others who could enter in on prescribed occasions. But the general public, and even Israelites could not enter these two places. Within the outer court, Priests generally could enter, and all Israel could see, but were not permitted to enter. Then in the later Temple mount, there were areas in which Gentiles were permitted to enter, as well. This historic division (the full import of which I don't have time to explain) should be sufficient for you to recognize that God has not always given permission to everyone to receive or participate in everything."
I will add to this that if anyone did cross over into the Temple anciently who was not allowed, they would be killed.
"The temple is the holiest of places. It is not the only place where revelation is received, but it is a refuge from the world for members to go to be in a more celestial environment to be better personally prepared in heart and mind to receive revelation, pulling the "curtain" back more."
The Temple is a Holy Place where it is seperated from the World and in return is not to be part of the World in any way. This is not completely to keep it from getting mocked by those who don't understand. Rather, because it belongs only and completely to God and Heaven. To show it is to mock it, as it shows a lack of respect for its Holiness, or at least those who hold it Holy.
Examples of sentiments from early Christianity about God and secrecy:
"The Lord did not hinder from doing good while keeping the Sabbath; but allowed us to communicate of those divine mysteries, and of that holy light, to those who are able to receive them. He did not certainly disclose to the many what did not belong to the many; but to the few to whom He knew that they belonged, who were capable of receiving and being moulded according to them. But secret things are entrusted to speech, not to writing, as is the case with God."(Stromateis 1.1)
Clement again: "Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome, he wrote [an account of] the Lord's doings,fn not, however, declaring all [of them], nor yet hinting at the secret [ones], but selecting those he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died as a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge [gnosis]. [Thus] he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven [veils] .... and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries."
St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "When the instruction is over, if any catechumen tries to get out of you what your teachers told you, tell nothing, for he is outside the mystery that we have delivered to you, with its hope of the age to come. Guard the mystery for his sake from whom you look for reward. Never let anyone persuade you, saying "What harm is it that I should know as well?"... Already you stand on the frontier of mystery. I adjure you to smuggle no word out." (Procatechesis, 12)
St. Basil: "Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in a mystery" by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force .... For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. ... Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught?... Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents." (On the Holy Spirit, 27)
4th cent. Lactantius: "God orders us in quietness and silence to hide His secret and to keep it within our own conscience...For a mystery out to be most faithfully concealed and covered, especially by us, who bear the name of faith. But they accuse this silence of ours, as though it were the result of an evil conscience; when also they invent some detestable things respecting those who are holy and blameless." (Divine Institutes VII, 26)
Athanasius on apostates: [They] "are not ashamed to parade the sacred mysteries...even before the heathens: whereas, they ought to attend to what is written, 'it is good to keep close the secret of the king;' and as the Lord charged us, 'Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine.' We ought not then to parade the holy mysteries before the uninitiated, lest the heathen in their ignorance deride them, and the catechumens [i.e. investigators] being over-curious be offended." (Defense against the Arians, 1:11)
Similiar reactions as what is going on here from history:
2nd century anti-Christian Celsus: "The cult of Christ is a secret society whose members huddle together in corners for fear of being brought to trial and punishment." (Celsus, 53)
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And then there were those were killed for translating God's Holy Word into the ugly, unsacred English language. Those who believed God's Word was too holy for the laypeople.
And I'm sure they got the Historical Prescedence from the same place. They thought they were protecting something sacred as well, and had also sworn on-threat-of-death oaths for 'revealing' their 'sacred' knowledge as well.
--
Before I'm flamed, I'm just playing Devil's advocate here - I fully know that I'm comparing apples and oranges - I'm mainly pointing out that historical prescedence can help to 'prove' a lot of beliefs.
But back on topic, if those were actual garments on screen that had been blessed and consecrated by Your Proper Autorities - then yes, I can see where offence would be taken. But, chances are, these are replicas. Not even made by the people who made the Official Garments. They are not, and never were, Consecrated.
Or is the very KNOWLEDGE of them sacred? Because using the above example of Old Testament Temple services, the very fact that the items within used for the ceremonies (including the ceremonial clothing) were described IN DETAIL in their historical records precludes this as a posibility. Historically, that is.
quote:In fairness, one of the reasons Mormons are often accused of not having a sense of humor about their religion is that, by and large, they don't. IMX, they have a very clear idea of what is and is not definitionally "sacred" -- and those things that ARE sacred aren't even to be looked at sideways, much less openly poked at for amusement.
We have a sense of humor; we just don't think the same things are funny, and we don't appreciate 'outsiders' cracking the jokes. Rather like siblings who beat on each other, but won't stand for anyone else doing it. And we have definite lines drawn on what is and isn't OK to joke about; garments are not one of the things that are OK. That's not a bad thing--not everything in life is up for poking at, and our society has largely forgotten that.
Posts: 335 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, is it blasphemy when a television show or a movie shows a Catholic going to confessional? When a Muslim stops for prayer? Is it offensive to show a protestant baptism? How about all of those church scenes in film and television, from various faiths?
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand, and would also hold that the way it was handle din the film was in good taste. During a walk on the beach, the Mormon who is currently defying his faith, and cheating on his wife with a man - is finally asked by his casual lover what's with the 'goofy underwear'? The Mormon kind of blushes, looks a bit uncomfortable, and corrects him. "Garment." The other man laughs. The Mormon stifles a nervous chuckle and says something about it being for his protection before swiftly changing the subject.
Even while 'living in sin' and defying all the garment stood for, he still felt a bit of reverence for it, and felt uncomfortable discussing it.
'least, that's how I saw it.
If the filmmaker were really up for mocking and exploiting it, there could have been a 5 minute discussion on the origins and purposed of this garment - as an expose to the world at large.
But he didn't. The characters acted just as they would in a real life situation where that akward moment would have come up.
Ignoring the issue would have played false.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've done medical physical exams on several different Mormon men over the past 7 years who were wearing special undergarments. Strangely enough, although I immediately recognized what the garments were, I have absolutely no memory of what the garments actually looked like. They were a lot more ordinary looking than I expected, I recall. The last time I did a physical exam I even remember thinking that this time I would remember what the garment was like.
Nope. I still have no idea what the garment looks like.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Occasional, is it blasphemy when a television show or a movie shows a Catholic going to confessional? When a Muslim stops for prayer? Is it offensive to show a protestant baptism? How about all of those church scenes in film and television, from various faiths?
This isn't about Catholics, Muslims, Jews, or Rastifarians. This is about Mormons. You can show a Mormon going to church, you might get away with showing a Mormon giving a Priesthood blessing even if it can be uncomforatable to watch. But, you cannot show anything what-so-ever in any capacity the things that are related to the Temple other than photographs of the outside or publically released inside architecture; garments included.
I am not trying to "prove" anything other than to try and explain the religious teachings associated with this subject. Obviously you don't understand, and still refuse to understand, what I am getting at. Its not a matter of personal discomfort for showing it, but to us a direct Commandment of God that it is NOT to be shown, talked about, represented, or otherwise revealed outside the specific designated confines of the Temple. That there are moments that outsiders will see them will be a part of life, but that is only when there is no other choice. To do otherwise, even with respect, is a blasphemy.
quote:Are we not allowed to know the reason for the garment if we are not Mormon?
Only in a very limited and vague way. It represents Covenants individuals make to God in the Temple. Other than that, nothing else is to be mentioned. Even Mormons are not supposed to talk about this stuff among themeselves.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Luckily, for those who are really curious, a Google search will produce a number of sites -- some biased and hostile, some not -- that answer your questions on the topic.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:In fairness, one of the reasons Mormons are often accused of not having a sense of humor about their religion is that, by and large, they don't. IMX, they have a very clear idea of what is and is not definitionally "sacred" -- and those things that ARE sacred aren't even to be looked at sideways, much less openly poked at for amusement.
IMX, this is true.
I think I'm funny. I'd like to think I'm funny. I don't have a terrible sense of humor.
But I honestly have none at all when it comes to the church when the jokes are made by non-members. I also don't have sympathy when someone claims it's merely a joke. They can't joke - they don't love it enough.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are some cultures whose members have no sense of humor about their mother. These are also the cultures where mother jokes seem to abound.
There's not as much of a stigma about mother jokes in other areas, and that kind of joke doesn't seem to exist. For religious jokes, many of them seem to be funny only BECAUSE they are offensive. In the choice between treating things lightly and being disaproving of the offensive jokes, devaluing sacred things is too high a price to pay.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The showing of sacred garments was not done in such a way as to appear offensive or humorous to non-members. That is, they don't see it as something putting down Mormons. Therefore, no harm is being done to the image of the Mormon church as it appears to non-Members.
Since members obviously love the church, no damage has been done to the Mormon church or its image by the showing of the sacred garments.
What do you guys think of this?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I recognize that it is distasteful to you. However, your feelings don't change the fact that no harm is being done to either the Mormon church or religion in any way that I can see.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it's not a matter of a right, is it? How is anyone going to stop them from being offended? Is anyone saying that Mormon's shouldn't be offended? I'm not.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, wait. You're asking whether Mormons should be able to say whether something is offensive or not for the rest of us when it comes to their religion? Nah.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That didn't come out right. Look, Mormons are more than welcome to explain their side of things, but the rest of the world, and the artist, has the right to ignore them. This doesn't really have anything to do with what I said and is a tangent.
I recognize that Mormons are offended by these things, but I'm just pointing out that in real world terms, it's...not hurting anything, is it?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh..O.K. I respect that, too. Seems a little odd to expect non-members to treat your beliefs with the same veneration you do, though.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
If you say something that hurts the feelings of one person but would not hurt the feelings of the other, does that mean the first person WASN'T hurt? Are they making it up?
It means respecting other people and what they think. You can't tell someone what to feel, and you especially can't tell someone that they don't actually feel what they feel.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. Lol. I am seriously not communicating well. I'm not arguing that Mormons shouldn't feel hurt. They are free to do so.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't venerate their beliefs, nor would I ask someone else to venerate mine.
But if they say it's off-limits, then (assuming there's no concern about safety or somesuch), then I do my best to accept that.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me try and rephrase it another way. Isn't this another case of saying "Merry Christmas" to someone? If you recall, when we were discussing it before on this forum, there were some people who were really offended by others saying Merry Christmas to them, even though the other person didn't say it to them with the intention of being offensive. It is recognized, though, that within the culture of the receiving person, saying Merry xmas is offensive.
My position then was that allowances should be made by the reciever for the sender not being of their culture and that they shouldn't be offended.
I think I'm trying to say something along the same lines here, and I'm also asking, what's the point of being offended when someone who is not a Mormon does not hold the same things you do in veneration? Is Angels hurting the idea of Mormonism? Is it hurting Mormons? I don't think so.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what Stormy is saying is that Mormons have every right to be offended over anything that offends them -- it's a right given to everyone everywhere -- the right to feel offense. But that doesn't mean that whatever offends them must immediately and automatically be taken off the screen, out of the pages of a book, or off the airwaves. Cocaine use offends me, but I don't petition for movies to not show it just because of my personal dislike for it. It happens, it exists, why shouldn't it be portrayed? And again, i'd like the re-iterate the point that many have made in this thread -- that the scene in Angels in America was not intended to be offensive in the least. It was intended to show how the character had "betrayed" his faith, yet couldn't let go of some of the symbolism of it. The scene was there for a purpose, not just to make a crack at Mormon underwear.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I find plenty of other stuff in "Angels" to be offensive to me. I haven't seen it (nor will I!); but from the detailed reviews I have read, it contains a number of elements in contexts which I consider horrendously sacrilegious.
Not on par with say, Nimoy's recent photo-series, but close.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, I expected a little more intelligence from this group.
quote:It happens, it exists, why shouldn't it be portrayed? And again, i'd like the re-iterate the point that many have made in this thread -- that the scene in Angels in America was not intended to be offensive in the least.
I would suggest for those who still don't understand to re-read everything said so far and then put it into their own words as if they were trying to explain the offense. I am not saying that Mormons offensiveness will stop or ever has stopped others from showing, displaying, or talking about something considered sacred. But, this goes way beyond offensive. It reaches into areas that in some cultures would be considered worthy of death.
quote:This isn't about Catholics, Muslims, Jews, or Rastifarians. This is about Mormons.
No, it's about respect to religions. Otherwise, you are demanding that Mormons get some kind of special treatment that other religions are not allowed. It is not going to happen in the United States.
quote:You can show a Mormon going to church, you might get away with showing a Mormon giving a Priesthood blessing even if it can be uncomforatable to watch. But, you cannot show anything what-so-ever in any capacity the things that are related to the Temple other than photographs of the outside or publically released inside architecture; garments included.
This is where the Secret Society stigma comes from. Oddly, this reminds me of the Tree of Knowledge.
quote:Only in a very limited and vague way. It represents Covenants individuals make to God in the Temple. Other than that, nothing else is to be mentioned. Even Mormons are not supposed to talk about this stuff among themeselves.
This might have worked 100 years ago, but the world is too driven by the easy access of intimate knowledge today for this to last. The only thing that getting angry and defensive about it will accomplish is to call even more attention to finding out those intimate whys.
Jacare Sorridente, thank you for the link. It was both informative and helpful.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I rather like to think the US has moved beyond the idea that executing those who violate taboo is a good thing.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oddly, this reminds me of the Tree of Knowledge.
Well, at least your getting warmer to what I am saying.
quote:This might have worked 100 years ago, but the world is too driven by the easy access of intimate knowledge today for this to last.
Well, I am pretty sure that 1000 years from now the attitude of the LDS Church on this is not going to change.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I rather suspect it will have, considering how much the attitudes of every single church on this earth have changed in the past thousand years.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
