posted
Unless of course you think that the Mormon Church is fundementaly different from the Churches that have existed for the past 1000 years (only take that comment as it relates to Fugu's statment by the way).
posted
Well... if you believe that the Mormon Church is guided by Prophets chances are you'll feel that the attitudes about this type of thing will remain the same through out the next 1000 years. That's it.
posted
Oh. I thought you were making an argument for the death penalty for those who violated the taboo. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, Occasional, thanks for being nasty and insulting. Sure helps bring the level of this thread up to "intelligent discussion."
Your standards of morality are not the rest of the world's, and how ridiculous of you to condemn the rest of us for not agreeing to tip-toe around your belief system. You're making this into a whole other issue -- the play that we're discussing was merely being true to the background of its Mormon character. You can voice your opinion regarding the mention of Mormon garments on stage and television, but you have no right to presume to tell the rest of us where our limits should lie. If it's offensive to you, don't watch it. I don't attend KKK meetings. I don't support what they stand for, and i find it extremely offensive. But there's something called Freedom Of Speech in this country, and I do support that. And if you feel that this play delved into the realm of "obscenity" then you have to remember that it's not considered "obscene" if it's art -- as a play penned by a highly acclaimed and celebrated playwright would be.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems to me that the attitudes of the Mormon church about a number of things have already changed, in fact because of the leadership of several prophets.
The attitudes of the Jews in the Old Testament certainly change throughout, and they had prophets.
Heck, Jesus changed a huge number of attitudes as a prophet.
I think I'd be pretty sure the attitudes of the Church would change even if I were a Mormon.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes, with the One True Church issue aside, exactly how is the Mormon church so fundementally different? They seem pretty par for the course of protestant religions, as far as I can tell. In fact, they are even very much like the Jehovah's Witness church in their secrecy, though most protestant churches were more secretive when they first separated from the larger churches. This was usually to avoid persecution, I believe.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My only point was that if you belief that the Mormon Church is the one true Church that has Prophets leading it right now, things like how we feel about Temple Ordinances isn't likley to change. That really was all I was saying.
quote:but you have no right to presume to tell the rest of us where our limits should lie
Actually, I have every right according to freedom of speach. Now, if I can force you to change your stance is another question.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: then you have to remember that it's not considered "obscene" if it's art
This tends to be true, I think what it should be is "If it's obscene it's not art" (not that I completely agree with that either) but most people do seem to assume that if someone calls it art it can't be obscene.
quote: This tends to be true, I think what it should be is "If it's obscene it's not art" (not that I completely agree with that either) but most people do seem to assume that if someone calls it art it can't be obscene.
I'm familiar with the claim -- hey, I'm the one who sings Lehrer's Smut -- I just disagree with it.
I also think adults are capable of learning "New Math." Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'm going to have to agree Leonide on this one. I feel like there's two (okay probably more) arguments going on here. I think when I first posted there was more confusion about why members of the Mormon faith would be offended by this play. I think that confusion/discussion has to some degree been cleared up. But the turn of some of the statements sorta scares me. I mean in the end I think people have now been arguing about if this artist has the right to do this. Or am I misunderstanding?
I think that I can safely say now that I understand, as much as I can, why some Mormans find this offensive. However, does the artist have the right to do this. Yeah I think he does. Just like you have the right not to watch it. And people have the right to discuss it.
And for a while I had been thinking that perhaps this argument was exactly why he chose to. But I think perhaps the point was lost on the general audience. I spoke with a friend today about this debate and she actually had no clue what I was talking about. "There were garments?"
edit: Hmm well Occasional certainly isn't arguing against freedom of speech. Thus, this post is basically worthless.
posted
"Yes, but not about certain things. Temple ordinances are one of those things."
Isn't this ALSO untrue? I mean, I was under the impression that the Temple rituals had changed considerably over the years; this is fairly well-documented, in fact.
If the Prophet doesn't decide to change these rituals, who does?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are talking about the attitudes, not the actual ceremonies.
The major point I am trying to make is that Mormons will never NOT be offended. It doesn't matter what your intentions or how it is presented are going to be. It is true I cannot stop anyone from doing whatever they want with what we hold as sacred. That has been the way it has been since the very first years of Temple ordinances. I do expect, however, a little consideration of respect for the feelings and beliefs of others.
To break it down into the simplest of terms:
"I find this offensive because we hold it sacred in a secret way."
"Why should you be offended when the message is more positive than you are giving it credit?"
"Because the inclusion itself is a negative message as it devalues, intentionally or not, the Holy significants of its secret sacredness."
"Well, I can do this if I want, and the artist has every right to do this."
"You know, your right. But, it does not and will not make it any less offensive under the guise of art or right."
"If you don't like it, than don't go see it."
"Great idea as I never intended to anyway. But, its existance is no less offensive if I go see it or not."
posted
Well then there's nothing else to be accomplished here.
Oh I'll promise to never make a robot that wears the sacred garments and call it art.
(I would have said play, poem, story, but I'm not an artist by profession at least so that was as good of a promise as I can make. )
Posts: 872 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
1. The whole point of living prophets is that the LDS Church is not immutable, althought it may be slow to change. We can argue about whether the changes made are in direct response to societal pressures and values and are made for political reasons; however, Mormons believe that any changes that are made are sanctioned by God -- and sanctioned via revelation received by the prophet and confirmed by the rest of the members of the quorum of the twelve. We have the fortune of believing in a God that works to actively shapes his body of believers to meet [and challenge and accept] the demands of the age, and one who also lets us figure some things out on our own.
And, yes, Tom is right. There have been changes made to the temple ceremony. However it is not appropriate for us [meaning us Mormons] to discuss those changes on this site. I will only say this: while the Mormon temple ceremony and other elements of Mormon theology may be of interest on an academic level. Naturally, the true power of these rites and doctirnes [and I mean power in the most elemental form of the word] can only be appraised in the context of exposure to them through worship in the temple by worthy members who are ready to receive this knowledge. That sounds elitist. That echoes all the mystery rites from ages past and present. But it is true. And it is an expereince like no other -- one that offers a perspective of time and eternity that nothing else can approach. Yes, this is only my opinion. The subjective experience of one man. But what an experience. It is something unsurpassed, I think, in modern life.
2. I've seen the first part of Angels in America and have read many "Mormon" reactions to it. I did have a visceral negative reaction to some parts of it [although it had more to do with the incessant use of the f-word than the Mormon stuff -- at some point it lost its value as an explicative and just became boring]. And yes, at its core it is a radical-liberal, semi-Marxist political screed that in hindsight is rather shrill. It also is a decent work of art and uses elements of Mormonism in an artful way. I don't believe that Kushner was trying to defame Mormonism with this play. I believe him when he says that he researched Mormonism and also when he expresses reserved admiration for its vitality as one of the few truly "American" religions. His interest in Mormonism is that of an artist deeply involved in modern American life. Mormonism reflects both a conservatism *and* a vital, mystical religious experience for Kushner. He is using its people and symbols as an artist. Mormons can object to such contextualization of the Mormon experience, but I think the proper response in not one of outrage, but of sadness -- first, that he gets many things wrong, and second, that other artists (including Mormons) have yet to capture the faith and its people in an artistically mature way.
That said I don't know that I would recommend the play to fellow Mormons. I wouldn't even say it is a 'must-see' for culturally literate people. If it intrigues you, watch it or read it or go see a production of it. It is a somewhat moving story about AIDS and a somewhat tiresome story about homsexuality and conservative politics.
In my opinion, it doesn't do much to harm Mormons or Mormonism and it doesn't operate on the same plane as truly ugly anti-Mormon propaganda and 'art.' It is not an anti-Mormon tract.
I don't have time to talk about what Kushner gets wrong, but it has to do with the way in which his Mormons seem to be cut off from the body of the Saints. Of course, there are Mormons that are like this, but the way in which Kushner reifies his characters, turns them into 'types,' don't exactly ring true to me. My overall reaction was that Kushner worked too hard to fit his view of Mormonism into his political agenda and thus missed the true spirit of the faith. Not that that's a surprise.
For a sympathetic reading of the play by a Mormon see this AML review.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The character who above I stated as the most empathetic is also the biggest failure in the film. He is the only character in the film who isn't redeemed in some way. HE is the only person who doesn't stick to an ideal.
I guess Joe is worse off than Louis, but not by much... I was surprised that Louis is let off so easily at the end of the film. Louis had abandoned his lover to sicken and die, and it takes months for him to finally change his mind and try to do better... but only after his lover had already nearly died twice. I wonder if Prior and Belize are willing to forgive/tolerate him only because they see him as a flake who they shouldn't expect much from.
Joe's sad, but it seems like he's only worse off than Louis because he's not forgiven by Harper and Louis. (Hmm, maybe his mother would have the compassion to help him, if he didn't cut himself off from her... I can't remember now, how were Joe and his mom doing at the end?) Anyway, I wish that we could've seen Joe in the epilogue... but he's such a complex character that it's better to be left wondering what he'll do...
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kind of like why no Islamic-based films about Mohammad ever actually show Mohammed - from what I understand, it's against their teaching to depic him.
So if, say, a hollywood director were to make MOHAMMED: THE MOVIE, and even if it were a wonderful, fantastic, powerfully moving sympathetic accurate-to-the-Koran-and-Islamic-history depiction - Islamics would protest the hell out of the film if an actor was cast as Mohammed and they SHOWED HIS FACE.
posted
In all fairness, I think it's easier for people to sympathize with an interpretation of scripture that identifies religious iconography as idolatry than it is for them to understand a scripture that apparently calls for top secret underwear -- underwear that is SO secret, in fact, that it must be cut into pieces before it is thrown away.
Then again, religious dogma of any stripe has always been more than a little alien to me, so I'm entirely the wrong audience for a discussion of the merits of sacredness.
quote:Kind of like why no Islamic-based films about Mohammad ever actually show Mohammed - from what I understand, it's against their teaching to depic him.
So if, say, a hollywood director were to make MOHAMMED: THE MOVIE, and even if it were a wonderful, fantastic, powerfully moving sympathetic accurate-to-the-Koran-and-Islamic-history depiction - Islamics would protest the hell out of the film if an actor was cast as Mohammed and they SHOWED HIS FACE.
Yes, kind of the same thing.
Muslims do not depict Mohammed. There are no portraits, no lives of Mohammed. It's horribly offensive. It doesn't matter how much you think it shouldn't be, it still is. When you depict Mohammed, you are offending a sea of people and disrespecting the religion.
People will do it anyway, but don't wrap yourself in a mantle of "It's Art, and Not Offensive." It is offensive. You're just making a choice to do it anyway.
------
Tom, it's not an academic discussion. I know you don't consider it a taboo subject, but many here do. Please.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: the self-congratulatory, smug, condescending, and hate-filled Angels in America. You'd think they had cured AIDS with this movie, instead of merely slandering people who don't believe in their PC religion.
Wish he could've gone into more detail about why he didn't like it... though from some of his other reviews of movies like American Beauty I can guess why...
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
i do not force people to live my religion, and all i ask is not to be forced to live their sacrelige.
i don't get offended much anymore because when i feel that twinge i my stomach that is a harbinger for offense i just walk away. no point wasting energy. that does not mean i don't believe people shouldn't try their best to be tactful, considerate, and tasteful. in fact, i usually find that art that does not take this attitude to be rather school-boy sniggering instead of witty or deep. art can still be obscene, but yes, artists have a right to be so. and i have a right to burn energy by being offended, i just don't find that to be a valuable use of my time.
in fact, the one thing that really offends me in reference to different portrayals of mormons in the media or academia or the art realm is the misspelling "morman." for goodness sakes, leave the h off my first name and watch your vowels, people! silly? perhaps.
edit: i still don't know if i spelled that one dang word right. yes, the irony is not lost on me despite my current exhausted state.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
