Posted on 03/10/2009 9:56:27 AM PDT by restornu
SALT LAKE CITY 9 March 2009 Like other large faith groups, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sometimes finds itself on the receiving end of attention from Hollywood or Broadway, television series or books, and the news media. Sometimes depictions of the Church and its people are quite accurate. Sometimes the images are false or play to stereotypes. Occasionally, they are in appallingly bad taste.
As Catholics, Jews and Muslims have known for centuries, such attention is inevitable once an institution or faith group reaches a size or prominence sufficient to attract notice. Yet Latter-day Saints – sometimes known as Mormons - still wonder whether and how they should respond when news or entertainment media insensitively trivialize or misrepresent sacred beliefs or practices.
Church members are about to face that question again. Before the first season of the HBO series Big Love aired more than two years ago, the show’s creators and HBO executives assured the Church that the series wouldn’t be about Mormons. However, Internet references to Big Love indicate that more and more Mormon themes are now being woven into the show and that the characters are often unsympathetic figures who come across as narrow and self-righteous. And according to TV Guide, it now seems the show’s writers are to depict what they understand to be sacred temple ceremonies.
Certainly Church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding. Last week some Church members began e-mail chains calling for cancellations of subscriptions to AOL, which, like HBO, is owned by Time Warner. Certainly such a boycott by hundreds of thousands of computer-savvy Latter-day Saints could have an economic impact on the company. Individual Latter-day Saints have the right to take such actions if they choose.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an institution does not call for boycotts. Such a step would simply generate the kind of controversy that the media loves and in the end would increase audiences for the series. As Elder M. Russell Ballard and Elder Robert D. Hales of the Council of the Twelve Apostles have both said recently, when expressing themselves in the public arena, Latter-day Saints should conduct themselves with dignity and thoughtfulness.
Not only is this the model that Jesus Christ taught and demonstrated in his own life, but it also reflects the reality of the strength and maturity of Church members today. As someone recently said, “This isn’t 1830, and there aren’t just six of us anymore.” In other words, with a global membership of thirteen and a half million there is no need to feel defensive when the Church is moving forward so rapidly. The Church’s strength is in its faithful members in 170-plus countries, and there is no evidence that extreme misrepresentations in the media that appeal only to a narrow audience have any long-term negative effect on the Church.
Examples:
During the Mitt Romney election campaign for the presidency of the United States, commentator Lawrence O’Donnell hurled abuse at the Church in a television moment that became known among many Church members as “the O’Donnell rant.” Today, his statements are remembered only as a testament to intolerance and ignorance. They had no effect on the Church that can be measured.
When the comedy writers for South Park produced a gross portrayal of Church history, individual Church members no doubt felt uncomfortable. But once again it inflicted no perceptible or lasting damage to a church that is growing by at least a quarter of a million new members every year.
When an independent film company produced a grossly distorted version of the Mountain Meadows Massacre two years ago, the Church ignored it. Perhaps partly as a result of that refusal to engender the controversy that the producers hoped for, the movie flopped at the box office and lost millions.
In recent months, some gay activists have barraged the media with accusations about “hateful” attitudes of Latter-day Saints in supporting Proposition 8 in California, which maintained the traditional definition of marriage. They even organized a protest march around the Salt Lake Temple. Again, the Church has refused to be goaded into a Mormons versus gays battle and has simply stated its position in tones that are reasonable and respectful. Meanwhile, missionary work and Church members in California remain as robust and vibrant as ever, and support for the Church has come from many unexpected quarters — including some former critics and other churches.
Now comes another series of Big Love, and despite earlier assurances from HBO it once again blurs the distinctions between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the show’s fictional non-Mormon characters and their practices. Such things say much more about the insensitivities of writers, producers and TV executives than they say about Latter-day Saints.
If the Church allowed critics and opponents to choose the ground on which its battles are fought, it would risk being distracted from the focus and mission it has pursued successfully for nearly 180 years. Instead, the Church itself will determine its own course as it continues to preach the restored gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world.
Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread
can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.
Continue…..
Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
Let me get this straight: LDS introduce polygamy into our culture and practice it for a century. Then they do the hand-off to their spiritual stepkids -- the fLDS -- who continue to practice it for another 70+ years.
All along the LDS and fLDS attempt to spiritualize this practice by surrounding it with a spiritual ritual. So, when the media merely imitates (non-reality) what the LDS have been doing for 170 years (reality), the reality polygamists have a cow over non-reality. (Oh, that makes a lot of sense)
OK, this article makes a claim that the film company "grossly distorted" the Mountain Meadows Massacre. How did the film do this?
And frankly, since such a provocative claim is made in this article, I'm not sure how you can properly maintain such an "ecumenical" tag on this article.
(Since Colorcountry is the descendent of one of the LDS perpetrators of MMM, I'd like to hear from her what distortions there were in the film -- and if they were indeed "gross.")
A little payback for Prop 8? We recently held our Stake roadshows. One of the roadshows included a gag with the kids performing a "Prop 8 - The Musical" that was being performed all over the south west. I found it quite amusing as I believe there were some folks on the other side who did an anti-Prop 8 production of some sort.
Definitely the best approach. I believe there was a talk in the last General Conference to that effect.
I know Tom Hanks is the one who made all of the hoopla a few months back about Proposition 8!
People will do what they want an it is they who will answer for their words as well as any of us!
“Ecumenical” only requires that all correspondents NOT be antagonistic. Anyone can post as long as (s)he complies.
Yes. But also see my latest post. This whole article gets into areas which are highly provocative -- and to expect posters to remain unprovoked is going to take a lot of self-restraint -- when the writer of this article didn't show a lot of it himself.
I would say mention of the O'Donnell incident alone is problematic for ecumenical discussion. (Now I'm not saying it's impossible -- just lending itself to being problematic)
You don’t have it straight, not by a mile. Just the usual bile (rhyme not intended). The church did not practice polygamy for “100 years” nor did it turn it over to it’s “spritiual step children”. If you are really interested try the following link, you might find it helpful.
http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf
If it is too difficult for you to approach the subject without being antagonistic, then you must leave the thread. There are plenty of “open” threads in the Religion Forum to air such things. And if a suitable one does not exist, then you can create a new thread.
I'm afraid it did.
It overtly stopped new polygamous unions in 1890.
It covertly stopped new polygamous unions around 1910 (Hardy's book A Solemn Covenant documents over 200 new such unions BY NAME that were covertly solemnized by the church between 1890 and 1910).
And then what? Do you think LDS polygamous unions just disintegrated? Do you think LDS church officials forced already polygamous families to just split apart? No, the record shows that many polygamous unions remained well into the 1930s until LDS "prophet" Grant began his reformation. And it was this reformation that led in part to the formation of the fLDS.
It was this 1930s-1940s generation of Mormons who thought that "celestial marriage" should be continued on earth. Therefore, these so-called spiritual step-kids only embraced what their parents and grandparents embraced. They were only embracing the "faith of their fathers."
All I'm saying is that articles that tend to lend themselves to ecumenical discussions aren't protagonistic to begin with. I guess long-term it might be helpful if the guidelines were updated to at least suggest that protagonistic articles are best to remain outside of ecumenical labeling.
***OK, this article makes a claim that the film company “grossly distorted” the Mountain Meadows Massacre. How did the film do this? ***
Was it more distorted than the old movie BRIGHAM YOUNG in which Vincent Price played Joseph Smith in a very unrelistic death in the Carthage jail?
That film also flopped, even in Utah.
Based on my belief in the truthfulness of the Church and the restored Gospel I choose not to view the issue in the same way you do. Since I believe the Church is headed by Jesus Christ through a living prophet on the earth I have no problem with it because I know I can find out for myself the truth as I already have. If the Lord from time to time authorizes the practice, as he has in the past, then that's good enough for me. Otherwise I must condemn Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and others who likewise lived it.
I am not familiar with the book you cite, but I believe that if the Church removed authorization for the practice at the time the manifesto was issued, then it did. I would need to see evidence of the explicit authorization from the First Presidency of the Church for continued “covert plural marriages” until 1910. Additionally, you would need to show me that these were valid ceremonies performed by authorized servants, and not attempts by those soon to apostatize to continue the practice without authority.
Would I expect the Church to break up existing families, married when the practice was authorized? No.
Take care,
Honest commentary is welcome on these threads.
Haun’s Mill.
Was it more distorted than the movie musical PAINT YOUR WAGON?
Oh, Heavens! Clint Eastwood....SINGING! Deliver us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.