Mormon imagery runs deep in ‘Twilight’

Los Angeles • Ever since Bram Stoker’s Dracula began haunting the imagination in 1897, popular culture has identified Christian symbols — crucifixes, holy water, communion wafers — as weapons to ward off a blood-thirsty vampire.

The Twilight novels and film franchise have religious associations, too — most of them from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

As the film’s “Twi-hard” fans get ready for the third “Twilight” installment, “Eclipse,” to open in theaters Wednesday, few are likely to recognize the religious references in the film based on the novels by Stephenie Meyer, herself a Mormon.

“People make up all these Mormon references just so they can publish ‘Twilight’ articles in respectable publications like The New York Times,” actor Robert Pattinson (Edward, the film’s central vampire character), told Entertainment Weekly. “Even Stephenie said it doesn’t mean any of that.”

It’s possible that Meyer never set out to weave LDS imagery into the ‘Twilight’ background. Yet intentional or otherwise, it’s hard to ignore:

• The story’s teenage heroine, Bella, avoids coffee, tea, alcohol and tobacco — not unlike the Mormons’ “Word of Wisdom” health code. Bella also advises her father to “cut back on steak,” much like the LDS teaching to eat meat and poultry “sparingly.”

• Feminists have questioned Bella’s frequent cooking and cleaning — household chores that reflect a strong Mormon work ethic and traditional roles for women. The official motto for mostly Mormon Utah is “Industry,” and its symbol is the beehive.

• A crucial Mormon belief is that humans can become divine. In the “Twilight” series, the Cullen family of vampires once was human but now lives without death in a resurrected condition. Meyer describes the Cullens, particularly Edward, as “godlike” and “inhumanly beautiful.”

• Mormons believe angels are resurrected beings of flesh and bone. The most familiar is Moroni, who stands high atop LDS temples, trumpet in hand. The Book of Mormon, the faith’s trademark Scripture, says Moroni was a fifth-century prophet who visited church founder Joseph Smith. Smith described Moroni as radiating light and “glorious beyond description.”

Bella describes her vampire boyfriend, Edward, as an angel whom she cannot imagine “any more glorious.” Edward’s skin sparkles in the sunlight, and he visits Bella’s bedroom at night. But Mormon angels don’t have wings; in the “Twilight” film, Edward sits in the science lab, the outstretched wings of a stuffed white owl just over his shoulders.

• A unique LDS teaching is that marriages are “sealed” for eternity; spouses are referred to as eternal companions. Bella describes her relationship with Edward as “forever.”

• Bella and Edward’s marriage, and her quick pregnancy, underscore the Mormon emphasis on the family. But Bella’s half human/vampire fetus nearly destroys her, so her distraught husband suggests an abortion and artificial insemination. Mormons permit abortions if the mother’s life is in danger, and artificial insemination is an option for married couples.

Bella quickly vetoes abortion and artificial insemination, reinforcing the essential Mormon teaching of individual choice, or “agency.” Meyer has said that the apple on the cover of the first Twilight novel represents Eve’s choice in the Garden of Eden. The poster for “Eclipse” includes the line: “It all begins ... with a choice.” The patriarch of the vampire family, Carlisle Cullen, supports Bella when he explains that “it wouldn’t be right to make such a choice for her, to force her.”

Bram Stoker probably never imagined that vampires would represent a religious doctrine. But more than a century later, Twilight shows that these nocturnal creatures can accommodate just about anything.

Angela Aleiss teaches film and religion at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Nice deflection.

What do you mean "nice deflection?"
#1 I didn't know either the poster of this this thread -- or the individual posters themselves -- were the object of this thread.
#2 Is that the illusion or poor assumption you've been operating under on a number of these threads?
Is your goal to turn the focus from the content -- the issues involved...in this case, vampires and the Mormon worldviews of this author...to individual posters, using barbs and accusations to accomplish your goal?...

Do you realize the pattern -- at least when others have done this -- their apparent motivations have included either being a...
...subject disruptor...
...or a topic hijacker...
...so that, in turn, the messengers become the focus...
...and this because they either...
...can't -- or won't -- stay on topic???
...or...in some cases, a few posters eschew even trying to argue at any traditional FREEP standard level...they don't know how to dialogue at a knowledge exchange level -- they're more comfortable with a street-fighting, duke-it-out approach -- assigning labels, titles, putdowns, ya know the whole gamut of the personality plays...

Overall, Sam, how "rich" of a post here...the irony of accusing me of "deflecting" the topic from "me" -- as if I were this thread's subject...I will pray you acquire some discernment help on how to approach these threads.

I have generally found that other posters who want to get into a personality combat actually struggle very badly dealing with the issues-at-hand. Their seeming lone open-door resolve is to make these into some personality conflicts.

If you cannot refrain from attempting to make a number of our exchanges into such conflicts, it won't do us any good to further communicate. Why?

Because already on my end, your comments prompt me to wonder...

Is that how you treat your family members?
Your co-workers?
Your boss?
If you don't like the content of what one of them has said to you, do you turn it into a personality dress-down? Barbs? Accusations? Re-focusing from "issues" to the personalities" behind the issues.
But I don't want you to even answer these questions; they are rhetorical only -- and not meant to extract personal info about you (lest I be a hypocrite in what I'm saying here).

So, for re-emphasis purposes, here's my BIG DISCLAIMER to the above Q's: The above Q's are for rhetorical purposes only; unlike you, I don't want to hear your personal responses on this...because this thread is no more about YOU personally than it is ME personally. I raise these Qs only because it'd nice if you at least asked yourself how consistent are you in your overall relationships when it comes to conflict management. And the question I suggest you ask yourself is: Can you focus on the issues without converting people into those issues?

This is all a between you-and-God thing -- not a FReeper public matter. You don't need to be accountable to me.

But I value communicating with you, and unless we steer a clearer course with some boundaries, I'm afraid my temptation will be to address other posters, skirting past your comments.

C.S. Lewis once wrote that the Son of God becoming a man to save humanity could be compared to a man becoming a frog (a man-frog) to save all the frogs of the earth.

I would claim that any man becoming a man-frog to save frogs would be a really desperate act. I read a headline yesterday about the dolphins searching for clean water in the Gulf so they can survive. Could you imagine a man becoming a man-dolphin to save all these dolphins?

I'd say that would be not only desperate, but rather obsessive.

So if the Son of God was so clued in...
...to become a fetus...
...to become an infant whose diapers needed changing...
...to place Himself under the authority of mere human parents...
...to be subject to accusations that He was possessed by a demon (John 8)...
...to become a target for stoning and hate...
...to place Himself under the authority of civic leaders...
...to undergo whipping and lashing...
...to be nailed to the torture "machine" of their day -- the shame and scandal of a cross...
...to endure every single sin of every man and woman from history past to our history consummation...
...that's all rather "obsessive"...

So...consider the "Company" Christians keep.

Btw, an obsession can be good or bad.

(Hey, we at least generically/conceptually agree on something here -- even if we disagree on the details).

As the apostle Paul said (Gal. 4:18): It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good.

I didnt say you were deflecting the thread’s topic.

I didn't say you were -- unless you were making this thread's topic, me (which you started to do -- and continue to hijack this thread as a topic disruptor).

You were deflecting a statement about you.

But I'm not the thread's topic, now am I? (So why do you keep trying? Is it because it's the only bait you have that tends to work? What? Not successful this Summer at the lakes fish-wise?)

He said you had an obsession, and your reply was the Mormons have an obsession.

You know at times past, when you enter CA, they've checked fruit in vehicles for the California fruit fly. Those border guys are "fruit inspectors."

Likewise, if a poster is going to self-identify as the "Fellow Poster Obsession Fruit Inspector," I prefer noting what consistency -- or inconsistency -- they demonstrate toward all posters who have overt earmarks of zealousness or overzealousness.

If they give some posters,
some institutions,
some entities...
...a free pass on such Qs, they somehow just don't appear to be really interested in measuring the overall level of fervency and zeal out there, now do they? IOW, all they are usually trying to do, is to turn the discussion from what's posted to the who is doing the posting.

You still havent shown how Twilight is based off Mormonism.

That's your opinion. You're welcome to it. I didn't write the article; I merely posted it. If you don't think the journalist fully proved her point, fine. My world doesn't revolve around somehow constructing proof to overcome your high hurdles.

Facts are facts. Mormon worldviews are Mormon worldviews. Some of those worldviews made it into the book. Some of them made it into the movie. (I don't think you'll keel over & die over such a "Captain Obvious" conclusion; I mean, you didn't even flinch when MNehring said that in post #16...strange non-reaction from a knee-jerker like yourself)

In fact, that's actually what is really amazing: Yes, I went into more detail than poster mnehring; but my basic premise in a few of my posts matched what mnehring said in post #16: "That’s a big Captain Obvious article. Of course an author is going to write from the perspective of their experience. In the same way, you can find Catholic imagery all through Ann Rice’s Vampire novels."

Do you object to poster MNehring's conclusion in post #16?
If so, why no comment to him/her?
Why direct at least three or so posts to go after my similar position -- yet you've ignored the same basic premise conveyed by MNehring?
Instead of challenging MNehring's post #16, what do we see coming from you? Why lookie at post #73, where you manage to both "high-five" MNehring in agreement for another post (#19) -- showing that, yes, you were, after all, paying attention to what MNehring was writing...
...all the while gossiping about me/perhaps others -- without bothering to ping whatever other posters you're referencing there.
Rhetorical Q: Do you always go around mentioning people behind their backs on these threads without pinging them?
Who were you referencing in posts #73 & #87...phantom FReeper bogeymen?
Is this how your Christian parents taught you to behave?
And if my positional premise is essentially "Amening" MNehring's chorus of saying, "Of course an author is going to write from the perspective of their experience"...when are you going to get around to pinging MNehring with a concern about that position?
Or, could it be, Sam, that his/her position isn't what's really bothering you on this thread?(foremost, anyway)?

You see, Sam, you've made it all too easy to pinpoint what your true primary motivations are. You're not really interested in discussing the "on the face of it" merits of whether Meyer's Mormonism was injected into 'Twilight,' are you?

We don't even have to engage in guesswork. You laid your motivations as to what really bothers you -- why, it's right there in posts #87 and #73. It seems you said something about how "you go nuts" and you "don't like it" not even relating to Meyer's Mormonism or her 'Twilight' products.

Well, I think I've addressed your "nuttiness" long enough to last for the remainder of the calendar year. And until you show you are provoked by the prima facia issues here -- and challenge MNehring the way you challenged me -- all it shows is that your accusations have been designed to...
...hijack the thread...
..make it about me...
...all because you're provoked by broader issues...

And since you and Mr. Mormon apologist, Paragon Defender, have elected to self-identify as "Fellow Poster Obsession Fruit Inspectors" -- but for some reason you allow vehicles with "Lds bumper stickers" through the border minus any true obsession fruit inspection -- if you were refereeing a football game, it'd be obvious to all that your red flags for one team are tossed in the air...all the while your flags for the other team are glued in your pocket.

(BTW, we have Flying Inman badge insignia producers. We could produce your personal Honorary "obsession inspector" badges for you and Paragon Defender...that way, even though we carry no FR authority, 'twill at least be better than your self-designated roles you've both assumed :) )

(As to the WESLEYAN???)

It was Saturday evening, March '81, and I was looking at the church ads in the morning Indianapolis Star to see if there were any Baptist churches in my area.

As I flipped thru the couple of pages, I 'heard' an almost audible voice say, "What about the church around the corner?"

I looked around to see who was speaking and saw no one, as I was alone in the house. Spooky!

So, as it was supper time, I drove out to a restaurant and by that church as well.

W-E-S-L-E-Y-A-N

HMmmm... What if they are WIERD? I'd never HEARD of Wesleyans before! What if they have - GASP! - SNAKES???

Sunday morning found me at their door and have been there ever since.

Yup; they were weird all right; for they took ME in!

Has it been all peaches and cream SINCE that time?

HA!

I had LOTS of 'baggage' as they say, but He's still workin; on me, to make me what I ought to be...

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.