Trouble in Zion Poster

Kenny Ballantine is in the process of producing a documentary called Trouble in Zion.  The documentary discusses the events leading up to the 1838 Mormon War in Missouri.  It highlights the Extermination Order and Haun’s Mill Massacre, as well as events leading up to these terrible events.  Kenny showed a pre-release version of the film at the Mormon History Association in Independence, Missouri in May, and he is also showing the film at Sunstone here in Salt Lake City in August.  I really enjoyed the film, and highly recommend it.  I thought Kenny was pretty even-handed, and had experts discuss reactions by both Mormons and non-Mormons which escalated the violence.

Following the presentation at the MHA Conference, Ballentine explained that he didn’t want his documentary to look like a Ken Burns documentary.  A fan of comic books, Kenny found a comic book illustrator to show scenes depicting the conflict.  It took me a while to get used to the comic book art, but it is starting to grow on me.  Kenny was kind enough to give me an advanced copy, and I would like to offer some of my impressions about the film and the conflict.  I hope he stops by to answer questions too!

I was really impressed with the lineup of experts Kenny interviewed.  The most famous people include Richard Bushman, LDS assistant historian Richard Turley, CoC Apostle Andrew Bolton, Washington State University Religion and Sociology professor Armand Mauss, and BYU Church History professor Alex Baugh, among an impressive list of guests.  He outlined a series of events leading up to the Hauns Mill Massacre and the Extermination Order.  Here are some of the key events:

• July 20, 1833.  Bishop Partridge is told to leave Jackson County immediately.  He refuses and is tarred and feathered.  Three days later, he signs an agreement to leave the county.  Ballentine doesn’t really address the reasons why the Missourians were upset at the Mormons, though he does mention that the first Missourians wanted slavery to be legal, while the Mormons from the North were generally against slavery.  WW Phelps published an article in the Evening and Morning Star that Mormons wanted to welcome people of all color.  This is the reason the Missourians were upset, which is why they attacked Bishop Partridge, and destroyed the Mormon printing press.  (Joseph was living in Kirtland at this time.)
• July 4, 1838.  Rigdon issued another fiery patriotic sermon (following his “Salt Sermon”) stating that the Mormons and Missourians would wage a “war of extermination…one party or the other”.  It seems the subsequent Extermination Order by Governor Boggs wasn’t quite what Rigdon had in mind.
• Aug 6, 1838 – Mormons in Daviess County were prevented from voting.  The Whig candidate said Mormons were only supposed to live in Caldwell County and should be ineligible to vote.  He was concerned that Mormons would vote for the Democratic Candidate, because Mormons were overwhelming Democrats back then.  A big brawl broke out that has often been called a “battle”.  There were exaggerated rumors that Mormons were killed.
• Aug 19, 1838 – Mormons were expelled from DeWitt, in Daviess County.  Following the election, Missourians decided to expel Mormons.
• Oct 18, 1838 – The Mormons decide to retaliate.  Known as the Daviess Expedition, a group of Danites (a secret Mormon militia group) led an effort to expel Missourians from Gallatin, Millport and Grindstone Fork.   Mormons plundered the property and burned the stores and houses to the ground.
• Oct 24, 1838 – The Battle of Crooked River.  Mormons attack and scatter the Missouri Militia.  Many of the Missouri Militia erroneously believe all others are killed.  Only 1 Missourian was killed, but LDS Apostle David Patten (known as “Captain FearNot”), Danite leader Gideon Carter were both killed; 9 other Mormons were wounded.
• Oct 27, 1838 – Governor Lilburn Boggs issues the Extermination Order; “the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace…”
• October 30, 1838 – The Hauns Mill Massacre; 18 Mormons are killed, ranging in age from 10-year old Sardius Smith, to 62 year old Thomas McBride.  I would like to quote directly from the film.

“On October 30, 1838, a large group of armed Missourians marched on the small and peaceful Mormon settlement known as Haun’s Mill, primarily in retribution for the Mormon gutting of Daviess County.

…

Amanda [Barnes Smith]’s two little boys, Sardius and Alma had followed their father into the blacksmith shop.  The men had hoped to use the shop like a fortress in the event of an attack.  Instead, it quickly proved to be a death trap.  Seeing no other alternative, the men made a desperate dash for the woods, nearly all of them being gunned down in the process.  Many of the attackers looted, humiliated, and brutalized the wounded and dying.  The oldest victim was 62 year old Thomas McBride who after surrendering his weapon was hacked to death with a corn knife.  And the youngest was 10 year old Sardius Smith.  An enraged Missourian leveled his gun against the small boy’s head, and after proclaiming that ‘nits become lice” pulled the trigger.

Amanda found her husband and 10 year old son Sardius dead, and her 6 year old son’s hip was “all shot to pieces.”Apostle Andrew Bolton of the Community of Christ said,

“Hauns Mill was a tragedy:  17 boys and men are killed and another one dies later from his wounds.  Hauns Mill was a peaceful settlement of Mormons: 15 miles from the main group in Far West, but therefore isolated and vulnerable in the sectarian war that was erupting around them.  Two days before the massacre they reiterated their commitment to live in peace with their neighbors.  This was a genuine, authentic group that didn’t want any part of the violence and suffered horrible tragedy.  The lesson from Haun’s Mill is the innocent get hurt whenever there is human violence.  It spills over, and there is tragedy.

So how does such a tragedy happen?  Why do neighbors turn so quickly on each other?  In my previous post, I discussed the Rwandan Genocide.  Armand Mauss describes the “Moral Panic” in Ballentine’s film.  He is professor emeritus of Sociology and Religious Studies at Washington State University.  He retired in 1999, but continues to be active on Mormon studies.  He is probably most famous for his book The Angel and the Beehive.  The Moral Panic explains how groups turn so quickly violent.

When a society is gripped by a moral panic, that society is apt to respond as though their facing matters of life and death.  That leads to violence that is considered justifiable in almost any extreme, because of what we see is at stake.  It makes it possible for people who yesterday felt very friendly toward another people, suddenly see those people not only as enemies, but as less than human.”

…

All of the restraints that people normally feel about the way human beings should treat human beings, those restraints gradually melt away, and people who are perfectly nice, decent people, find themselves doing things that they would have never thought that they could do….Under other circumstances a group of Mormons and a group of Missourians might have gone to dinner together and had a good time, but under these circumstances, they faced the Moral Panic.”

It is truly astonishing how quickly neighbor can turn against neighbor.  It is truly a tragedy when cooler heads do not prevail.

As I said before, I really enjoyed Ballentine’s film.  There is much more to the film than I have presented here.  If you get a chance to see this film at Sunstone, I encourage you to see it.  I know Ballentine is still trying to obtain financing to finish the film.  While it is not yet complete, I think it is an excellent film at this point.  If you would like a preview, click here to watch some clips from the official website.  I’ve invited Kenny to stop by, and I am sure he would welcome questions and comments.

Go with God, Grasshopper.

[poll id="9"]

If your favorite actor is not listed here, who would you choose and why?

What was your favorite martial arts movie?  Individual character role?

No finale can truly live up to the expectations of its fans.  Finales can be maudlin (Cheers), sentimental (M*A*S*H), or downright hostile to the loyal fans (Seinfeld).  Some finales wrap everything up in a neat bow (Bob Newhart Show), while others leave things enigmatic and open (Veronica Mars, although clearly not their fault–they got canceled).

The updated show, which just ended after 4 very full seasons this week, brought us a bleak picture of humanity, characters who discovered they were Cylons when they thought they were humans, and humans who didn’t know what they were.  It had moments of brilliance, flashes of insight, and heart-breaking humanity at times.  That brings us to the finale.  IMO, the finale, while not a total disaster, had some serious flaws:

• Navel-gazing flashbacks that didn’t move the ball forward. There are flashbacks for several of the main characters.  None of those flashbacks is useful at either new character development (it’s the finale anyway) or at moving the ball forward on the story.  Little of importance is revealed.  The flashbacks seem self-indulgent:
  • Ellen & Tigh.  They like to party, and they’re in love.  We know that.
  • Adama.  He’s full of moxy, hates authority (except his own) and is capable of getting drunk enough that he can vomit on himself without trying to clean it up.  Not big news.
  • Roslin.  Her close family was killed in an auto accident, and she slept with someone much younger than her which is why she decided to get back into politics.  So what?
  • Lee & Kara. They had yet another near-miss, although this one was certainly the most sordid of all and doesn’t reflect well on either of them.  It seems a bit out of character for both, in retrospect:  for Lee because he was so passive for the first few seasons (why he lost Kara to Anders), and for Kara because she was so in love with Zach that she barely knew Lee existed.  Continuity, people!
• Unanswered questions. There are a lot of very big, very important questions left open:
  • Who is Daniel? There’s one Cylon model missing who was boxed by a jealous Cavill, his brother Daniel.  Presumably, we’ve seen one of the Daniel models before, wandering around among the humans (otherwise, what a wasted opportunity!)  Many fans have suggested that Kara Thrace’s missing piano-playing father was Daniel (making Kara the first real half-human/half-Cylon; suck on that, Hera), but Ron Moore has denied that suggestion (hate fans much?) without offering any better one.
  • What is Kara? At the end of the series, she’s been killed, come back to life somehow, cremated herself, and then announced cryptically that she’s done with her journey; then, mid-conversation with Lee, she just disappears.  I’ll be honest, there are a lot of things they could have done with this.  The scene is reminiscent of Greek mythology, how the immortal Gods and Goddesses appear among mortals and then are suddenly gone.  But this again is just left hanging.  Answers are not likely forthcoming as Katee Sackhoff has not signed on for the fall’s BSG movie The Plan (which is a flashback anyway).  It just seems polite for someone to ‘fess up to who resurrected her, how, why, and what that makes her now.
  • What are Head Six and Head Baltar? Regardless of all that, the hallucinations/angels known to fans as Head Six and Head Baltar are walking through a modern-day version of Times Square at the end musing on how humanity always seems to end up at the same place regardless of the location:  Kobol, Caprica, the original Earth, and now the second Earth.  But no one is there hallucinating them.  What the heck are they?  Is there some mythology that is meant to explain who or what they are?  Hello?
• Gaping continuity problem OR wasted opportunity.  This is my biggest issue with the series finale.  The crew arrives at a pre-historic earth, roughly 150,000 years before an earth that is similar to our present day earth.  The crew decides that they will populate this planet, splitting up to the various land masses, live quietly and teach language to the indigenous people (alien seeding theory, to those evolutionists out there).  There are a few problems with that notion, one literary, one scientific:
  • Scientific Issue:  Humans didn’t develop written language until about 10,000 years ago, yet these guys were going to be teaching language to pre-historic humans 140,000 years before that?  I don’t think so.  That would have to move human evolution along much faster, too.  The development of language is one of the most pivotal moments in human development.
  • Literary Issue:  The characters populating earth have names that are significant to our world history, yet they have been placed there at the wrong time to have been the basis for those cultural events:
    • Galen is going to live alone in a cold island off the biggest land mass.  Perhaps his name is intended to be the basis for the Gaelic language?  Nope, sorry–you’re off by over 140,000 years.
    • There are many characters with names associated with Greece through geography (Thrace = Thracia) or through mythology (Apollo, Athena, Hera, the names of the 12 colonies).  But, that can’t be right.  They’re off by about 142,000 years!
    • Adama could be the basis for mythology about Adam, but again, unlikely given the lapse of 140,000 years between their landing date and written human history.
    • There are many religious concepts associated with the show that could have been woven into earth’s mythology, but now can’t be due to the 140,000 year gap between their landing and recorded history.  Some of the themes:  resurrection, a Sun God, Icarus, the nature of angels, the will of God (or the gods), the nature of prophets, etc.  So instead, we have to believe that earth developed all of those independently at a later point in earth’s development, despite the coincidence.

So, for those of you who are fans (and if you’re not, you were warned to skip this post), what did you think of the Series Finale?  Better than you expected?  A disappointment?  Somewhere in between?  Discuss.

Interestingly enough, Tom Hanks was briefly identified as a Mormon (although he was not baptized) when his stepmother Winifred joined the church.  However, his father Amos was not interested in the Mormon church, and according to an unauthorized biography, Tom saw this as one reason they split up.  Tom stated later that he was no longer a Mormon, and he also believed his ex-stepmother had left Mormonism.  Tom made his way through several different religions over time as you can see here.

Speaking of his involvement in the show Big Love, Hanks said (with my parenthetical comments inserted):

The truth is this takes place in Utah (the truth is that it’s a fictional show), the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church (the truth is these are fictional characters based loosely on some bizarre offshoots; but KUDOS for the “bizarre offshoot” remark), and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen (why do I picture someone making air quotes when they say “happen”?).  There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American and I am one of them.  I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here’s what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed and people can see who’s responsible (is he now talking about the Prop 8 maps that identified donors, essentially putting targets on their backs for gay activists?) and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting constitution and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards (I’m not even sure this sentence went forward instead of backwards). So lets have faith in not only the American (not Mormons who are UNAmerican for voting for Prop 8), but Californian constitutional process (so, have faith in Americans, but if they vote wrong, have faith in the constitutional process to correct that).

Then, Tom did a fairly nice reversal of his statement:

Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California’s Proposition 8 as “un-American.” I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination.  But everyone has a right to vote their conscience – nothing could be more American. To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are “un-American” creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement.  No one should use “un- American” lightly or in haste.  I did.  I should not have. (I really like the terseness and directness of the last few statements.  Apologizers, watch and learn).

Obviously, the reversal of his statements (which was doubtless prompted by those who have a financial stake in his popularity) doesn’t necessarily mean he’s ready for a group hug.  So, what are Tom Hanks’ true feelings about Mormons?  Here’s a guess:

• He’s an activist for gay rights.  Like most of Hollywood, he’s an SSM activist and considers those not ready for SSM to be discriminatory.  It’s hard to blame him for his sheltered Hollywood existence, though.  When you spend most of your time around like-minded people, you develop group-think.  I’m sure we can all relate on some level.  In summary:  his feelings are pro-SSM, not anti-Mormon.
• He’s spiritual, not religious.  He saw his ex-stepmother as flaky (looking at his own religious history I say “physician, heal thyself”) and therefore attracted to Mormonism as a phase; he probably doesn’t take it very seriously as a religion (see:  Hollywood).
• He’s an artist.  We see Hollywood as a money machine; they see themselves as creative artists, holding a mirror up to the human experience.  Tom Hanks strives to make characters (even the polygamous Hendricksons) understandable, human, accurate, and relatable.  Showing the Mormon temple ceremony is not being done as payback (although he does resent Prop 8); it’s being done for accuracy and to render Barb Hendrickson more human.  And he is just an EP, not a writer for the show (that would be Dustin Lance Black, the gay ex-Mormon who gave the impassioned speech at the Oscars).

So, that’s my view.  I’m inclined to cut Hanks some slack.  Plus, I somewhat think there’s no such thing as bad press (even all that bad press out there).  Not many Mormons watch Big Love, but many do watch Tom Hanks.  I think his apology was adequate, and I don’t consider his work mean-spirited (although I hated the mullet he sported in DaVinci Code).  It’s a low bar, but high enough for me.  Discuss.

The only time I have seen Big Love is on a transatlantic flight back home to Salt Lake.  My initial thoughts were how amazing to have a church just like ours (almost) right in our back door and no one seems to know of it, as they keep it fairly discreet on the show.

From what I saw these Josephites seem to be very similar (i.e. Family Prayer, FHE, Family Council, even similar programs and auxiliaries).  They even seemed to act like Mormons I grew up with.

Since there was a split of Josephites from the Brighamites, wouldn’t most of these branches have similar temple ceremonies to ours?  If so shouldn’t they be the ones who are offended, not the Brighamites?

Big Love episode draws criticism from LDS Church

Before the first season of the HBO series Big Love aired more than two years ago, the show’s creator and HBO assured the Church that the series wouldn’t be about Mormons.

Here

Big Love Series to Show Rites from LDS Temples

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) – The HBO series “Big Love” will show its version of temple rites belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The episode is scheduled to air Sunday, March 15.

Here

‘Big Love’s’ promise to show LDS temple rituals has many crying foul

Richard Cowan, a BYU professor of church history and doctrine, said:  ”It isn’t something that we want to keep away from everyone who isn’t a member of our faith, but rather something we would like to share with those who are personally and spiritually prepared to appreciate it.”

Here

‘Big Love’ prompts LDS Church response and analysis

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.

Here

Please discuss anything and everything.

Recently I saw Religulous here and he touched on Horus here and a few of the parallels between the story of Horus and Jesus.

Many Mormons when they start delving and  unravelling events in our history also delve into what they can find out about (possible origins)

to the bible or even if you want to say conspiracy theories. Horus is one I have heard of members in our church and Christians of all faiths looking into as they go deeper into their historical studies of the Bible. Look at some of the comparisons sited by religious tolerance

Questions

Is this whole thing grasping at straws or is it uncanny the parallels between the two stories of Horus and Jesus?

Please Discuss

Notes: Religous Tolerance

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2009/01/25/horus-bible-parallels/feed/ 21 http://mormonmatters.org/2009/01/23/a-brand-new-year/ http://mormonmatters.org/2009/01/23/a-brand-new-year/#comments Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:15:39 +0000 James http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3933

The onset of 2009 brings an opportunity for young people of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to renew their commitment to their faith while participating in a program of instruction, song and dance that reviews the activities of 2008. The program also introduces their theme as Mormon youth for the new year: “Be thou an example of the believers” (1 Timothy 4:12)

Wow I had never seen such a sleek production done by the church some blogs have compared it too watching High School Musical. See you tube video here (please click high quality when you watch it).

Its a whole new media style and attitude I have never seen in our church.

Click here to see the News Press.Click here to Brand New Year Website – I found the videos pretty up beat and interesting. My English daughter who is out of young women’s found it cheesy-she thinks most American things are.  My wife thought it was a little too manufactured and OTT but she is English to.

What do you think?

Have any of the youth in your wards seen in it live or watched it ?

Did they enjoy it or not?

What are the hallmarks of a great novel?

• Plot.  There must be conflict.  There has to be a climax and a denouement.
• Character development.  Characters have to be full human beings, warts and all, with flaws and redeeming qualities.  Protagonists must change over the course of the novel.
• Themes.  A great novel will speak to the range of human experience through themes that transcend time and culture.
• Courage.  An author of a great novel has to be willing to speak unsavory truths, to look into the abyss, and to expose vulnerabilities (both his/her own and those of his/her subject).
• Novelty.  “There’s nothing new under the sun” as it says in Ecclesiastes, but a great novel has to feel fresh anyway.  It has to say something better than those who have said it before.

What prevents a novel from being great (aside from just bad writing)?

• Censorship.  The opposite of courage (in writing) is censorship, whether it is self-censorship or by others.  Having one eye on public relations creates a casualty of courage.  Without courage, topics like sexuality, violence, and even the topic of censorship itself can be omitted or glossed over.  This can result in a work that is toothless, gutless and crotchless.
• Superficiality.  Creating inauthentic or two-dimensional characters, or focusing solely on the characters or themes with weak plot development can result in a work that lacks depth.  Creating depth requires having depth; in some ways, Mormons spend our lives trying to avoid depth.  We know there is a “dark side” to humanity, and we stay as far away from it as we can.  Writers have to write about what they know, and if you don’t know the depths of your soul, it’s hard to write about that convincingly.

The ”great Mormon novel” has the added difficulty of subject matter.  If you are writing a Mormon novel (in the sense that Graham Greene wrote Catholic novels or Chaim Potok wrote Jewish novels), your novel will have Mormon themes.  If your novel is to have depth, it must cover the range of human experience, both the good and the bad.  And in so doing, there will likely be elements that are both loyal and disloyal to the church.  Those elements of disloyalty (even characters with internal conflict) can cause self-censorship as well as censorship (discouragement) by the group.

So, let’s talk about Twilight.  Twilight is an enormously popular book with a specific target audience.  It is a huge success by most measures.  I don’t think anyone would credibly argue it has a permanent place in the canon of literature, so it is not really up for consideration as “The Great Mormon Novel.”  But how Mormon is it?  This is a question being debated here.  A few opposing viewpoints that were shared (you can read the comments in their entirety in the link):

Andrew Oh-Willeke said:  “One way to read the story allegorically is that the Cullen’s (the good vampire family, if you weren’t paying attention) are the Mormons. They, given the free will to choose between right and wrong in this world have chosen virtue and abstinance despite temptation, in their diet, and in how they choose to love. . . There are also strong associations in the books between vampires and angels, mirroring the importance of angels in LDS scripture. The vampires are described as seraphic, and glimmer in the sun. They aren’t necessarily angels themselves, but are close to angels.  [I]t is a story full of LDS dog whistles.”

Mormon Soprano retorts:  “I submit to you that Meyer’s books are the antithesis of Mormon doctrine, and should be disturbing to any faithful active member. . . Just reading these books causes erotic thoughts and feelings because of what the characters are doing to and with each other. . .  Stephanie Meyer’s books are such a big hit with “the world” because they are titilating. . . The tragedy to me is that Meyer is continually referred to as “Mormon” and “LDS”, and her books have been given a free pass to sell at Deseret Book and Segull Book stores.  Please wake up out of your vampire trances my Twilight friends! There is nothing “lovely or praiseworthy or of good report” to be found in these books or movie. Faithful latter-day Saints need to send a message that lowered standards are never acceptable. My advice is to Stop buying these books, send a letter of complaint to LDS booksellers, and refuse to spend your money in support of this new movie!

These comments go to the heart of the difficulty for Mormon authors.  A Mormon’s work will be dissected for Mormon content and either praised or villified on that basis.  While Andrew’s argument states that the books are a Mormon allegory, Mormon Soprano finds the message in conflict with Mormon teachings.  So, what’s the answer?

Can LDS authors write books that contradict Mormon teachings?  Every Mormon author has to grapple with that question, and it is at heart a question of censorship, either by the group or by the author him/herself.  Authors who fear reprisal for their words, even their fictional words, will never write “The Great Mormon Novel.”

“All soldiers
They’re all gonna die
And all the little babies
They’re all gonna die
All the poets
And all the liars
And all you pretty people
You’re all gonna die” (Low, 2007)

The chilling opening words to Low’s most recent album, Drums and Guns, somehow had a remarkable effect on me.  Low has progressed a great deal since their inception in the early ’90s and this album is particularly moving.  It is a themed album; an anti-war album.

As many of you know, Alan Sparhawk and Mimi Parker of Low are practicing members of the Church (Alan being a BYU graduate, Mimi a convert).  One of my interests is the way that art plays off testimony in the Church, and I admit, most of the time I’m left wanting.  Drums and Guns was such a pleasant surprise for me.  Alan and Mimi have taken their experiences, testimonies, and desires and crafted an album that is anti-war.  In today’s political climate one would assume the album, released in 2007, is an anti-Iraq War album, but this does not seem to be the case, necessarily.  It seems to truly be two members of the LDS Church being obedient to the Doctrine and Covenants in renouncing war and proclaiming peace.

I explained to my mom the concept for the album.  “It’s an anti-war album, Mom.”

And she looked at me and said, “It’s so easy and popular to be anti-war when you’re a musician, isn’t it?”  I’ll let you parse that one yourself, but for the most part, it’s true.  Musicians since the Sixties have been renouncing war and proclaiming peace for various reasons, sometimes because it’s the trendy thing to do, and sometimes through a heartfelt desire to change the world somehow.  War is a common theme in music, from Dylan’s “Blowing in the Wind” to CCR’s “Fortunate Son”, to Black Sabbath’s “War Pigs”, and the other end of the spectrum, Alice Cooper’s admission that he was pro-Vietnam.  It was in part these songs and artists that influenced the popular opinion of the war, for good or bad.

Musicians understand that they have the ability (and some would say responsibility) to influence popular opinion.  Some musicians have taken this to great lengths, such as U2′s Bono, who has been outspoken on numerous causes such as poverty, homelessness, and hunger.

I searched my memory and realized that, with Drums and Guns, this is one of the first times (if not THE first time) I’ve heard LDS musicians take a stance on anything in their art.  Where are our outspoken LDS artists, musicians, and filmmakers?  I concede that there are a few possible explanations:

1) I just haven’t been paying close enough attention.  This may be the case, but I would say that I probably pay much more attention than the average member to things of an artistic nature, so if there are politically active LDS artists out there…

2) …perhaps they just don’t have the outlets they need to get their message to me.  This seems rather unlikely, as well.  They have their art.

3) Fear.  There is an inherent risk in voicing opinions, and struggling LDS artists with families don’t feel like they can afford taking risks.

Unfortunately, the last option is 4) LDS artists aren’t making statements like this, and aren’t concerned with issues such as war.  If this is the case, then Mormon art, like Mormon hairstyles*, is indeed 40 years behind the rest of the world.

And yet it leads me to wonder about the progress of our Church.  There are some that criticize the Church (from within and without) for being provincial, non-progressive.  Could it be so due to the lack of progressive art in our community?

Or do we take a more Marxist view (thanks Russ) and assume that Mormon art merely reflects the culture it is created in?  That art is not in itself causative?  This debate has raged for centuries.

When will we as a people of rising prominence in this world start making artistic stances to change the world?  When will we take advantage of our position?  Alternatively, am I just missing something?

Either way, for a beautiful yet jarring picture of war and its emotional elements, try Drums and Guns by Low.

*cheap shot

Acts 2:17:  “. . . your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.”

The scriptures are full of visionary dreamers.  The following come to mind:

• OT:  Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Joseph (son of Jacob), Daniel, the butler & baker of Pharaoh, Jacob/Israel, Abimelech, Solomon, Ezekiel, Balaam, Isaiah, Habakkuk, Abram/Abraham, Nathan, Ahijah, Iddo, Hezekiah, Job; plus some false prophets, too.
• NT:  The wise men, Joseph (stephfather of Jesus) a few times, Mrs. Pontius Pilate, Paul, Peter, James, John, Cornelius, Ananias, and many more. 
• BOM:  Lehi, Nephi, Omer, for starters.
• D&C:  Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery, to name a few.
• POGP:  Moses, Abraham, Joseph Smith come to mind.

I have found that many converts to the church have similar pre-conversion spiritual experiences (dreams, visions, intuition, etc.).  They seem to be the type of people who are attuned to those feelings and imbue them with personal meaning, whether they are in or out of the church.

Some anti sites dismiss claims of spiritual feeling within the church as being similar to what one might experience watching a romantic movie or a particularly touching long distance commercial.  These comparisons have nothing in common, IME, with an actual spiritual experience.  To me these dismissals sound a lot like Paul’s warning in Timothy 3:5 that in the last days people will have “a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.”  In our day, it’s much more common to dismiss spiritual experiences as hypersensitivity, superstition, PMS or emotional instability (was that redundant?).

So, if God speaks to people through dreams and visions, how can we derive meaning from our dream life?  There are several key obstacles:

• Remembering dreams is often difficult.
• We work out problems in our sleep, so the source of inspiration is often our own subconscious vs. divine intervention.
• Dream language and meaning differs from waking life and is often more symbolic with parallel meanings about one’s emotional life.
• It’s personal and may not have significance for anyone but ourselves.

But here are a few terms that are helpful to understanding dreams (there are many sites on dream interpretation, but IMO only you can truly understand the significance of a dream you have had; it’s happening in your head after all):

• Recurring dreams.  There are certain themes that are common to many people that can help you understand your stresses and feelings and work through them:
  • Physical constraints – walking uphill and the hill gets steeper and steeper until you are going to fall over backwards, trying to crawl through a space that’s too tight, being too tired to move at a normal speed.  These generally deal with the stress of being exhausted or overwhelmed.  Time to get a massage.
  • Path in life – inability to reach a desired destination, being in a car that can only drive backwards, being driven by someone else, the road beneath you disappearing or being difficult to navigate.  These generally deal with frustration at achieving one’s goals in life or the direction one’s life is heading.  Time to get back on track.
  • Tested – sitting for a test without being prepared, returning to one’s earlier school days and not knowing where to go, forgetting one’s locker combination.  These generally deal with the stress of being found inadequate.  Time to get over it.
  • Exposure - needing to go to the bathroom but not finding a suitable location, being naked in front of people, losing something you consider essential (like your teeth).  These generally deal with stress about loss of composure or how others view you.  Or maybe you should be sure to brush your teeth and go to the bathroom before bed.  Just a thought.
  • Discovery - inheriting a house or property that you find is much larger or grander than expected, finding lost treasure or something of sentimental value, etc.  These dreams relate to personal growth:  discovering a gift or quality within yourself.  These are my favorites!
  • Danger – being attacked by a vicious person or animal, being lost in a place that fills you with fear, trying to protect a child or animal from danger.  These can relate to fear and anger within us.  Time to chill-ax (as my 13-year old would say).
• Emotional parallels.  Most dreams, recurring or not, can be understood if you listen to them for parallels to emotional life.  People usually represent facets of your own personality, sometimes archetypes, and occasionally those people themselves.  Ask yourself:  what is the significance of this person to me?  How am I like this person?  How do I feel about this person?
• Lucid dreaming.  A lucid dream is when you realize you are dreaming while you are in the dream.  Sounds a lot like a vision to me, although most lucid dreams quickly become silly.  There are a few easy ways to tell you are dreaming:  look at an analog watch or clock (you can’t make it work right in a dream), try to read a book (the words will either swim on the page or the pages will be blank, flying (remembering, oh yeah, I can fly), or a really easy one is to just take off your clothes (that almost never happens in real life, but somehow passes without comment in dreams).  Some people like to go crazy with this stuff and live a whole different life in dream-landia, free of the restraints of superego.  To them I say:  don’t ask, don’t tell.
• Sleep paralysis – this is when you become aware that you are sleeping, but you are so deeply asleep that you can’t move.  You may imagine you are lying in your bed and someone is in the house, but you can’t move.  I sometimes imagine that a cat just walked on the piano keys downstairs (which is weird since we don’t have a cat).  Theories exist that this is the basis for alien abduction experiences (vs. actual alien abduction) or the basis for medieval demon encounters.  It just reminds me that I’m glad we don’t have an actual cat.

So, are dreams the same as visions?  When do dreams have religious significance?  Some pre-conversion dreams I have heard of over the years:

• I went to a minister who said he had my name in his book, but it wasn’t there.  I knew it wasn’t true, even though he was insistent.
• I was walking through a wasteland and then I found something of great value (a treasure, something I lost, a tree with fruit).  (even JS Sr. had this one)
• I met a dead relative who told me something important was going to happen to me soon.

So, are converts more susceptible to spiritual dreams and/or visions?  Are all members of the church?  Does this extend to other spiritual gifts?  Have you heard of these types of experiences?  Are they common or rare?  Are they hereditary gifts or are they skills one can develop?  Are dreams the same thing as visions?  Do the same rules apply?  And is it inspiration or just head games for one?  Discuss.

I was giving this topic some thought as we prepared to host our second semi-annual General Conference After Party.  This is like the parties actors host after the Oscars; we convene with other ward members to have desserts and talk about our favorite conference talks and any big “reveals” that we sniffed out during conference.  It is a seething bed of hot Mormon (doctrinal) gossip!  There’s always a ripple of Uchdorff admiration amongst the women in attendance–he’s sort of the George Clooney of the apostles.  But I digress.

Why aren’t there any successful practicing Mormon Hollywood actors?  My definition of “sucessful” for this purpose is those cast in leading roles in major motion pictures.  There are several non-practicing Mormons who have broken through that tier:

• Katherine Heigl’s family converted when she was seven, but she is not practicing
• Aaron Eckhart served a full-time mission in France, attended BYU, and admires the church, but he no longer practices.
• Amy Adams quit attending when her parents divorced (she was 11).
• Paul Walker – now refers to himself as non-denominational Christian, but fond of Mormonism.
• Matthew Modine – actually not sure about his status either as a practicing Mormon (I don’t think so) or whether he qualifies on the name recognition scale either.

A few practicing LDS actors have become pretty successful and could buck the trend:  Rick Schroeder (TV) and Jon Heder who may not have leading man appeal but has developed a certain cachet since Blades of Glory.

So, why aren’t more Hollywood actors Mormons?  What values do Hollywood actors espouse and how do those values match up to Mormonism?  Here are a few of the Hollywood-touted values that seem particularly well suited to Mormonism:

• An open-mindedness toward non-traditional religions.  Many famous actors are affiliated with more controversial religions or new religious movements (Scientology, anyone?).  Unusual religious movements seem to hold an appeal, especially those with a new age bent.  There are many aspects of Mormonism, especially the theoretical, that could be described as new age.
• Focus on a physically healthy lifestyle.  Actors are committed to physical regimens that are very rigorous to stay in “castable” shape.
• Belief in the power of love.  This might be a little like trying to justify the Song of Solomon as being an allegory for Christ’s love for the church, but there is no question that in Hollywood “loooove” conquers all.  With a Barry White (or Mariah Carey) soundtrack.
• A focus on family.  Notice I said “focus” vs. what actually happens in practice.  But for every Brittany Spears, there’s a Tom Hanks.  Of course, marriage is optional, but kids are at least in vogue. 
• A desire to promote causes.  Mormons, like Hollywood actors, are constantly involved in humanitarian aid, and what could be better PR than that?
• An understanding of the importance of branding & PR.  The church has a clear image to portray, one that downplays contraversy and embodies clean living.  While this image may not be totally consistent with a Hollywood image, it is not totally contradictory either.  Frankly, Lindsey Lohan could use a little LDS imaging.

So, the main conflicts would be:

• Unwillingness to take direction.  This applies to those actors who are of the Prima Dona variety, for all actors must take direction in their craft.  However, there is a desire to individual expression that goes against the grain of being told what to do or being asked to conform.
• Image vs. Authenticity.  As a believer, putting oneself out in the public eye has to be done with a thought to how one’s image impacts the church’s mission.  And to keep that positive PR for the church can stifle one’s creativity or make one want to white-wash elements of one’s personality that contradict with the church’s image.
• The Commandments. Let’s just call this the restrictive LDS lifestyle.  Those who cite a Mormon upbringing but are no longer practicing usually refer to the fact that they are not “living the lifestyle” or are “too lazy” although they respect the values.
• Enduring to the End.  In reviewing a list of actors of non-traditional religions, many do not practice those faiths for their entire lifetime (even Scientology which can apparently put a hurt on you when you decide to leave).  Perhaps this is due to the drive for variety that actors feel that leads them to that career in the first place.
• LDS focus on positive and uplifting.  Actors prize being able to inhabit a full range of characters, which includes exploring all human emotion:  evil, depression, sexuality, perversion, etc.  Being type-cast as a “boy scout” can be limiting to an actor (although one could argue all the aforementioned things exist in Boy Scouts–now there’s a movie pitch!).  Restricting oneself as an actor is fine if you want to be a character actor (e.g. perhaps where Jon Heder is heading), but not all actors want to be.

So, what do you think?  Can the church be reconciled with a Hollywood career?  Anyone want to hit the Oscars with some Books of Mormon?

No I am not talking about Utah. I left Sam Brannan’s Zion for Joseph Smith’s Zion on April 11, 2008. I arrived at about 4 pm in Kansas City airport and almost froze to death waiting for the rental car shuttle. I had left 80 degree weather for 40 degree weather and began to wonder who really was the prophet? Obviously it was Brannan. The temperature never rose above 45 degrees, and we had snow in April!

I arrived in Independence about 4:30 pm and found the Independence campus of Graceland University. (Graceland is the Community of Christ equivalent of BYU, and its primary campus is in Lamoni, Iowa) I was early enough that I wanted to see “the” temple lot area.  I could see the spire of the Community of Christ temple reaching to the sky, and I knew that the lot was close to that. I found the Church of Christ (Temple lot) across the street from the Community of Christ temple. I knew nothing about this group except that they own the property that Joseph Smith had dedicated as the temple site for the city of Zion. I saw a sign for a visitor’s center and hoped they were still open. I was lucky enough to find William Sheldon giving a tour and explaining the beliefs of this interesting branch of the Restoration.  William “Bill” Sheldon is the oldest and longest acting apostle for the Church of Christ (Temple lot). (For more on this Restoration movement, see R. Jean Addams’ excellent article in Scattering of the Saints) Bill was, at first, quite defensive (or, as others told me, “he is always on the offensive.”) Once he realized I was not there to show him that my church was right, but that I was his student and wanted to learn from him, the atmosphere completely changed. He then became the teacher and from then on it was a very enjoyable experience. The Temple lot church’s visitor’s center, has two different cornerstones on display which they believe were placed by the early saints for the temple.

At 5pm we gathered at Graceland University in a beautiful auditorium that must hold a couple of hundred people. It was to attend a screening of the film, A Mormon President. Mike Riggs was kind enough to introduce the film. My impression of the film is that I don’t know what audience the filmmaker, Adam Christing, is looking for.  It seems to be more of a history of Joseph Smith’s bid for the presidency than Mitt Romney’s. I think that is unfortunate. Watching this film, I also realized how luck we Mormons were that Helen Whitney chose to do a film about us. 

After the film I was able to meet and visit with Robert Flanders of Nauvoo: Kingdom on the Mississippi fame.  Bob is a pure intellectual. He sees history clearly and is gifted in explaining his thoughts to a lay person such as myself. I was able to spend quite a bit of time with Bob through the three-day conference. I wish I had brought along a tape recorder to capture all of his interesting comments. A couple I can remember: Bob told me that Nauvoo was a complete failure no matter how one looked at it, and then gave a few examples. Bob then talked about Mormons as Christians and said that when he teaches others about Mormons, he tells them if it walks like a duck, etc., then it is a duck, and Mormons walk like Christians, etc. Bob then uses an example of a black woman who was stranded in the SLC bus depot where a Mormon woman asked her if she needed help. The Mormon woman took this lady into her home, fed her, clothed her, and helped her find a job. Bob’s favorable comments here have credibility since he is no longer a member of the Restoration movement but has been a Presbyterian since the late 1970s.

Next at 8 pm, Wallace B. Smith, the great grandson of Joseph Smith Jr., grandson of Joseph Smith III, and retired prophet and president of the Community of Christ presented his talk. It was incredible and will be made available in audio form and in printed form at the next conference. I will just give a couple of impressions. His honesty was overwhelming. He openly talked about issues that he faced as prophet of what was then named the RLDS church, as well as about issues that continue to face the church. These included the status of homosexuals in the church, the Book of Mormon as scripture, and the ordination of woman to the priesthood. His discussion of section 156 of the RLDS D&C was amazing and quite spiritual. He discussed the concern of having it voted at conference and the possibility that it could be voted down. People came together and affirmed the section as God’s word, and dramatic changes began to happen within the RLDS church. One of the questions in the Q&A period and Wallace Smith’s response was really amazing. He was asked if he edited his father’s revelations or if his revelations were edited. Wallace’s demeanor changed, and he spoke with authority as he said the revelations were his words and his words alone—no one edited those revelations except his secretary for grammatical errors. I was blown away at his honesty and spirituality at that moment. I have studied in depth the accounts of the 1978 revelation in the LDS church and found the differences startling. Also during the Q & A Bob Flanders made the comment that when he left the RLDS church he thought they had painted themselves into a corner doctrinally and historically through continuing to hold fast to the teachings of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. After hearing Wallace Smith’s talk, he believed the Community of Christ was going to do just fine. The electricity in the room was incredible. After the Q&A, I went up to ask Wallace Smith to sign a couple of my books and he was gracious enough to do this. They were George Q. Cannon’s Life of Joseph Smith (1st edition) and Roger Launius’ Joseph Smith III: Pragmatic Prophet. In conversation, it came up about his contact with the LDS church leaders. He said that he met with Spencer Kimball a couple of times and had quite pleasant meetings with him.

On Saturday, April 12^th, 2008, we met early at 8 a.m. for a panel discussion on “The Future Status of the Book of Mormon in the Community of Christ.” Four things stood out for me at this session. (1) Having an intelligent conversation about the Book of Mormon as scripture, as Christian, what effect it has had on Native American members,  and its history both internally and as a modern work. (2) That an apostle of a restoration movement (Dale Luffman) would know that the book of Daniel in the Bible was written 400 years after it is claimed to be. (3) Mark Scherer as a true pastor and how that affects lay members of the church in dealing with these issues. Mark made the comment that members of the Community of Christ need to determine if will they follow the carpenter from Nazareth or the Prophet from Palmyra, asserting that by choosing the Nazarene they will do just fine. (4) The professionalism of the leaders in the Community of Christ.

I then attended four sessions from 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. They ranged from the Book of Mormon as a way to follow Christ, to the different movements in the Restoration, to women and the priesthood during Joseph Smiths time, to Book of Mormon authorship, to Mitt Romney’s campaign for the presidency. All sessions were stimulating and informative. The respect that was shown for differences in ideas and opinions was wonderful.

During one break between sessions, I introduced myself to Fred Larsen, prophet, seer and revelator for the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Fred Larsen is the great great grandson of Joseph Smith Jr., the great grandson of Joseph Smith III, and the grandson of RLDS prophet Frederick M. Smith. Fred was kind enough to sign my copy of Dan Vogel’s Joseph Smith; the Making of a Prophet. He did this even though he admitted it was not his favorite book and that he disagreed with Dan’s conclusions. This is how kind and gracious of a man Fred is, and I found him to be quite interesting. Unfortunately I did not get to talk with him much because his wife was ill and he needed to get back to his home and take care of her.

At the dinner break I was invited by John Hamer to have dinner with him, Mike Karpowicz, David Howlett, Matt Frizzel, and Jan Shipps. We went to a restaurant that is owned by a member of the Community of Christ. It was excellent, and the food was not too bad either. David and Matt are both PhD. candidates in theology and/or history and members of the Community of Christ. Matt is the Community of Christ’s “Mission Center President” (“Stake President” in LDS lingo) for Chicago. The discussion was open and informative. We talked a bit about the early history of the Kirtland temple and the solemn assembly procedure. I was amazed at the knowledge at the table and the openness of the discussion. David laid out the events, and I brought up the amount of wine that was used to help with the visions and manifestations. No one seemed surprised or offended by my comments.

Jan had to speak at 8 pm, so we hurried and finished dinner. Jan’s presentation was brilliant. She shared with us a personal journey of hers with Joseph Smith’s Restoration movement. A couple of amazing insights included her experience at USU getting her bachelor’s degree. She commented that her history classes were misnamed. Even though the class was American history, Civil War history, or Western history, in reality they were Mormon history classes.  Jan also described the famous Mormon History Association meeting in Nauvoo where Reed Durham spoke about Joseph Smith and masonry. She described the emotions, events, and finds that led up to the presidential talk. The important find was Reed Durham discovering the weather vane in someone’s garage. I thought it interesting that Reed Durham happened to be the one to find the weather vane for the temple, clean it up, and take photos. I am not sure if the vane or the photos are still available? This image is all I could find.

She also described that as soon as Reed finished his talk, there was a loud sound of thunder and wind, followed by the lights going out in the Nauvoo Mansion house. Jan said there was dead silence before the lights finally flickered and came back on. She also said it was the only time she saw Leonard Arrington angry, and he said to her (referring to the likely fallout of Durham’s talk), “We have the archives open and now this will close them.” Jan also saw Durham’s talk as linked to Mark Hofmann’s decision to create his salamander letter.

On Sunday morning, April 13^th, 2008, we met at the Community of Christ temple and Ron Romig graciously shared with us some of the treasures of the archives and the museum. These treasures include two seer stones passed down from the David Whitmer family, a letter from Joseph to Emma, Kirtland Bank notes, the supposed daguerreotype of Joseph that is making its rounds on the internet (the one that is of a painting of Joseph), and multiple photos of Emma—and, to my delight, my favorite one in which she is holding Hyrum David as an infant. We also got to see the printer’s manuscript of the Book of Mormon, the manuscript for the inspired version, and the actual Bible Joseph owned for that inspired version. The books we saw, among other items, were Edward Partridge’s copy of the 1830 Book of Mormon, Oliver Cowdery’s specially bound 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, a Book of Commandments, Lucy Mack Smith’s history, the evening and the Morning Star, and an original 1835 hymnal. We saw Joseph Smith’s watch, Emma Smith’s wedding ring, a woman’s slip hand made by Emma, Joseph’s cane, sword, sheath, and epaulets, and a dressing chest. We also saw David Whitmer’s hope chest in which he stored the printer’s manuscript. In the museum, we also were able to see the first three editions of the Book of Mormon together, the actual front door from Liberty jail, and a Mark Hofmann forgery. I would say the most exciting artifact/document for me was the “caracters” document. I believe this is the real Anthon transcript, and my heart almost stopped beating as it went around the room. I cannot express my feelings because this was an experience that I could have only dreamed about. The people of the Community of Christ and Ron Romig are the greatest.

Just a note about the seer stones: Both stones came from the David Whitmer family.  A chocolate “egg shaped” flat stone was first inventoried at the RLDS church in 1940. It has three holes drilled into it for leather straps.  The other stone is oval and flat and one can see a picture of it in Mike Quinn’s Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. Both are pretty close in size. The oval stone looks much like the same stone material that Rick Grunder sold (and the photo of that stone can be seen at Rick’s site. Both stones are Native American gorget. The egg shaped stone is darker than the oval stone. I asked Newell Bringhurst if he had brought his hat so we could do some translating. Unfortunately he had left it at home. We were done at the temple around 11 am.

I next went on a search to find the Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerites) meeting house and temple. This is a nice two-story white wood frame building on a piece of land about an acre in size. It sits in a low area south of the railroad tracks. As I drove away from the Independence area, I was overcome with emotion that I had been to a celebration of Joseph Smith and his legacy that had fed me intellectually, spiritually, and geographically. To have buildings of Community of Christ, LDS, Remnant LDS, Church of Christ temple lot, and Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite) all within view of one another is quite amazing. To see and feel the movement that started from a poor itinerant farmer boy and the diversity of that movement will never leave my mind.

I next went on a trek to find Liberty jail, about 30 minutes away from Independence. This was a much different experience. Liberty jail reconstructed is housed inside a much larger granite building. There are mannequins of Joseph, Hyrum, and the other prisoners. The only part of the jail that is original is the rock flooring that is covered with straw. I have to admit it was very depressing for me. To think of the conditions and hardship for the people in jail was emotionally distressing. I also had a hay fever flare-up from the straw, so that did not help.

I needed something to pick me up, so I drove to Westport just outside Kansas City and walked around the place that the Santa Fe Trail, Oregon Trail, and California Trail met. This was the drop off point for the pioneers heading west into the frontier. There is also a building that was owned by Daniel Boone’s grandson that had been the major mercantile store for these pioneers to buy their supplies. It is an amazing building. It is currently a bar, so it is open to the public to go inside a look around. The people were quite nice to me and I pictured myself going back to those early times.

To gather together and meet with people whom I have been friends with for years, or to just meet someone who feels like they have been a friend for years, is an amazing experience. That is exactly what happened for me during those three days.

A recent news story from Utah, however, has me thinking about appearances vs. reality — something Jesus addressed when he talked about “whited sepulchres.” Several years ago, Daniel D. Thompson and Isaac R. Lifferth operated a franchise video store under the banner of Clean Flicks, Inc.  The idea was simple enough.  Thompson and Lifferth purchased videos of PG-13 or R rated films, and edited them to remove what many LDS felt was “inappropriate” content (read: sex and at least some violence).  What better business model in a state where 72% of the population has been repeatedly cautioned to avoid naughty movies?  Well, maybe a legal one would be a bit better.  In mid-2006, the company was brought to a halt after a federal court ruled that the business’ activities constituted copyright infringement.  Many were disappointed with the “end” of the Clean Flicks story.  Thompson and Lifferth reopened their store under the name “Flix Club.”

Well, it turns out that wasn’t the end.  Last week, Thompson and Lifferth found themselves under arrest. These men, who by all apperances sincerely fought Hollywood to provide wholesome entertainment for LDS families, were allegedly doing something quite different behind the counter.

A wise LDS mother brought this situation to light, when she noticed her 14 year old daughter had unaccountable $20 bills. This exemplary mother questioned her daughter, lest there be some misbehavior involved, and found more than she expected. The daughter, along with another 14 year old, had been receiving $20 payments for repeated visits to the closed Flix Club store, where they performed certain sexual acts for the gratification of Thompson and Lifferth.

Thud.

The two girls informed police that Thompson and Lifferth had been using Clean Flicks and Flicks Club all along, as a front for a pornography studio. The 14 year old girls were asked to become the latest “stars” in the Thompson/Lifferth venture, but fortunately declined. A subsequent police search resulted in discovery of many pornographic videos, liquor, illegally-possessed prescription medication, and video cameras connected to a viewing screen. Confessions by Thompson and Lifferth reveal that additional minors were similarly victimized.

When I trained with the Utah Police Academy years ago, I was privy to some pretty scary stories involving similar conduct (and worse) by local LDS leaders. I don’t think these stories make much difference in terms of faith in a particular religion, but they certainly impact our ability to trust others, even fellow-believers. That wise carpenter-turned-rabbi once told his followers to beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing, and events like these show us he was right. At the same time, we all have a strong human need to be part of a community. How do we trust others enough to have that sense of community, when appearances can so often be deceiving?

• A review of Richard Dutcher’s “States of Grace” with special guest moderator Brian Gibson (major spoiler alert for those who still plan to see the movie!!!!). Otherwise, a great analysis.
• A discussion of a recent New York Times Magazine article entitled, “Orthodox Paradox” with panelist David King Landrith (DKL).

One program note:

• Near the end, Rosalynde mentions a novel “The Ladies Auxiliary.” Just as an FYI, the author of this book is Tova Mirvis.

Thanks again to all who participated!!!

Please let us know your thoughts!