New Convert:
“I watched them all back to back this year on DVD. And I’m very glad I did. And I’d do it again.”

Dogmatic:
“If you didn’t like the Lost finale, you’re an idiot! Literally, you probably just didn’t understand it. You have my sympathy.”

DAMU:
“After so many years spent on this show, I feel cheated.”

ExMormon:
“The people who actually watched all 6 seasons and LIKED it suffer from a form of TV induced Stockholm Syndrome (a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the negative experience of the victims). Sorry for those that liked it. The first step is admitting there is a problem. ”

Middle-Way:
“Probably not the answers we’d all hoped for… but anything that can make me feel something besides contempt and disappointment is just fine with me.”

While there are some interesting similarities in content between the show and the gospel—such as the fallen evil dude (the brother of Jesus!) wanting a body—I am more interested in how the process of being a fan of the show and being a member of the church have been strangely similar to me. Think how rather than what. Here are the top three observations about being a fan of the show that came up over the last six years, as well as some honorable mentions:

3. Varying but predictable reactions

With every new season, many complained about the show jumping the shark. Plain crash on a deserted island? Cool! Underground hatch with a button that has to be pushed every 108 minutes? Um, what? Start traveling through time? Lost half the viewers. In each case, a significant amount of viewers predictably fell away, or became more disgruntled. Not just major changes caused these hard feelings though—general disillusionment, feelings of being lied to (not kidding, some people feel lied to), and cries of “it wasn’t what I thought it was” were guaranteed to happen. Some complained about giving up 120+ hours (READ: 2 years!) of their life for the show. Any of this sound familiar? On the other hand, there are viewers like me loved the show, enjoyed the changes, and generally found it immensely satisfying, while being aware of the flaws. Some people are inevitably going to be disappointed, disillusioned, or feel abused (really, one person compared it the finale to spousal abuse… and I thought Richard Dawkins was crazy).

2. A lot of good, a little bad, a dash of ugly

• The good: amazing acting (Michael Emerson anyone?), great character development, intriguing mysteries, huge fan community, meaningful symbolism, and hilarious podcasts. Not to mention an amazing locale with Hummer Tours! (Yeah, I went on one.)
• The bad: Walt and Aaron are important! You really should be thinking a lot about them… no wait, no they’re not, please forget everything we ever said.
• The ugly: Jack gets a tattoo in Thailand from Bai Ling. Nikki and Paulo… well, actually I’m ashamed to admit I actually liked that episode… it had Lando!

For each viewer the ratio of good/bad/ugly was probably different (just as it is in the church). For me, the good outweighs the bad.

1. Subjective experience vs. The Truth

After the finale, myriad arguments ensued about the merits of the show. Amazing masterpiece? Horrible mockery of actual story telling? One of the best shows ever? Another J.J. Abrams “start with a bang and end with a whimper”? I think the debate about whether or not the show is objectively good TV (essentially, “truth claims”) is not very useful. How do you measure and compare subjective experience? Maybe it comes down to the percentages of importance one places on subjective experience and the Truth. For me it’s about 70-30. I care a little less about objectivity than utility. Consider me a post-positivist Lost fan (and church member!). The Truth Is Out There, but it is experienced by individuals. I am more interested in the community, the characters, and the big themes of love and redemption, than finding out all the answers, having everything neat and tidy, and whether or not the show is “objectively” good. Debates over “fact” or “truth” or “reason” have, for the most part, led me nowhere in terms of improving life. To be sure, every once in a while I am encountered with a new view on something that modifies my views or is useful in some way, but I don’t think the “Truth” can really be found this way. Certainly not utility. If people enjoy Twilight or the Twilight Zone, Miley Cyrus or Bob Dylan, Lost or Lost in Space, I refer them to The Duke: “If it sounds good, it IS good.” Follow your own heart and mind, not what some TBM/Atheist/Middle-way/DAMU says.

Honorable Mentions:

Sharing the good news: I often tried to convert my friends and family to the show, with moderate success. However, many fall away after some activity with the first few seasons… I’m now at peace with the fact that many people are just not going to watch it, and many aren’t going to like it.

We don’t have all the answers: We weren’t given the answers to many of the questions. Some questions took years to answer. Tolerance of ambiguity reigns supreme. Research suggests that we remember things better when they are left incomplete, so perhaps not having all the answers is not all bad.

For Lost TBS and DAMUS (and middle-way Losties!) out there, what did you think of the show? Did you find any of the show’s themes relatable in your own life or belief system? As this post is not meant to debate the merits of any “content” or specific truth claims of the church or the show, please stick to the “process” themes in your 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?

OK Paul technically isn’t exactly an international DJ, not unless you consider that you can listen to his interviews on line.

He’s a returned missionary and member of the Grays Ward in the Romford Stake Essex England.  Paul got the show after being a presenter at Hospital Radio Chelmsford for a year and chased a local station for airtime:

“When I was asked to join Phoenix FM the station manager warned me that radio presenting wasn’t all easy but in fact involved a lot of voluntary service too.  I responded that I was a missionary in France for 2 years for the church and was used to giving service to others, as well as being actively involved in the church weekly.  The station manager was intrigued by this and I was invited to the station to explain more about my religious beliefs and the voluntary service I had done in France.  I was then offered the chance to begin a brand new religious show once a week that they had been wanting to start but couldn’t find anyone with the religious background to do it.  I put together the idea for a chat show where he would bring in local religious leaders and ask them about their beliefs on air and their views on current issues.”

Mark Pinchin and Ian Clarkson from the Church of Scientology – Listen   here

Highlights:

10 million members around the world. Their anti-drug program “Say no to drugs say yes to life”.  Human rights educational programme and other great work they do in the community.  We discussed the 8 dynamics, the founder of the church L. Ronald Hubbard and where the word “Scientology” comes from.

The core beliefs of the church of Scientology are:

Man is a spirit, he has lived before and that man is good. Through wisdom and knowledge man can improve any area of his life he wants. Scientology is all denominational and non-conversionary and members bring with them their own beliefs.

Great Interviews ( All the ads and music have been stripped out)

Habibur Rahman & Forad Edu – Islam / Alfurqaan Foundation
Father Matthew Bemand – St Thomas Church of England
Councillor Dudley Payne – Mayor of Brentwood
Mark Pinchin and Ian Clarkson – Scientology / Jive Aces
Ed Wellman – PhoenixFM Monday Classics
Richard Burch – Brentwood Buddhist Society
Chris Day – Crown Street Christian Fellowship
Reverand Peter Thomas (Baptist)
Reverand Trevor Jamison (United Reformed Church)
Julian May – ELIM
Father Paul Keane – Brentwood Catholic Cathedral
Bishop David Barter

The show can be seen at www.phoenixfm.com/proverbs98.php

Let us know your views

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.

Everyone knows Superman.  He is simply the most powerful superhero ever created.  Invulnerable to almost everything, his list of abilities includes flight, speed, strength, heat vision, x-ray vision . . . the list goes on.  His private life also seems pretty sweet.  He was raised by two stead parents (although in some versions Pa Kent dies when Clark is young), has a good career, and in recent years is married to the love of his life.  Director Richard Donner went so far as to present Supes as a Christ figure in the 1979 film, with Jor-El (God the Father?) sending his only son to earth to help mortals realize their potential for good.

Many early DC heroes are also larger than life:  Wonder Woman is an Amazon princess, with powers, weapons and gifts from the Greek Gods themselves (plus she can really fill out that costume!).  Batman, despite his psychological issues and lack of super powers, has seemingly unlimited financial resources.  Others were similar:  rich, with god-like powers and very heroic.  Practically too good to be true.

Then there’s Spiderman, a decidedly less perfect hero.  Peter Parker’s parents are gone, and even his Uncle Ben dies early on, leaving him with only Aunt Mae.  He gets bitten by a radioactive spider and gains powers including strength, speed, agility, wall-climbing, and “spider-sense.”  Depending on the version of the story, he may also shoot web from his arms (in others he creates the web mechanism and materials).  Impressive abilities, to be sure, but nothing compared to Superman.  He also struggles with issues like unemployment, unpopularity, and girl problems to a much greater degree than his DC counterparts.  He’s a real person, dealing with real problems, plus he fights crime.

Other Marvel heroes are similarly flawed.  The mutant X-Men are freakish pariahs.  The Fantastic Four bicker.  And the Hulk is essentially a monster with an anger management problem.

These heroes reflect the eras in which they were born.  In the late 1930s, the United States was exiting the Great Depression and entering World War II; out of this vulnerability came these perfect DC superheroes to confront the evils of the world (Hitler, poverty, and corruption to name a few).  In the 1960s, when the country had become skeptical of the establishment and technology, everyday down-to-earth superheroes like Spiderman emerged from more humble backgrounds, exhibiting a more reluctant heroism.

So, what does all this have to do with the Church?

The individuals who have run the Church for years are, for the most part, members of a more black and white generation that created more perfect, less subtle heroes in comics and movies and even in the news.  Individuals of this generation not only led the Church, but also ran the departments and programs.  Did the way they viewed heroes impact their presentation of historical figures?

As the next generation takes the mantle, will they have been influenced by the types of heroes they have embraced?  You may never see a Primary program reference the Kirtland bank failure or a Roadshow on Joseph Smith and the occult, but might there be a time when issues like these are discussed directly in the curriculum?  In the information age, it might be a good way to inoculate those who will find out later and feel shocked, confused, or even betrayed.

I realize that the real Joseph shocks many people who have been raised on the perfect (Superman) version, but I find the human (Spiderman) version much more accessible.  Spiderman and Joseph overcame similar struggles (a humble upbringing, unemployment, a less than perfect family, girl trouble, and a healthy dose of unpopularity) to become reluctant “heroes.”  Joseph’s foibles and the role of prophet are not mutually exclusive to me.  Yet, his Superman traits are often emphasized:  his strength, his courage, his ability to dodge bullets and his unflinching moral rectitude.  While those qualities may be accurate, they are not the whole picture.

What about you?  How do you like your church leaders, both historical and current?  Like Superman (nearly omnipotent and perfect, above reproach) or like Spiderman (real people with real problems and flaws)?  Is it realistic or even healthy to expect perfection of them, when we aren’t perfect and we’re taught that only one Man ever was?

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.

What do Mormons and Muslims have in common? A lot more than you might think. And a popular sitcom about Muslims living in a small Canadian prairie town offers Mormons good suggestions about how best to handle being misunderstood and sometimes mistreated by the “outside world”.

People have been comparing Mormons to Muslims since the days of Joseph Smith, who was derided as an “American Muhammad.” Some even have referred to Mormonism as the “Islam of America.” Consider just a few of the remarkable similarities between Muslims and Mormons:

• Both accept the Bible as scripture as well as an additional post-Biblical book of scripture (Koran & Book of Mormon) brought forth by the prophet-founder of their faith (Muhammad & Joseph Smith).
• Both religions’ book of post-Biblical scripture (Koran & Book of Mormon) was intended, in part, to correct corruptions in the Biblical text.
• The two major factions in both religions split over the issue of succession, i.e., whether the prophet-founder’s family had divine authority to succeed the prophet-founder after his death (Sunni & Shia in Islam; LDS & [former] RLDS in Mormonism).
• The faction that does not believe in lineal succession in each religion (Sunni & LDS) is larger than the faction that does believe in lineal succession (Shia & [former] RLDS).
• Both believe in a pre-existence.
• Both have a health code that proscribes alcohol.
• Both have patriarchal orders of church government.
• Both struggle to overcome guilt-by-association-type negative publicity created by individuals considered by the majority/mainstream to be fanatics that fall “outside the fold” (e.g., Osama bin Laden & Warren Jeffs).
• Both groups receive significantly lower favorability ratings in public opinion surveys compared to other religious groups like Catholics and Jews.
• Both religions have recently been cited as reasons not to vote for a U.S. Presidential candidate (Mitt Romney’s Mormonism & Barack Hussein Obama’s contact with Islam in his youth).
• The words “Muslim” and “Mormon” both begin with an “M” and have six letters (sorry, I couldn’t resist).

Interestingly, a Muslim co-worker told me that the first time someone told her that he was  “Mormon,” she thought he was saying “momin,” which means “good” in Arabic.

As reported by the Los Angeles Times recently, Muslims and Mormons have been forging closer ties, facilitated in part by their common bond of being oft-misunderstood and sometimes mistreated by the rest of society. When Muslims and Mormons meet, it is easy for them to relate to one another. Consider these statements by a Mormon and a Muslim who were interviewed at a recent open-mosque day in my city of Irvine, California, at which over half those in attendance were Mormons:

“A Mormon living in an Islamic society would be very comfortable,” said Steve Young, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attending the event.

“When I go to a Mormon church I feel at ease,” said Haitham Bundakji, former chairman of the Islamic Society of Orange County. “When I heard the president [of LDS] speak a few years ago, if I’d closed my eyes I’d have thought he was an imam.”

Muslims’ struggle to overcome negative stereotypes and to persuade others that they are good, normal, family-centered people is something Mormons can relate to. And that is the central theme of a popular Canadian sitcom, Little Mosque in the Prairie, which is set in the fictional small prairie town of Mercy, Saskatchewan. In this clip from the first episode, a young man who is to be the new Imam (priest) in Mercy has been detained at the airport as a suspected terrorist.

Little Mosque on the Prairie, Episode 1 Clip

This comedy series, which is available on YouTube for free viewing, is a fine example for Mormons of how best to deal with being misunderstood and sometimes mistreated by others: Laugh about it!

But in addition to having a therapeutic effect on its Muslim viewers, the show also serves as an invaluable PR tool for Muslims and Middle-Easterners in general. Nowadays, the most common visual images of Muslims and Middle-Easterners that North Americans see are people like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Iranian President Ahmadinejad, or a swarm of hooded men doing a rigorous monkey bar circuit at an elite terrorist training camp. None of these would be embraced by most Muslims as good representatives of Islam.

The cast of Little Mosque on the Prairie provide North American viewers with friendly Muslim faces to put in their place. After watching a few episodes, the show’s hilarious cast of characters will come to mind whenever you hear the word “Muslim,” rather than one of the many angry, finger-wagging clerics you see on the nightly news. Moreover, the fact that the Muslim writers and actors of Little Mosque in the Prairie can poke fun at themselves and at the awkward and ridiculous social situations in which they sometimes find themselves exhibits an admirable self-confidence and is an effective way of defusing (no pun intended) any unnecessary social tensions that exist between Muslims and non-Muslims living in North America. Little Mosque on the Prairie demonstrates that when it comes to erasing prejudice and creating familiarity and goodwill, laughter is once again the best medicine.

So my question for you is: Is there, or has there ever been, a Mormon equivalent to Little Mosque on the Prairie? Have creators of Mormon media succeeded yet in producing works with mass appeal that provide accurate and endearing portrayals of Mormons? If so, what are those works? And if not, why hasn’t it been done yet?