Social distancing, priesthood keys and worshipping from home

I wasn’t sure about what to make of the initial news reports regarding the novel Coronavirus and COVID-19. I usually try my best not to be an alarmist but I don’t want to be dismissive either. Like a lot of people, I thought about influenza mortality rates but then a friend shared a very informative article that offered some important perspective. I took the situation more seriously but I still wasn’t that concerned. I’m kind of a homebody anyway.

I’m very grateful that many members of my ward have a pretty good sense of humor.

Including my Bishop

When the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced that their April General Conference “will be distributed throughout the world via technology only,” it seemed like a reasonable precaution. My level of concern was elevated but it wasn’t something that really affected me since I’ve never attended the conference in person and—social anxiety being one of my personal struggles—have never had a desire to do so. I’ll stick with watching it at home, as usual.

Then came the announcement that all Church gatherings—meetings, conferences, even social activities—would be suspended until further notice, all around the world. That’s when my anxiety became significantly more elevated.

My stepmom’s observation made it really sink in.

Phrases like “Social Distancing” soon entered our lexicon. Filmmaking workshops that I was really looking forward to attending were canceled. As was a comedy show headlined by my favorite stand-up comic, Maria Bamford, for which I had already purchased tickets—I did receive a refund.

A friend from Church shared a magazine article on social media about administering the sacrament at home. This sparked a very odd response from someone who commented, “There is no scriptural basis for the church’s policy.”

Please,
forgive me
for falling
down
an internet
comment-
thread
rabbit
hole.

I replied to this individual’s comment with the following:

The scriptural basis for the authority of the Church's leadership to establish policies, change policies and even rescind policies is found in D&C 27:12-13…

…“These keys are the right of presidency; they are the power and authority to govern and direct all of the Lord’s affairs on earth. Those who hold them have power to govern and control the manner in which all others may serve in the priesthood. All of us may hold the priesthood, but we can only use it as authorized and directed so to do by those who hold the keys” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Conference Report, Apr. 1972, 98; or Ensign, July 1972, 87).

I ended my comment with a personal idiom that’s given me a great deal of comfort over the years: “Policy is not prophecy; counsel is not commandment; and tradition is not doctrine.”

I really should have known better than to engage with this person. Their statement about there being “no scriptural basis for the church’s policy” seems to indicate that they prefer a literal interpretation of scripture; so much so that every aspect of any directive, policy, or statement should have a direct, scriptural reference.

One problem with having such a literalist attitude is that it relies solely on what is written in scripture with little—if any—room for the Spirit, for personal revelation pertaining to one’s stewardship, and imbues in the individual a prejudice (a pre-judgment) of anyone who’s interpretations or practices vis-à-vis worshipping in the Church, differs from their own in the slightest.

Unprompted, they made reference to the Church’s “corporate policy” and an absence of scriptural justification for it. This has nothing to do with partaking of the sacrament at home but it’s obviously something that they take issue with.

I did not respond to that particular remark but upon further reflection, I realized that there is, in fact, a scriptural justification for the Church to be formally and legally organized as a corporation.

The Twelfth Article of Faith states, quite clearly, that “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”(emphasis added)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is organized as a corporation—as are most religious, charitable, and nonprofit organizations—in order to obey, honor, and sustain the law. This status is a prerequisite for the federal government to grant tax-exempt status to the organization, allowing individuals to deduct their contributions to it from their taxes. As “Public Charities,” religious organizations—ostensibly*—provide humanitarian and “safety net”-type services to people alongside those provided by the government, hence the tax deduction. That specific language is not going to be found anywhere in the scriptures, but the nature of it satisfies the scriptural admonition of the Twelfth Article of Faith.

This person then asked a really odd question:

“…do you claim that a local Bishop has the authority to stop my family and loved ones from gathering and participating in the sacrament?”

This makes me wonder if they even bothered to read the article, which said—quoting the Church’s General Handbook, “The bishop holds the priesthood keys for administering the sacrament in the ward. All who participate in preparing, blessing, and passing the sacrament must receive approval from him or someone under his direction.”

My response to the question was simply, “If a family sustains their Bishop in his calling, then their participation in the sacrament will be no different than anyone else's in their ward.”

In all fairness, I did not directly answer the question. Not because I was—as they accused—“insecure with the teachings of Jesus Christ.” I wasn’t being evasive, nor was it because an answer didn’t exist. The problem was a serious flaw in the nature of the question.

“…[does] a bishop [have] the authority to stop a family from participating in the sacrament in their own home?”

The magazine article, and the sources it referenced, say nothing about stopping anyone from doing anything. It does say that “In all cases, authorization is needed from a bishop or presiding authority to administer the sacrament.”(emphasis added)

Was this person asking if their bishop could stop them from administering the sacrament without his approval?

I wasn’t about to engage them further on the matter because I was pretty sure that they had already made up their mind about what sort of response to their question was going to be “correct.” Whatever quasi-theological argument they were fighting for also wasn’t helped when they inferred my unwillingness to continue with the discussion as evidence of a spiritual failing on my part, saying, “Those without the spirit of Christ tremble when confronted with such a simple question…you identify yourself as somebody who fears the teachings of Jesus Christ.”

Actually, I just identify as someone who has better things to do with his time than to engage with hostile people who want to debate and argue instead of having a civil discussion. Obviously, this exchange did give me something to think about.

The very next day, I received an e-mail from our Ward’s Bishop with instructions on how to partake of the Sacrament at home—they were pretty much identical to what was shared in the magazine article. One might suppose that this rendered the commenter’s question moot but outside of the context of current events, I think it might be worth giving it some more thought.

Even without the need for social distancing during a pandemic, there are circumstances where partaking of the Sacrament at home with one’s family is permissible. Members of the Church that live in very isolated areas and are not able to attend regular branch or ward meetings are able to worship at home with their families. However, it still has to be with “authorization from the stake, mission, or district president.”

People who are confined to their homes, live in residential care facilities, or are hospitalized can all still receive the Sacrament from priesthood holders in their ward who are more than happy to bring it to them but if none of those circumstances apply to an individual’s situation—and if distance or ability to travel are not matters of concern—if they want to receive the Sacrament, all they have to do is go to Church on Sunday.

I suppose there is nothing stopping a person from staying home on a Sunday, breaking up some bread, pouring water into a glass, reading aloud the sacramental prayers and then consuming said bread and water. This begs the question of why someone would want to do it that way when there is nothing preventing them from just going to Church like everyone else in their ward.

If there is some other circumstance that hasn’t been considered, there is nothing preventing that person from simply asking for authorization from their Bishop, who specifically “holds the priesthood keys for administering the sacrament in the ward.” But, if they choose instead to disregard their Bishop's authority—e.g. choose to not sustain their Bishop in his calling—and act in defiance, claiming that their Bishop doesn’t have “the authority to stop a family from participating in the sacrament in their own home?” it is no longer a question of where the priesthood authority of a Bishop ends and where that of the presiding priesthood holder of a household begins.

“…the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake… to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.” D&C 121:36–37(emphasis added)

One can recite the Sacramental prayers over a piece of bread and a cup of water and consume them all day, every day, and regardless of whether that person has been ordained as a holder of the priesthood, if they are trying to exercise those rites not only without proper authorization but with a self-righteous attitude, and out of blatant defiance, then it all means nothing. They are not truly renewing their covenants. Without the Spirit, without the priesthood authority that they have nullified with their own pride and desire for control, all they’re doing is saying words, eating bread, drinking water, and being jerks about it.

---

*Charlatans wearing the trappings of religiosity—in particular, so-called “televangelists”—are infamous for exploiting people and the government for their own personal gain. It’s one of the reasons that I am personally not opposed to revoking tax-exempt status for organized religions. Any organization that is motivated solely by the prospect of acquiring tax-free income would most likely cease operations. Their accounting practices would be subject to more scrutiny and their proceeds would dwindle since “donations” to their “cause” would no longer be tax-deductible, eliminating one possible motive for those making contributions, to begin with.

I also believe that were the federal government to take such a step, religious organizations that are sincere in their efforts to help their members and communities will continue to function and to serve despite their new tax burden while those that were only in it for the money, to begin with, will have to find some other way to make a living.

Certainly, there will be those who might be hesitant to continue making donations that are no longer tax-deductible, but if that’s the only reason they were making donations in the first place, then their motives aren’t that far removed from any organization that prioritizes their tax-exempt status above any other mission they might profess to be undertaking in the name of whichever god they might publicly or privately worship—be it rooted in ancient scripture or the all-mighty-dollar.

Current revision: July 20, 2020

Moneychangers at the pulpit?

Revised: September 5 & 19, 2011

Some friends offered some insights into the original versions of this post that I hadn't considered before so I've chosen to revise it. -JLP

A man got up to speak in a church meeting. The topic was supposed to be "The Law of the Harvest." The speaker then went on to talk about his personal business ventures. He sounded as though he was basically reciting his resume to the congregation. I quickly lost interest in what he was saying. I waited to hear him segue into a gospel topic but by the time he said anything related to doctrinal matters, I was so distracted by a plug I could just as easily have read on LinkedIn that I just couldn't follow along anymore.

So, I posted the following comment onto the Flippin' Utah Mormons Facebook page:

I'm asked to come to church to be edified... So why am I expected to sit through a "talk" where someone basically recites their business resume and somehow divine some nugget of Gospel truth from it?

I continued my thoughts in a comment:

I deal with business people all week. I do my best to not bring my earthly business with me to Church where I want to learn of celestial things.

This sparked some interesting comments from the forum. First there was speculation that the speaker was asked to talk about "this subject"–ostensibly referring to his business. I explained that the subject was "The Law of the Harvest" and while the principles of work are certainly integral to discussing that topic, it's not a green light to start talking about one's business dealings.

A key component to being a successful businessperson is to take advantage of opportunities to promote oneself and one's business. However, there is a time and a place for everything. I don't feel that a talk in a church meeting is an appropriate place to promote one's means of acquiring wealth, especially if it is happening at the expense of edifying one's brothers and sisters in the Gospel. The speaker lost both my interest and my respect by treating a house of worship as if it was his own personal trade show. I mentioned this to a friend who helped me put it into some perspective and I realized that saying that I lost my respect for this person probably wasn't the right thing to say. I honestly don't know him very well and respect is something that should be earned before it can be lost. I didn't give this man a chance to earn my respect so it really wouldn't be fair to withhold it just because he committed–in my opinion–a faux pas that he might not even be aware of.

One Facebook follower inferred that I was calling this speaker out as a sinner for what he did. I clarified that I didn't think that he sinned, only that such behavior raised some ethical concerns. Another thought that I was not being fair for broadcasting someone's failing and that I might be crossing an ethical boundary myself for talking about this person on the internet and possibly embarrassing him.

I never shared this man's name–which would have been unethical–so he had nothing to be embarrassed about. I honestly doubt that this person is even aware of me, my blog or the Facebook page that's associated with it. I did not intend for anyone to take offense at my observation.

The point of Flippin' Utah Mormons is to make observations–often in an admittedly stream of consciousness style–about a culture that at times is glaringly inconsistent with the faith it claims to embody. Mormon culture–as distinct from Mormon theology–is not always synonymous with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

So, why would someone feel that talking about their personal business endeavors was appropriate for church?

A traditional symbol of Mormonism is the beehive. It's considered to be a symbol of "industry." But industry is not necessarily the same thing as entrepreneurialism. And there's something to be said about the optimism of Mormons and their business endeavors, which brings me to the cliché of Mormons and their fondness (or is it susceptibility?) for "multilevel marketing"–née pyramid schemes that espouse in their recruitment tactics the idea of maximum return for minimal effort (a direct contradiction to the law of the harvest). It has become a cliche because so many Mormons have fallen victim to them. It's not unheard of for some Mormons to make use of their ward directory in order to recruit sales people–despite clear instructions that the directory is to be used only for Church business. I have personally experienced the Mormon MLM sales-pitch: "I know it's multi-level marketing and a lot of people are nervous about that but everyone that I know who's involved with this is a member of the Church in good standing." As if being a Mormon makes one immune from scams, greed or greedy scams.

Perhaps some of the Facebook followers who commented felt I was being unfairly judgmental of the sacrament speaker. I admit that I do make a fair amount of judgments in this blog but I try my hardest to weigh those judgments against basic gospel principles. Many people are fond of quoting Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Mormons have the added benefit of the Joseph Smith Translation of the bible which reveals some key points that have been lost through the ages: "Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment." It's simply impossible to go through life without making judgments. God knows this. So he counsels us to be careful in the way we go about it.

I try very hard to make sure that I am making righteous judgments and I feel that the judgment I've made in this matter is a righteous one because I have turned to the example Christ Himself set when He came face-to-face with men conducting earthly business in a House of the Lord. "...Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, and said unto them, 'It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.'" (Matthew 21:12-13)

Frankly, I think that my response was pretty tame compared to Christ's.

Christ Himself made His feelings about mixing business and religion very clear when He chased the moneychangers out of the temple and caused quite a ruckus when doing so. Were those business people embarrassed? Probably. I imagined they were pretty pissed off as well, some stranger causing a huge mess in their place of business--of course it didn't matter to them that it was the House of the Lord, they followed profits, not prophets. This, I've observed, is true of a lot of Mormons as well. Their priorities are earthly, not celestial. They look upon the wealthy and say, "They are so blessed." This puts pressure on them to do everything they can to amass their own "blessings" so that they can show others how "blessed" they are while completely ignoring Christ's admonition to "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven... For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Matthew 6:19-21)

They might very well quote the Book of Mormon as justification for their entrepreneurialism: "...after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them..." (Jacob 2:19) Of course, that's where many wealthy Mormons that I know stop reading the Book of Mormon and start quoting Ayn Rand to find a moral justification for their own selfishness–they either are not aware of Rand's atheism and hostility toward religion or they simply choose to ignore it, the same way that they choose to ignore the rest of Jacob's teachings: "...and ye will seek [riches] for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted."

This experience was just another example of something being said in Church that caused my eyes to roll but also gave me reason to pause, think and–more importantly–ask, "Why would they say something like that?" I know a lot of "former" Mormons who left the Church because they strained their eyes rolling them at ridiculous things that "devout" Mormons say that have no basis in doctrine, scripture or just plain common sense but they recite them in Sacrament talks, Sunday school, priesthood and Relief Society meetings as if they brought them down from Mt. Sinai themselves. I confess, that in those first moments of hearing some stupid remarks relating to anything from homosexuality to politics to economics spouted from the pulpit or in the classroom and "mingled with scripture" to give it an air of divine legitimacy, I have to restrain myself from taking offense or dragging those people out of the chapel or classroom by their ears and pointing out every scripture that contradicts whatever earthly ideology they hold to be true, but I don't. Most of the time I just sit quietly and roll my eyes, sometimes I will step out of the room and maybe vent to the Bishop who is very understanding about these things and after those feelings cool down, I'll ask the question, "Why would they say something like that?" And that's basically how I got started writing this blog. This allows me to put the silliness of the culture into a gospel perspective and keep going to church–because despite the few stupid things I hear, most of what I get from the experience of attending church is uplifting and enlightening.

I'm very grateful for the differing comments that I read on the Facebook page I created for this blog. I'm glad that it is a forum for discussion and respectful debate and not just an echo chamber where everyone agrees on everything that's posted. To paraphrase the late journalist Walter Lippmann, "Where everyone thinks alike, very little thinking is done at all." Having and expressing differing views and opinions is a hallmark of Christ's Gospel–if not Mormon culture–and getting people to come out of their shells, to not be afraid to speak up when they see a disparity between Mormon practices and Mormon teachings will help make it possible to foment positive change in the culture.

A Mormon definition of success?

I'm a filmmaker. I don't care if anyone decides to put any sort of adjective in front of "filmmaker" when referring to me, be it "independent," "Utah," "Mormon," "LDS," etc. As long they don't say that I'm a "bad filmmaker" or a hack, I'll accept whatever definition people want to throw out in reference to my work.

As a filmmaker, I do my best to be in the know when it comes to the local and independent film scenes. I keep tabs on the Utah Film Commission, the Motion Picture Association of Utah and a number of Utah-based filmmaking web sites, facebook groups and pages and e-mail lists including the LDS Film mailing list from which I received a link to a Mormon Times article by Lee Benson titled, "Utah writer/director finds his niche with PG family films" about a "Utah movie-maker" named Eric Hendershot--who I had never heard of despite his career spanning "over three decades;" and there's a reason I've never heard of him or his movies: from the research I've done, they're not really worth mentioning or recommending.

I'm glad that Benson referred to him as a "movie-maker" and not a "filmmaker" because I personally make a distinction between "films" and "movies"--basically, a film is a work of art that is to be appreciated, a movie is just a product to be sold--and from what I've learned of Hendershot's work, he is definitely NOT a filmmaker. He may write, direct and produce movies but so do a lot of people who contribute nothing to the art form and make a lot money doing it.

In the interest of full disclosure, I need to say that I did not watch any of Hendershot's movies in preparation for writing this essay and while I doubt that I would pay to see them, or even go out of my way to see them for free, I'd be more than happy to give them a look-see and a proper review so if he gets wind of this essay, he's more than welcome to send me copies of his movies and I'll watch them and review them based on their merits. Some people might think that it isn't fair of me to critique Hendershot without having seen any of his work but this essay really isn't about his work, it's about how he approaches his work--his movie-making philosophy if you will--which is documented in the Benson article and how that approach is judged and praised--also without having considered any of Hendershot's actual work.

It should also be understood though that I'm not in Hendershot's target demographic so even if I had not read Benson's article I would not be foud among the typical audience for Hendershot's movies. Not just because I don't have kids but because when I do become a parent, I want my children to grow up watching films that are high quality works of art, not products that are designed to sell within a superficially-defined niche market. In other words, I want my kids to have a sense of taste when it comes to deciding what kinds of films and television programs are worth watching which is a lesson that is simply not being taught by most Mormons and Benson's article is a pretty clear indicator of why that is: a lot of Mormons are so obsessed with content--or the absence of certain kinds of content--that they disregard every other consideration when it comes to choosing the media that they consume, up to and including its overall quality and that's just sad.

Some of the more interesting reviews of Hendershot's movies that I found were submitted by viewers on the Internet Move Database and, frankly, I think some of them were planted there either by Hendershot's people or the companies that distribute his direct-to-video movies--yes, I said direct-to-video; a market that Benson called "ancient history," which isn't really accurate; the direct-to-video market is quite popular though with the advent of online services like Netflix, Hulu and Apple TV, film distribution is certainly evolving more quickly than ever before. The other "positive" reviews kept harping on what great "family movies" they were. As if that can make up for any flaws pointed out by other reviewers that probably ring a little more true to the overall quality--or lack thereof--of Hendershot's work. Some examples:

"Well, let's see. [based on the characters in one of Hendershot's movies] Men are stupid, living vicariously thru their sons and would rather pursue their hobby than enrich their marriage and family life; all married women have large breasts and shallow minds... yup, these are ideas that we want in the heads of America's boys and young men...It's appropriate that I write this review on Thanksgiving...what a turkey this movie is! It was and should be an embarrassment to the American Film industry... As far as the 'satire' and 'parody' comments, those remind me of the tired old line 'I don't know what you're talking about' when the murderer is uncovered (It's obvious he does). In other words, they call it a satire because deep down they know how BAD their work is."

"okay i'm 12 years old and i thogut [sic] this movie was pretty damn stupid, and the kid [sic] were f*cking crappy actors ..."

"...the movie becomes irritating rather than cute..."

"... boring, pointless..."

"...the moment's where your heart should go out to the kids, it doesn't. It just seems like there was no intention to really grab us at any moment in the film. The director seemed happy with just letting us grin and wait for the happy ending, which of course, was inevitable. The villains were typical goofballs, which definetly didn't help...this is simple kids entertainment, but not the best of simple kids entertainment that I've come across."

"The scenery is nice but that's about all the movie has going for it. Avoid, unless you like horses or pine for the scenery west of the Mississippi."

"Blech. Just how much of this stuff can the studios put out? Promark Entertainment struck out yet again with this flop. This is a kids' movie so the following rules apply: 1. All of the kids are quite smart. 2. All of the parents and police are totally clueless. 3. Poop figures prominently in a running gag. Seen it all before? So have I. The only positive thing I can say about this film is that the child acting is at least tolerable... Feel free to seek out better family fare than this."

Based on these reviews, I can totally understand why, as the Mormon Times article says, "...he's stayed alive and thrived all these years with nothing above PG ratings."

There's an old saying that you'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator. In the "Movie-making" business, the two lowest common denominators are pornography and family films. If you have a solid business plan, you can make a decent return on your investment by producing porn or direct-to-video-movies that are marketed as "family friendly."

That's because porn and family films actually have two key aspects in common vis-à-vis the business end of distributing movies:

1) Neither porn nor family films are artistic in more than the most superficial of descriptions and where movies are concerned, art just doesn't sell.

2) Each has a built in market of people who will buy them without so much as reading a review or looking beyond the rating. Some people buy movies exclusively for the G, PG or XXX that they see on the packaging.

The markets for pornography and family films consist of people who, for the most part, have no taste or even a sense of what a "good" movie actually is. All they're looking for is something with which to kill time, whether it's lazy parents who rely on their televisions as the sole entertainer and educator of their children or... people who are addicted to porn and have time and money to throw away on it. Either way, the products are designed to distract people who have no taste... or in the case of the family films, destroy any sense of taste that an otherwise intelligent kid might potentially have had to begin with, thus creating a future consumer of poorly made, direct-to-video family films.

The point I'm trying to make is that, as a rule, family films are not worth watching.

Nowhere in Benson's article was anything said about the quality of Hendershot's movies. I don't trust the reviews on the IMDb--even the positive ones that appear to have been written by actual viewers--because the audience for family films, as I said, has no sense of taste and wouldn't know a good movie from a bad one to begin with. There is a brief reference in the article to Herndershot's latest film but the article is not a review and even when it mentions similar films in Hendershot's resume, little more is said about them than the fact that "His plots revolve mainly around kids. Kids getting into predicaments, kids getting out of predicaments, kids having adventures, kids teaching life's lessons to everyone." You'll recall from the user reviews above that the kids have to teach the lessons because the adults are usually written as idiots.

Nothing is said about whether or not Hendershot's movies are any good. In fact, the only time the word "good" appears in the article is to describe the family film market as a "good niche" for Hendershot and that's only in reference to how lucrative the market is which probably says more about Hendershot's skills as a producer than as a "movie-maker." We've already established that art is not a factor in what he does.

To quote Benson's article: "Throughout his career, Hendershot has specialized in making movies emphasizing the F word, as in Family. He is yet to make a movie you couldn't sit down and watch in a convent." That's actually pretty descriptive but, again, it says nothing about the movies themselves, certainly nothing to suggest why I should even bother to watch them. I'm pretty sure I could watch a two hour DVD of paint drying in a convent without worrying about offending anyone but that doesn't mean that I should actually waste my time watching it. I watch a lot of independent films, I've seen shorts that amounted pretty much to watching paint dry and while they weren't offensive in any way, they were not worth watching for five minutes, let alone the 90-minutes to two-hours one usually has to commit to watching a mediocre family film.

Benson also says of Hendershot, "He's been just as strict about never creating content that goes against his own personal standards."

What standards are those again? Oh, yes, the standards that are arbitrarily set and just as arbitrarily defined by the Ratings Board of the Motion Picture Association of America. Hendershot has apparently turned down offers to direct projects that could "qualify" for an R rating and bases his decisions on the fact that "I've got too many grandkids I have to look in the eye."

Just because the movies a person makes aren't rated R doesn't automatically mean that it's work they can be proud of. Some of the most awful movies I have ever seen in my life, in terms of writing, acting, themes, morality and overall quality have been rated G and PG and have all been marketed as "family films." Were I involved in any way with such productions, I wouldn't want to look anyone in the eye and admit to it. I wouldn't even include them on my resume. It should also be understood that just because a movie is rated PG-13 or R doesn't mean that it can't be something one can take pride in and want to share with family and friends as long as one feels they are mature enough to appreciate it.

Alas, this attitude is typical among Mormons. For various reasons based primarily on remarks made by General Authorities and repeated time and time again and taken completely out of context, a lot of Mormons have come to believe that any movie that is rated R is "bad." The problem with that logic is that these same people use it to justify an equally false belief that any movie that isn't rated R is automatically okay to watch by anyone, or at least somehow morally benign. And that couldn't be further from the truth.

So, why is Eric Hendershot being held aloft as a successful "movie-maker" who has "thrived"--other than my personal belief that Lee Benson may only have rewritten a press release and added his by-line to it? Probably because a lot of people--not just Mormons--equate financial success with moral validation for what they do. I'm sure that Hendershot feels that way. I'm also pretty sure that pornographers like Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt feel that way too. But when it comes to art, real art--and that includes filmmaking--validation for the work of the artists does not always come in the form of financial success. In all fairness, it doesn't always come in the form of a positive review either--there are a number of films that were initially panned by critics that eventually found their way into the hearts of those same critics upon subsequent viewings months and even years after their initial release. For some, validation comes with the completion of a film project. For others with the way their films are received by audiences who know and appreciate the genuine art of filmmaking.

Eric Hendershot may be a financially successful "movie-maker" but he's not an artist. He's not a filmmaker. He hasn't made a single movie that has had broad enough appeal to escape his "very good niche" market which doesn't pride itself on appealing to distinguishing consumers of cinematic art. He has created nothing that is in any way challenging or thought provoking. He is a one-man factory of products directed at family consumption, not even appreciation. How can one genuinely appreciate a product that is purchased solely to placate unruly children without having to worry about what they're watching being "inappropriate"--again, the lack of quality in the product hardly playing into the purchasing decision to begin with.

When I think of a successful and thriving "Utah writer/director" I'm more apt to consider my friends like Richard Dutcher who is an artist, who creates challenging and thought-provoking films. His resume isn't as long as Hendershots, but he's accomplished more artistically in a dozen years than Hendershot could ever hope to accomplish in his entire "thriving" career of churning out family-friendly, pedantic, direct-to-video fodder for whatever the latest craze is in electronic baby-sitting.

Some observations

I've decided to start this blog in order to offer some observations on Utah-Mormon culture "from the inside." By that I mean, observations from a perspective that is within the Church--I am an active member--but outside of the local culture (I am NOT originally from Utah). There are numerous blogs written by "former" Mormons, "Jack" Mormons and "Graduated" Mormons that claim to offer "insight" into the culture because the writers claim to have "been there"--once active, even "devout" members of "the Church"--but are now "free" to express themselves because they no longer affiliate themselves with "the Church." However, the more I speak with people who claim to have this insight, the more I realize that many of these people can't seem to make a distinction between Utah-Mormon culture and the Mormon religion. They have bought into the myth--the same myth embraced by many active Mormons--that the culture and the Church are one and the same. They are NOT. Another realization that I came to is that I have experienced much of the same treatment, ridicule and emotional ostracism that many of my "former" Mormon friends have so I can completely empathize with their experiences and yet, I remain an active member of the Church with a testimony of the Gospel that remains very important to me; which begs the question: Why do I remain active in the Church despite having experienced much of the same treatment that many "former" Mormons have experienced and used to justify leaving the faith? This is the question that I intend to explore with this blog. The question is--by its very nature--complex and multifaceted, as are the many answers it brings up which is why I think a blog is probably the best medium in which to explore it. One particular answer to the question that I've touched on already is the understanding that I have come to, that the culture and the Church are not the same thing. When I see or hear Mormons passing judgment against others for their lack of conformity to the "teachings" of the Church and/or "The General Authorities," they are not in fact referring to any specific teachings or doctrine, but are more likely making inferences based on often vague statements or pieces of counsel that are taken grossly outside of the context in which they were presented. I hope that the reader will come to appreciate my observations and the place from which they are made. It is not my intention to offend anyone but I will say now that I can be blunt--even crass in the opinions of some--but anyone who knows me personally would not be surprised by my bluntness or even the occasional azure utterance from time to time. ;-) I would also like to invite the reader to comment and share with me their own observations and experiences within and outside of Utah-Mormon culture.