Wrestling with God

My friends Torben and Marissa wrote and directed a film last year, Wrestling With God: A Three-Way Conversation on Mormonism. It played at the LDS Film Festival but I wasn’t able to make it to the showing, unfortunately. But that’s okay because it’s now up on Vimeo. :)

Very thought-provoking. For most of my life I’ve basically been the bearded guy on the right, but over the past few years I’ve been migrating more towards the girl’s perspective (primarily because of this blog, actually :)). Which isn’t to say that I agree with everything she says, of course; all I mean is that I’m more open to flexibility in interpreting the doctrines of the Church. It is possible to get it wrong, yes, but I’ve found that I don’t know enough to decide that. Let God be the judge. And in the meantime, I’ll do the best I can with the personal revelation I receive and my understanding of the scriptures and the words of the prophets — and it’s okay if other people’s interpretations aren’t the same as mine. Which is basically the point of the film. Fancy that. :) Gideon Burton’s got a great review of the film on his site, by the way.

In similar news, today I got an e-mail update from Fit for the Kingdom, a site producing short Mormon documentaries. I’d heard about them a few months ago and watched several of their videos, which are definitely not your stereotypical short Mormon films, but they’re good and worth your time. (And I’m not just saying that because my friend Scott filmed one in Thailand. :)) This Deseret News article summarizes it well:

The films are raw and basic, devoid of theatrics and excess emotion-inducing elements. The titles are also simple, with most being named after the person who is the subject of the film.

While he acknowledges that traditional LDS-themed media is “well-meaning,” [Dean] Duncan directed a different approach. His objective was to apply simple techniques to what he calls “the domestic sphere.”

“We wanted to remove all of the gloss, all of the compulsory means, and, to use a phrase from ‘King Lear,’ do the thing itself,” he said. “I was convinced that we could be edified by a greater attention at that which was close at hand.”

I’m liking this new trend in Mormon cinema. Liking it a lot. :)

Thanks for posting this video. I absolutely agree with the girl when she believes that everybody in the church - up to the top - is a buffet Mormon. There are always going to be differences in the way that people interpret things. Also, trying to mentally reconcile everything in Mormonism into a complete whole to live by can be harrowing. If you don’t mold Mormonism around your own personal preferences to make it work for you, you are going to be pretty miserable in the church.

A lot of post-mormons are those who tried to live Mormonism as though it really was mostly or completely true. Those who stay in the church throughout their lives, despite questions, have found ways to justify not following certain aspects of Mormonism.

The girl chalked buffet-Mormonism up to personal revelation, but she seemed to be unaware that in the early days of the church, Joseph Smith had to put the kibosh on most personal revelation, because it was causing things to get out of hand. What do you know - people’s personal revelations did not always agree.

There are some arguments against buffet-Mormonism. For example, Gordon Hinckley said in 2003, “Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground.” So, the prophet claims that the church is true. If you witness in public to agree to this, and then in your personal life you act as though the church only partly true, that there IS middle ground, that you can pick and choose - you’re being a hypocrite.

I think you’re perhaps making it a little too black-and-white. :) It’s quite possible for Mormonism to be completely true and for there to be some latitude in interpreting the doctrine. (I don’t mean that just any interpretation is valid. To make it a numerical analogy, let’s say /- 5 is within range, but 10 or -28 is definitely not in range.)

At any rate, I’m trying to mold my own personal preferences around Mormonism, and I’m not miserable in the least in the Church. :)

I strenuously disagree with the argument portrayed in Ali’s last paragraph (which means that I agree with Ali), while at the same time agreeing with President Hinckley’s statement within that paragraph. Yet I recognize that’s how many interpret such statements by Pres. Hinckley and others. My (Thai) stake president gave a talk condemning “salad bar Mormons” last Stake conference, and in the same conference there was a talk about how 98% obedience is disobedience (the latter talk was from an American senior missionary). I think this kind of rhetoric is dangerously susceptible to misinterpretation and misapplication.

And Ben, I agree with you, too. I think I would prefer to phrase it in terms of the Gospel of Jesus Christ being true, not Mormonism, because I think the word “Mormonism” necessarily encompasses all of the social and cultural pseudo-doctrines. That is to say that it means something different from the Gospel. I would define Mormonism as something more like ‘the gospel as practiced in the final dispensation’, and that the Gospel is the absolute truth that underlies the subjectivity of Mormonism. I believe that many practices of Mormonism are not so-called eternal truths, such as the Word of Wisdom, and that its modern interpretation and application is man-made, insofar as it varies from the scriptural version, and from the version taught over the pulpit by apostles and prophets. (That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in practicing it as I believe to be correct, mind you.*)

The Gospel is simple, but I think all of the little program and commandments we have are born out of a necessity to be commanded in (nearly) all things, and our fundamental incapacity to follow the two key commandments without further instruction and commandment (see Matt. 22:40, of course). That’s why we have things like the ten commandments, like a very spelled-out law of chastity, like home teaching, etc.

*But no, I don’t drink beer :P, even though D&C 89:17 would seem to expressly allow it, considering there apparently wasn’t any other “mild drink” made from barley or other grains to be referring to. The modern interpretation is clearly the result of the nationwide abolitionist movement that came to a head in 1920s with the disastrous 18th Amendment, which was shortly before the Word of Wisdom became a compulsory commandment.

I’m, um, glad you don’t drink beer? :P No, really, I like the gospel/Mormonism dichotomy, since it’s definitely there. And it’s so easy to confuse the two. Thus following the spirit becomes essential once again. :)