Breaking A Mormon Myth.

[prisonchaplain]

6 And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.

So Mel Gibson is now our difinative authority on Christ? He's the one we're suppose to go to to learn about our Savior because he has a more perfect perspective than the prophets? Oh, why didn't you say so in the first place?

So if it was Adam's daughter's birthday and she really wanted that firstling the Lord would understand; He would say why deny her the experience just to follow the letter of the law?

So if your wife realizes she truely loves the hunk next door your ok with her consumating her love because why stand on formalities when a wonderful experience shouldn't be denied. And after all; God is Love, right?

I'm not sure Mel Gibson claimed such. The Passion is his artistic reflection on Christ's crucifixion. Nothing more.

Some LDS have interpreted the comments of some of the Church's prophets as amounting to an absolute ban on R-rated movie viewing. Others have not come to that conclusion.

BTW, for those who have seen the film--did the movie contradict anything the prophets have said???

A general comment and complaints about what the movie did NOT cover (the resurrection, the 'why' of his death, etc.): I found Gibson's choice to focus singularly on Christ's passion unto death edifying. He did not pretend to present the gospel, or a wholistic vision of Jesus' mission here. The focus was on the depth of Jesus' love for us--and the Father's love. In essence, this movie is a cinematic devotional--one I found incredibly compelling.

[rosie321]

As Ben said I love having the Agency to choose. Ultimately regardless of what the prophets do or don't say we do have our own choices that we must stand accountable before God on. So what is it that we are doing and why? Why would one want to see the movie?

As far as the movie itself , I don't think the movie is all bad and probably does reflect a lot of things that could be very useful to some people. I truly believe Mel Gibson sincerely thought he was doing a good thing at the time he made it. It was a good seed planted in good faith. So no doubt some good things will come about. Whether watered down truths or not (what he tried to do was the cold hard truth)

The movie could and did call people to reflect on christ and his sacrifice. It motivated people to see the consequences of their actions and the enormous price that was paid. This drew some people to want to change the course of their life and repent. Wasn't there people that even turned themselves into the law because of it? That is a good thing. I don't think the prophets or any good person would argue against that at all. Some people needed to see it. They may not have understood or been willing to learn another way. Understanding of the great price and repentence needed to be sought. It was a necessary line to some.

But I don't begrudge those who do not wish to see it. On religious or moral grounds.

Rated R can be very bad. With many of the things we are trying as Christians to avoid. Why put pictures into your head you can't get out? What is the purpose in it?

The heavy violence in this particular movie was a lot. Even if it is what Christ went through. Not everyone can handle it well or will use it to feed their appetite for violence. As before I think in the case of the crucifixion many details were left out for a reason. I did have trouble with people taking young children to see the movie because I think it was too much violence that they do not have the tools or understanding to put it into perspective.

The intense focus on the tortuous sacrifice was concerning . Don't get me wrong. I think everyone should be aware and appreciate what was done for them. But it isn't the whole picture. It lays on so thick the tortous side and glosses over the most powerful part of it all.

I guess I'm kind of sensitive lately about the intense emphasis on Christs sacrifice and its doom and gloom and not the joy, hope, peace, and love side that was shown through the resurrection and the rest of Christs love. The cleansing that is possible. An unintended result is that people can use the intense sacrificial focus to feed feelings of unworthiness and extreme poor self esteem.

Having the priveledge of taking the sacrament reminds me not only of the great sacrifice of Christ and the need to repent and start anew but the cleansing that is possible because of His resurrection. Christ died and rose again. In the LDS church water is used which reminds me of the act of baptism. Going down into the water and coming back up. If Christ had stayed in the grave I could never have hope or be cleansed.'

For me Mels movie might shock and awe me into some intense feelings but it misses out on truly bringing back the hope and keeping me going. Which is what Christs sacrifice really accomplished. The same feelings he tries to draw out can be felt more intensely and powerfully by taking the sacrament. So why would someone settle for less? Why weed out the truth when you can have it right there?

People don't want to seek biblical direction from someone they don't feel is really inspired. I know many people who questioned Gibson authority even before his recent incident with police. So if that will stand in the way of them appreciating the truths he presents then I can understand why they wouldn't want to go see it.

It all boils down to personal choice and what we do or don't feel comfortable with. Its the wonderful power of free agency to be wielded wisely. The prophets can say whatever they want but people don't have to listen or do. They must find out how to work it into their own lives.

[Nate]

BTW, for those who have seen the film--did the movie contradict anything the prophets have said???

As taught in the Chrurch we don't believe that Mary Magdeline was a prostitute.

[CrimsonKairos]

Two things I have to give Mel props for.

Frist, if I remember correctly, he opens the movie with a quote from Isaiah (my favorite Old Testament prophet).

Second, he shows drops of blood mingled with Christ's sweat in Gethsemane. That's a detail not even LDS depictions include (I know the reasons, or suspect them anyway).

I don't get why Mel depicted Satan as a freaky bald lady holding a child that looks like it came out of the X-Files. Anyone get that?

[prisonchaplain]

Two things I have to give Mel props for.

Frist, if I remember correctly, he opens the movie with a quote from Isaiah (my favorite Old Testament prophet).

Second, he shows drops of blood mingled with Christ's sweat in Gethsemane. That's a detail not even LDS depictions include (I know the reasons, or suspect them anyway).

I don't get why Mel depicted Satan as a freaky bald lady holding a child that looks like it came out of the X-Files. Anyone get that?

I got the answer right from Gibson. He was trying to show what happens when evil twists what is good. He says that Satan can make something look ALMOST right...but not quite.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/ne...01-passion.html

[CrimsonKairos]

Thanks for the clarification PC.

I still don't get how a bald lady with a deformed child looks almost normal. Normal for what?

[prisonchaplain]

Thanks for the clarification PC.

I still don't get how a bald lady with a deformed child looks almost normal. Normal for what?

The bald Devil looks almost like a woman--almost beautiful. Yet, there are subtle, almost male-like featurs. The result? Grotesque. Likewise, the baby, with subtle features that are those of a middle-aged person. And again, the result is disgusting.

Bottom-line: Satan takes what is normal and good, makes subtle changes, but the result is strikingly bad.

[CrimsonKairos]

Well said, PC. Thanks.

[Rosewood]

Actually I saw an edited version from Clean Films so I didn't see the whole thing.

I did, however, notice the same doctrinal issues mentioned by CK and Nate. The Satan was really creepy but I understood exactly what Mel was depicting and it worked for me even though it was X-file-ish.

The depiction of the Passion of Christ is steeped in history and rich in Catholic tradition. They've been doing it for hundreds of years and it goes to their very heart. People feel deeply about it. And for that reason I appreciate the movie. I am so happy that it was made.

My choice about R-rated movies is my personal choice, and because of the choice it gives me great pleasure and I have received personal blessings from it.

Even though I know I will never reach perfection in this life time except through Christ, I rejoice when I have the opportunity of my own free will to demonstrate my love for Him and my gratitude to Him. I can do this thing and so I do because there are so many other things I don't do or can't do.

[Nate]

I was thinking that when reading of these events of the scriptures do we really imagine the events in a way that was portrayed in this movie. I'm not saying that how its was portrayed was 100% correct but I think it wasn't too terribly far from the mark as far as the intensity. I cant say that i've ever shed a tear by "reading" about the atonement. i've shed a tear in bearing testimony of it and by seeing it portrayed in various movies (the passion one of them). Is the events that we read of rated "R" if the MPAA had there hands on the rating? Do were kinda sugar coat the in our minds to not really deal with it or do most of us not really understand what it really means to be "flogged"?

Not making a point or anything but this thread has made me reflect on how I respond to the movie and the scriptures. You can read the scriptures and not have the spirit which equals some pretty boring reading. Its kinda hard to sit through The Testaments video and NOT feel the spirit of the Atonement. Some people learn better with a book in front of them and some with a visual. Maybe some need both, dual senses per say like how a baby has to stick everything in there mouth to better understand it.

So what I'm trying to say is that we should put the scriptures in our mouth to understand it better

[seekerw]

I generally don't watch R-rated movies, because I hardly ever watch movies and the ones I do watch have to be worth my time. The Passion is the only R-rated movie I've ever seen that I believe was worth watching. (I am a convert and didn't immediately stop watching R-rated shows after my baptism.) It's funny; I watched it twice and didn't even think about its rating until now. The only reason, IMO, it was rated R was because of the violence when Christ was beaten and crucified. However, that seemed like appropriate violence to me, and it was probably fairly accurately portrayed what really happened. I almost felt like I was there in ancient Jerusalem at times.

Could I have been happy had I never seen it? Sure I could have, but I feel I gained something by seeing it. The Atonement and the New Testament now seem a bit more real to me.

Seeker

[Serg]

Let me assure you, if all your decisions are based on what a (loved and cherished) but quasi-victorian wealthy anachronized leader tells you, I think Lucifer's plan worked concerning controling free will!

Wow...you really believe that??? Don't let a Prophet of God influence your decisions, or you'll be following Satan's plan??? Is it just because he is wealthy, old, or you think Church leaders with revelation just don't know what they are talking about All of our decisions in my home are based on what the Prophet says. Remember, they will not lead you a stray.

1. Yes I know/believe that.

2. Nobody here said of not letting prophets influence your desicions*(are you misreading?), but not DICTATE ALL of them(that was Satan's plan, CONTROL-even through commandments of goodness- our will).

3. I wrote a post concerning prophets, and their reliability. Now, you must be blind to believe that a mortal man can never lead you astray, but that's beside the point. The Lord, through prophets of times past, whose words we voted for as Scripture, and being canonized remain even higher to anyone else's, speak of us in a way that , teh Lord dislikes teh servant who sits around waithing for him(or leaders) to tell them what or how to do everything, but loves him who being a child of him(and no mere partime worker) KNOWS on his own, and seeks on his own to set his own set of judgements to live by.

[Rosewood]

Riverdude, I missed your earlier comment until Serg mentioned it. If you're still here, exactly what part of LDS do you believe in?

[Outshined]

I didn't see The Passion, mostly due to lack of interest, but I do watch R-rated films occasionally, and feel that some have worth. Saving Private Ryan and Flags of Our Fathers are two R-rated films that I feel were really worth my time to see.

Nobody here said of not letting prophets influence your desicions*(are you misreading?), but not DICTATE ALL of them(that was Satan's plan, CONTROL-even through commandments of goodness- our will).

I thought he was commenting more on the obvious contempt you displayed for the prophet in your post.

[Guest Ajax]

Quite the pun--don't get caught up with the LETTER of the Law (LETTER...R...GET IT?). BTW, as information, there is a federal law that says we may not show R-rated movies to federal prisoners. So, they get to watch Jerry Springer, and other such trash TV, but must forgo The Passion of the Christ and Schindler's List.

Just from hanging around here, I do get the impression that with the COJCLDS there are shades of interpretations. Not denominations--just nuances. Then again, I'd argue that most denominations are nuances of Christianity, as well. :-)

What do you mean by nuances of Christianity?

[Serg]

<div class='quotemain'>

Quite the pun--don't get caught up with the LETTER of the Law (LETTER...R...GET IT?). BTW, as information, there is a federal law that says we may not show R-rated movies to federal prisoners. So, they get to watch Jerry Springer, and other such trash TV, but must forgo The Passion of the Christ and Schindler's List.

Just from hanging around here, I do get the impression that with the COJCLDS there are shades of interpretations. Not denominations--just nuances. Then again, I'd argue that most denominations are nuances of Christianity, as well. :-)

What do you mean by nuances of Christianity?

Then again, something that even he won't be able to articulate logically. For if by nuances we are to understand what by nuances you meant in regard to "shades"(variation) of interpretation, then you are in a big (ecumenic?) assumption. Of course, we all know of your good will in these terms, but nowhere have I in your posts noted any universalism, (as I myself, would sustain ).

[Outshined]

It doesn't take a lot of pondering to understand what he was saying. He feels that the various denominations result from slightly different beliefs about Christianity. He articulated it just fine.