A Really Cool Interview with the Writer of the Jane and Emma Movie

[Third Hour]

Jane and Emma (now on DVD and digital) is the best Latter-day Saint film in years, and one of the very best in the 20 years since God’s Army launched the movement. With directness, compassion, and unflinching honesty, it addresses race relations in the early Church while delivering a message of faith in the Restored Gospel. It’s an impressive balance, achieved in the poignant, beautiful screenplay by Melissa Leilani Larson. She was kind enough to answer my questions about the film, our history, our doctrine, and the powerful examples of Jane Manning James and Emma Smith.  JONATHAN DECKER: Why make this film now? Why is it relevant? MELISSA LEILANI LARSON: The film encapsulates a lot of firsts in Latter-day Saint cinema. A Black female protagonist for starts. Jane Manning James is a hero in every sense. Her story should not be new, but to many it is. Jane should be a household name—someone we mention and revere on a regular basis. Her friendship with Emma is just one facet of...

View the full article

[Vort]

There's a bold new contender for Least Favorite Third Hour Columnist! He's surging into the lead!

[Just_A_Guy]

As to the columnist . . . We’ll wait and see.

Certainly not too impressed with the filmmaker, though; and I’m glad I haven’t spent any money on what she seems to concede is basically a propaganda piece.  

[Sunday21]

I am looking forward to seeing this movie. The story sounds inspiring. 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

I am looking forward to seeing this movie. The story sounds inspiring. 

Sure, if it’s true.  

I have no doubt as to Jane’s sincerity, but I have some concerns as to the reliability of her memory in some regards.  For example, Joseph Smith never participated in, or authorized, or proposed an adoptive sealing for anyone during his lifetime—whether to himself or to some other adoptive parent.  Joseph may have proposed a plural marriage to Jane, which she later misremembered as an adoption when, in the middle of all the adoptive sealings being done in Utah, she decided that she wanted to be sealed to Joseph after all (it would also explain why Jane, for all her faithfulness, declined to be sealed to Joseph the first time he offered it—several good and faithful women declined Joseph’s offers of plural marriage).  But I think it’s about as likely for Joseph to have offered to adopt Jane Manning, as it would have been for him to secretly designate Joseph Smith III or James Strang or Lyman Wight or Sidney Rigdon as his successor to the presidency of the Church.  It has nothing to do with Jane’s identity or her race—it just isn’t the sort of thing we know Joseph was doing during those last months of his life.

Edited April 14, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[person0]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

There's a bold new contender for Least Favorite Third Hour Columnist! He's surging into the lead! 

Is there a reason why they don't get us to contribute articles? (serious question)

Edited April 14, 2019 by person0

[Vort]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

Is there a reason why they don't get us to contribute articles? (serious question)

I can think of several here who could write good, useful articles. I can even think of some who would probably write solid articles that I would not philosophically agree with.

I think the TH staff has assembled some talented writers, skewing hard towards the young. I guess what I'd really like to see is tighter editorial control, perhaps in copy and certainly in content. Decker seems a reasonably good writer, though I tend to take a dim view of psychology and much of counseling, and thus am not really his target audience. But his columns, well illustrated in this one, tend toward the critical fringe. He makes no challenges to the filmmaker's (Larsen's) many politically and feministically correct opinions and assertions that e.g. the Church has difficulty dealing with its racial history (bull crap), implications that the Church's history is somehow embarrassing (maybe to her, but not to the faithful), and that attitudes commonly exist such as that talent is defined by gender (more bull crap).

The article is an embarrassment, largely because Larsen herself embraces and furthers the distortions of the oh-so-enlightened self-described intelligensia of the Church. I suspect Decker identifies with this same movement; in fact, I strongly suspect that most of TH's columnists, and probably their administrators, do as well. It's a shame, but there you have it. Unless we want to go out and start our own competing web site, we can't do much about it. Whine about it on TH's forums, I guess.

[Just_A_Guy]

8 hours ago, person0 said:

Is there a reason why they don't get us to contribute articles? (serious question)

@pam will be quick to tell you that AskGramps, another MGF project, is always recruiting.  And AskGramps hasn’t forgotten its roots.   

[person0]

12 hours ago, Vort said:

oh-so-enlightened self-described intelligensia of the Church

My usual perspective on that group of people:

Quote

 

Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.  And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

AND

O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

 

What baffles me the most is that so many either literally don't read the scriptures, or they read that passage and manage to remain forgetful of this one:

Quote

. . . whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

🤷‍♂️

Edited April 14, 2019 by person0

[Guest Mores]

On 4/14/2019 at 12:59 AM, Vort said:

I can think of several here who could write good, useful articles. I can even think of some who would probably write solid articles that I would not philosophically agree with.

And that seems to be the kicker.  Consider that most of the columnists (that I've observed thus far) are some sort of media/journalism or liberal arts type of background.  These types of college major always leans left, even at BYU.  (Remember Cecelia Farr).

This is different.  First, one would have to separate what Decker actually said vs the filmmaker's responses to his interview questions.  Decker, himself, is a marriage & family therapist (leaning towards the blue end of the personality type spectrum).  But he is also an actor and TV personality (tends toward the left).  While they may be indicators, nothing definitive.

As for the interview, I don't have a problem with the columnists actual commentary and questions.  I do have a problem with the interviewee's responses.

[Guest Mores]

On 4/13/2019 at 10:35 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Sure, if it’s true.  

I have no doubt as to Jane’s sincerity, but I have some concerns as to the reliability of her memory in some regards.  For example, Joseph Smith never participated in, or authorized, or proposed an adoptive sealing for anyone during his lifetime—whether to himself or to some other adoptive parent.  Joseph may have proposed a plural marriage to Jane, which she later misremembered as an adoption when, in the middle of all the adoptive sealings being done in Utah, she decided that she wanted to be sealed to Joseph after all (it would also explain why Jane, for all her faithfulness, declined to be sealed to Joseph the first time he offered it—several good and faithful women declined Joseph’s offers of plural marriage).  But I think it’s about as likely for Joseph to have offered to adopt Jane Manning, as it would have been for him to secretly designate Joseph Smith III or James Strang or Lyman Wight or Sidney Rigdon as his successor to the presidency of the Church.  It has nothing to do with Jane’s identity or her race—it just isn’t the sort of thing we know Joseph was doing during those last months of his life.

I found one statement from the columnist quite telling.  He said the film had "unflinching honesty".  I guess I won't know until I see it and research everything to verify it.  The problem is that most people won't.  They'll take this film as a documentary that has been heavily peer reviewed.  In other words, this will become the new narrative, the new gospel, regardless of accuracy.

[Just_A_Guy]

15 minutes ago, Mores said:

I found one statement from the columnist quite telling.  He said the film had "unflinching honesty".  I guess I won't know until I see it and research everything to verify it.  The problem is that most people won't.  They'll take this film as a documentary that has been heavily peer reviewed.  In other words, this will become the new narrative, the new gospel, regardless of accuracy.

Remember how people were kvetching that the film’s marketing was stunted because the Social Media Fast took place right in the middle of its premiere?

At the time I thought that was coincidence, and I delighted in the Mormon Left’s paranoia.

Now, I’m wondering if I shouldn’t have delighted in President Nelson’s foresight and wileyness.  

Edited April 16, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest Mores]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Remember how people were kvetching

That's the second time I've seen you use that word.  I also noticed you use the word "patina" multiple times within a short period.  Are you looking up a "word of the day"?

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

that the film’s marketing was stunted because the Social Media Fast took place right in the middle of its premiere?

At the time I thought that was coincidence and delighted in the Mormon Left’s paranoia.

Now, I’m wondering if I shouldn’t have delighted in President Nelson’s foresight and wileyness.  

Hah.  While I wouldn't rule it out completely, I tend to think it was coincidence.

[Just_A_Guy]

47 minutes ago, Mores said:

That's the second time I've seen you use that word.  I also noticed you use the word "patina" multiple times within a short period.  Are you looking up a "word of the day"?

Sadly, the truth is more prosaic:  I’m just a nerd.

(Not as much as @zil, though.)