New LDS historical fiction film coming soon

[flameburns623]

Hi folks!

Looks as if they’ve made the novelized history of the LDS Church into a movie. See the following:

workandtheglory.com/

“The Work and the Glory” was a novelization of the early history of Mormonism by Gerald Lund (I think). A palatable way of injesting a bit of history, which most Americans seem highly averse to in it’s non-fictional manfiestation. Not really great literature but interesting. If nothing else this film will likely be very much fit for kids, though you might want to consider whether you think the film is propagandizing them. Certainly the LDS Church tends to prefer sanitized ‘faith-promoting’ versions of their own history to less-edifying versions. NOT that this is an LDS Church film–several private LDS film companies have been creating a niche genre known as "Mormon filmography’ for several years now. Mostly not especially appealing outside Mormonland. Just to let everyone know!

 

[tkdnick]

flameburns623:

Hi folks!

Looks as if they’ve made the novelized history of the LDS Church into a movie. See the following:

workandtheglory.com/

“The Work and the Glory” was a novelization of the early history of Mormonism by Gerald Lund (I think). A palatable way of injesting a bit of history, which most Americans seem highly averse to in it’s non-fictional manfiestation. Not really great literature but interesting. If nothing else this film will likely be very much fit for kids, though you might want to consider whether you think the film is propagandizing them. Certainly the LDS Church tends to prefer sanitized ‘faith-promoting’ versions of their own history to less-edifying versions. NOT that this is an LDS Church film–several private LDS film companies have been creating a niche genre known as "Mormon filmography’ for several years now. Mostly not especially appealing outside Mormonland. Just to let everyone know!

Hmm…interesting…I have some LDS friends who have the set and have been reading them. They asked my mom if liked to read historical novels, when my mom responded yes, they said she should read them.

 

[TOmNossor]

I appreciated the respectful way in which you introduced this.

Were I Catholic I would certainly attend this film, but I do not think I would take my kids. I suspect the film will present the origins of the CoJCoLDS in a very positive light. Faith is a fragile thing. I believe we should examine our paradigms, but the risks of unstructured upbringings brought on by faith confusion is not worth introducing the young to the world of religious controversy. I am sure you and I agree that our belief structures are the most logical read of the data available to us, but younger children are probably not ready to engage the evidence as we have.

Now for a quick bit.

You said:

Certainly the LDS Church tends to prefer sanitized ‘faith-promoting’ versions of their own history to less-edifying versions.

TOm:

Absolutely true, but certainly not a LDS characteristic.

First, every church presents sanitized versions of their own history. I never confront non-internet Catholics with the teachings of Pope Honorius, the development of Christian Doctrine theories of Cardinal Newman, or many other accepted aspects of Catholic history, but I can safely say that a small percentage know of such things. I did not learn of these things during my Catholic upbringing, and a whole cadre of anti-Catholics think it their duty to disseminate the above truths with whatever lies they choose to interlace them with. Note: I do not claim either of these truths are such that the Catholic Church cannot be exactly what it says it is, only that these are not regularly taught to the youth or in RCIA because they are not faith promoting.

Second, David Hume said, "In the infancy of new religions, the wise and learned commonly esteem the matter too inconsiderable to deserve their attention or regard. And when afterwards they would willingly detect the cheat, in order to undeceive the deluded multitude, the season is now past, and the records and witnesses, which might clear up the matter, have perished beyond recovery.”

Hume’s statement is absolutely true for the origins of things like Christianity/Catholicism and Islam. It is absolutely false for the origins of the CoJCoLDS. It is no wonder in my mind that there is a great availability of the less than faith promoting truths associated with the origins of the CoJCoLDS. Critics were publishing material that has survived to today before the church was organized in 1830 and before the BOM was published.

Charity, TOm

 

[flameburns623]

TOmNossor:

I appreciated the respectful way in which you introduced this.

Were I Catholic I would certainly attend this film, but I do not think I would take my kids. I suspect the film will present the origins of the CoJCoLDS in a very positive light. Faith is a fragile thing . . . .I am sure you and I agree that our belief structures are the most logical read of the data available to us, but younger children are probably not ready to engage the evidence as we have.

I’m Anglican, not Catholic. I probably will attend–assuming the film comes to Missouri at all!!! Right now the film site isn’t showing any theaters in either Illinois (where I actually live) or in the St. Louis metro-area–I keyed-in two popular St. Louis ZIP codes with no indication that either location is recognized by the film site as a place where the film will show. I will likely take my family. I certainly will take a friend who is fond of conspiracy theories and convinced that the Mormons, Masons, and Jesuits are working together with other groups to take over the known universe. I’ve been promising to attend an LDS service with him–he doesn’t want to go alone. I’ve assured him he will be able to attend even the Melchizedek priesthood meeting. He doesn’t believe that such a diablolical organization would allow outsiders to observe them in their conspiratorial meetings. Dunno if attending services will ‘cure’ this fellow of his oddball ideas but it will go a long way towards demystifying things, I hope.

Certainly the LDSChurch tends to prefer sanitized ‘faith-promoting’ versions of their own history to less-edifying versions.

TOm:

. . . . .First, every church presents sanitized versions of their own history. I never confront non-internet Catholics with the teachings of Pope Honorius, the development of Christian Doctrine theories of Cardinal Newman, or many other accepted aspects of Catholic history, but I can safely say that a small percentage know of such things. I did not learn of these things during my Catholic upbringing, and a whole cadre of anti-Catholics think it their duty to disseminate the above truths with whatever lies they choose to interlace them with. Note: I do not claim either of these truths are such that the Catholic Church cannot be exactly what it says it is, only that these are not regularly taught to the youth or in RCIA because they are not faith promoting.

I will grant you that programs for the instruction of youths would tend to be less critical and more sacharine than programs geared towards fully mature adults. However more than a few Roman Catholic converts will tell you that they brought ‘to the table’ while studying their new-found faith all sorts of critical materials. RC Sproul and Ravi Zecharias, among other Protestants, certainly deal with very sophisticated criticisms of the Christian faith by unbelievers in a fair and open fashion.

Second, David Hume said, "In the infancy of new religions, the wise and learned commonly esteem the matter too inconsiderable to deserve their attention or regard. And when afterwards they would willingly detect the cheat, in order to undeceive the deluded multitude, the season is now past, and the records and witnesses, which might clear up the matter, have perished beyond recovery.” . . . .

Some critics of the Christian faith were suppressed by the early medieval Church. At least we THINK this is the case. Agnostic and atheistic critics would have us believe so, but this could be an appeal on their part to an emotional attack on faith generally. A great many other critics seem to have survived. A lot was lost inadvertently–fire in the centuries before our current era cost our heritage much of value. The losses we know of may be more the the ill winds of history than active ill will.