States of: Law
Posted on December 26th, 2006 by Kevin Burtt (The Baron)
[Follow-up to the discussion on Richard Dutcher’s “Christianity Today” interview–separated into a second post so we don’t have a fractured discussion thread]
One aspect of the “CT” interview deserves further discussion: concerning the segment from “States of Grace” where the missionaries take a transient into their apartment. A large section of the interview is Dutcher lamenting the fact that mission rules “prevent [missionaries] from doing acts of Christ-like service.”
Gee, let’s think about this: why do you think there’s a rule that missionaries can’t have anyone other than other missionaries into their apartment?
What do you think would happen if you changed the rules so that missionaries could have anyone they wanted in their apartment? Seriously… [”Party Friday night at the Elders’ place!”]
Why do all-you-can-eat restaurants not allow you to take leftover food on your plate home with you? (It’s not like anyone else is going to eat it–they’re just going to throw it away when they clear the table…a pointless waste of food.) What a stupid rule!
Except…what do you think would happen if the rules were changed and everyone could take ‘leftovers’ home? Why, you’d magically see the amount of ‘leftover’ food that patrons just couldn’t seem to put down at the time increase exponentially. Even ten seconds of serious consideration should make it clear that NOT having a takeout restriction would be the ‘stupid’ rule–one that would put a buffet restaurant out of business within a month.
Some points that should be obvious:
(1) Policy influences behavior–what people will do matters more than what people should do.
(2) Rules are not defined by the exceptions.
In Taiwan, one mission president defined the rule for missionaries listening to music as “only music that Christ would listen to”. This was rescinded soon after once it became obvious that missionaries had vastly disparate ideas of what music they thought Christ would listen to. Afterwards, the rule became “Church hymns only”. (And I’m sure there was no shortage of complaints: “No MoTab? No Michael McLean? What a stupid rule…” Really?)
(Or how about the rule that missionaries can’t go rock climbing? Sure, an MTC missionary died rock climbing in 1995, but, see, there were THREE other missionaries that didn’t, and that’s, like, a 75% survival rate! Stupid rule…)
When I was a missionary, missionaries were required by the rules to be in bed by 10:30pm. In my mission, two elders contacted a young high school student with a tremendous interest in the gospel. The problem was: his school schedule, including ‘cram sessions’ lasted from before seven in the morning to after ten at night, every night including Sunday (a more common schedule than you might think in Taiwan). The elders called up the mission president, explained the situation in detail, and received special permission to teach this young man from 10:30 to 11:30 pm twice a week–thereby ‘breaking’ mission rules. He was baptized, served a mission, married in the temple, and is an active and strong member in Taiwan to this day.
When I was a missionary, I served in a remote area with no sister missionaries. We ran across several promising female investigators who wanted to hear the gospel. Mission rules say female investigators must be taught by sisters, or by elders only if they are accompanied by another male member as ‘chaperon’…which we didn’t have, due to the small number of male members in the branch, all of whom worked and had no time to accompany us during the day. We called up the mission president, explained our situation in detail, and received special permission to–against the rules–teach these sisters at a designated time during the week with no chaperon. Three of them were baptized during my time in that area.
Basically, missionaries all over the world find ways to perform Christ-like service within the mission rules, and as occasionally augmented by inspired guidance from mission presidents. The situations above were treated as exceptions because they were exceptions–not cause to proclaim that the rules were ‘stupid’ because they ‘prevented’ missionaries from sharing the gospel.
What would the mission president in “States of Grace” have said if the missionaries had called him up, explained the situation in detail, and asked for guidance on the matter? Perhaps permission would have been granted (thus no longer counting as ‘breaking the rules’ by bringing Louis to their apartment) or perhaps suggest other reasonable ways to perform helpful Christ-like service for poor Louis that didn’t involve him staying in their apartment. Helping Louis as they did was not ‘wrong’, but if Dutcher can’t think of any reason why missions might find it wise to restrict access to missionary apartments as a general rule, something’s clearly amiss…
» Filed Under Any
Comments
38 Responses to “States of: Law”
Leave a Reply
Well said.
On my mission in Romania, we had an Elder who, one night, left his companion in the apartment and just walked around the street, late in the evening. He didn’t meet up with any girl, or do anything…well bad, but he was immediately sent home. In fact, the Area General Authority, Elder Neuenschwander came into the country to send him home. The church is not officially welcome in Romania, but is allowed in the country through the Liahona Association, and as such is in a precarious situation. Any trouble from any missionary, and the church might be kicked out. Rules were followed to a “t” in Romania. But our mission presidents were rarely harsh or strict, because we missionaries were communicative with him when situations arose where rules would normally be broken.
Music: Our mission rules (over 30 years ago) were no music before returning in the evening from missionary work–there were no restrictions on the type of music.
Schedule: Our mission president told us to teach the people according to their schedules. He encouraged us(and implicitly gave permission) to give discussions and even tract late at night or early in the morning. No matter how late we worked, however, we were expected to arise by 6:30 am, or preferably earlier. Apart from the time to arise, he saw the white handbook schedule largely as advisory, and hoped that we would work a lot more hours than called for in the schedule (and we did).
Coca Cola. We were not to request or choose cola drinks, but if a member or nonmember offered us a cola drink, we were not to turn it down.
Sundays. We had maids who prepared our meals everyday except Sunday. On Sunday, our mission custom, if we were not invited to dinner, was to eat as a district or zone at a restaurant.
Richard Dutcher served in a successor mission to my mission (it had since been divided a couple of times) about a decade later. It may be that his president had a different, stricter attitude about rules than mine did. I do not recall any rule about not permitting anyone else in our apartments (although we never did have anyone stay there).
I suppose the trend over time has been to tighten up rules and enforcement. When my mother served her mission, and my mother-in-law served hers, they were counseled not to attend more than a couple of movies a week. I think we were only given permission to see two during my entire mission.
This matches my experience as well. A conflict with mission rules, one that impedes missionary work, can be legitimately worked around by missionaries who work those things out openly with leadership.
Another thing about mission rules is that they are different in every mission. If Dutcher was making a blanket statement, it is a poor one. And further, how many homeless people are staying at Dutcher’s house tonight?
As for the homeless guy in States of Grace: I personally would have called the president or one of the APs first, since as a missionary, I had no training or idea how to handle homeless people. Oh, yes - and because there was a mental hospital inside our area and nearly all of the homeless people in town were former residents. That’s a huge risk for us to take.
But one other thing bugs me about Dutcher’s comments:
Now, I can’t judge Dutcher as a missionary - I’m sure he was a faithful missionary and served with honor. But what really bugs me about his reasoning is that it is very similar to the reasoning used by “apostate” missionaries when I was on my mission.
I had companions who slept in till noon, a zone leader who took a whole days off (not P-days) of missionary work to go do things like hiking with the entire zone, visit tourist sites, etc. He claimed it was for “spiritual renewal” or that it “allowed him to do more Christ-like service” by giving him experiences similar to those in the area. (Of course, when I called him on it, he threatened to call the mission president and accuse me of behavior bad enough to get me sent home. I was a greenie, so I just went along with it). Oh, and he allowed Young Women in the ward to come into the apartment - he claimed it was all about fellowshipping and building gospel relationships.
Other companions used terms like “following the spirit of the law” to justify listening to (uncensored) gansta rap and death metal, or to spend time playing poker in the apartment all day Sunday.
And then there was the companion that often ditched me while were out on bicycles, since I was a crappy bicycle rider and he was really good. His reason “the work must be done, and the Lord can’t wait for slowpokes like you.” Of course, he never told me where we were going and left me riding around for several hours. (Basically, My first few companions were emotionally abusive bullies who also were very charismatic and had the Mission President believing them when they told him I was just being an oversensitive greenie).
I managed to get all sorts of exceptions to the “MoTab only” music rule, because during zone conferences, I’d pull the Mission President aside, make a case for a certain Cd or type of Music, and the President would say “sound good. I approve.” So I got Classical, Instrumental New Age, good Mormon Pop (it does exist, but was hard to find back then), and a few other genres approved.
But it was always interesting how many “apostate” (as we called them) Elders used the language of the gospel to justify flagrant rule-breaking. That’s what bugs me about Dutcher’s comment.
The problem is that the “letter versus the spirit” argument is all too easily flattened by well-meaning artists whose work is more reationary than exploratory.
This is perhaps the most ridiculous post ever on M*!!! Rules are not stupid and lets take your idiotic rock climbing example: 1 died, 1 too many! What if 25% of all missionaries died rock climbing, then it would make sense for there to be a rule that no rock climbing is allowed, and so it is. So what if the rules seem a little too rigid, so what, so what, so what!! What did it ever hur that people are not allowed in missionary dwellings? Nothing, but it probably kept some safer because they followed it. The entire argument is just plain well dumb!! I’m going to go live some rules now!
It’s a fictional movie people!!! Some missionaries make the wrong choices and (gasp) some missionaries make the right choices. This movie is about missionaries making some wrong ones. You’re all correct in pointing out that the “spirit of the law” should be taken up with leadership - these missionaries didn’t. But what a beautiful lesson at the end, that no matter what GOD LOVES YOU!!!
Just too go off on a tangent…
“Rules are not stupid and lets take your idiotic rock climbing example: 1 died, 1 too many!”
Can I say that this has always seemed to me to be such a silly reason for rules. Accidents happen and I think making blanket rules because of them is kind of ridiculous.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the rock climbing rule especially when the Church is footing the bill for health insurance. But in general far too mission rules come from the “1 too many” mindset.
Back on topic, I think one might cut Dutcher a bit of slack. After all, how does one establish the whole letter vs. spirit distinction cinematically? It’s hard to do and I can see this as being an effective method. But to me it is cheap - kind of like the manipulative sentimentality tricks hollywood all too often employes. Doubly so since bringing a homeless guy into ones home is typically just completely insane to do given the prevalence of mental illness. There are lots of things one could do short of that.
“After all, how does one establish the whole letter vs. spirit distinction cinematically?”
Well, I think you answer your own question pretty well, Clark, when you say, “there are lots of things one could do short of that.” The problem is the characters (elders) are placed in improbable circumstances and therefore must behave somewhat irrationally in order to meet the demands of those circumstances. We as an audience–at some level–simply won’t by into the irony at that point–which means death to a plausible narrative and, by extention, death to what meaningful religious metaphor may have been derived from it.
Ya know, if someone wanted to put the major stories of the O.T. and B.o.M. in a film, it wouldn’t pass correlation or the Pollyanna Mormon test. It practically starts out with fratricide. Then you have Abraham telling all those lies, and trying to kill his son. Sarah pooh-poohing what God can do. Jacob lieing to his father, and defrauding his brother out of his birthright. Judah committing adultery with his daughter-in-law. Poor Onan making just one mistake, and that’s almost all he’s known for (http://www.onan.com/). Aaron giving in to the crowd and making the golden galf idol. The children of Israel almost constantly in rebellion. Saul falling from grace. David falling from grace. Solomon having a zillion wives and concubines, and out of all of them, can’t raise up one son worthy to take over the kingdom. The kingdom split, then both groups sinning so badly they up being conquered and kidnapped by the heathen. Sheesh. What a bunch of downers.
I agree Bookslinger. That is one of the reasons I like the Old Testament. If there is hope for our spiritual, if not biological, forebearers, perhaps there is hope for me too.
I think Dutcher, perhaps unknowingly, answers the question regarding rule-breaking in the movie itself: breaking one rule (allowing the homeless guy in the apartment) led to breaking another rule (allowing the female neighbor in the apartment), which led to breaking another rule (lots of fraternizing, meals together, etc), which led to the missionary sleeping with the female neighbor. So, should the missionaries break any rules? The answer is no, because the rules themselves may seem absurd, but they often have consequences that extend in unexpected directions. The same thing applies in our personal lives. Any married person knows that there are certain things you just don’t do — you can talk politely to an attractive member of the opposite sex, but you don’t invite them to your house when your wife isn’t home. Is there anything wrong in itself with having an attractive member of the opposite sex alone in your house? No. But it can lead in the wrong direction. This is basic common sense, but Dutcher does not seem to understand this.
Geoff B.,
While you are exactly right on what seems to be a message of the movie, I think you are wrong on the idea that Dutcher does not seems to understand this. I think he is merely placating an interviewer asking a question in ignorance with an oversimplified answer. How interesting would arguing about mission rules really be to the audience of CT outside of a derogatory scoff.
The larger message is that it can sometimes be difficult to do the right thing. Rules may protect us, we may find reasons for exceptions to rules that make sense, we make choices that have unforeseen consequences, and we all make mistakes, some borne out of the best of intentions and others not.
I see a whole gestalt through the film of man’s desire to do better and often coming up short, even with the best of intentions, or with bad intentions turned away from but too late to make things right. Of course it makes more sense to just call an ambulance to get him help at an appropriate facility and call it that. But that really kind of short circuits themes the movie wants to explore. Namely, man’s imperfections, the reality of pain, the wonder of the atonement, and the strengths and weaknesses that we all have as individuals, which are often just differences and not an easily calculable righteousness quotient. We all need a Savior.
Geoff,
I think Dutcher kind of knew what he was doing with regard to the rule-breaking question. To me, it comes across more as a platform from which to expound the idea that such folks as the elder who fell are in need of rules precisely because they have not been truely converted. It’s a very tired yarn—-as anyone knows who has read the blogs now and again.
Doc,
The themes you delineate are all important, but unless they are bridled by a strong sense of inevitability in the narrative then what we get is characters serving a premise—-not a good recipe for rational characterization.
Jack,
You are correct. One thing I noticed in the scene was that the elder wanted to use the rules as an excuse to simply not get involved, indicating that he did in fact have a lot to learn. While his companions solution may have not been the best, it showed a strength in him(Lozanon) that his companion lacked, while obedience was Elder Farrel’s strength, and reaching out to those in need, was not. In that sense I think it served the premise. If Farrell hadn’t been so put off by the very idea of getting involved with the homeless man’s plight, he may have been able to come up with a more rational solution.
Guys, there was a very easy solution that was not even brought up. “Hello, Mission President. There is a homeless guy outside our apartment, and I think he needs help. What should we do?”
No rules are broken, nobody’s not being Christ-like. Dutcher’s movie manipulated us into believing that it’s OK to break rules if you are “acting as Jesus would.” Well, Jesus had some things to say about following rules as well.
Geoff,
Of course that would be a simple solution–and a good one, to boot. My point is that Dutcher, in order to maintain the premise, contrived a solution which renders the characters actions as irrational.
Doc,
I think we make the *assumption* that Farrel doesn’t want to get involved because of the writer’s dictum on christian ethics by means of Lozano.
Re: Comment #4
If anyone is wondering why Dutcher might be feeling a bit estranged from the Church lately, I think one need go no further than comments like that. What a jab.
I’m kinda shocked by how people have pounced on him personally in some of these bloggernacle comments.
I don’t think the missionaries broke the rules by inviting the homeless man into their apartment. I’m assuming that by bringing the homeless man into their home, they were obeying the higher law that supersedes all of the other rules. The higher law is described all sorts of ways by many different people. I’m just going to call it the law that says no matter what, I do what the Lord wants me to do. I am his servant and I will allow Him to work through me.
I think that this is the most difficult law to live by. What would have been the easier decision for the missionaries? “Keep the rules” and take him to a homeless shelter or would it be more difficult to bring him into your apartment, where–as they discussed in the film–he could kill you in your sleep, steal your stuff, give you a deadly disease, etc.? Rules become a problem when they cause us to turn off our brains and our consciences. If you won’t do what you feel that Lord wants you do because it appears to break a rule, I think that’s a problem.
Where did Lewis end up after the few weeks portrayed in States of Grace? He was cleaned up and running his own church. Where do you think he would have been after the same few weeks had the missionaries taken him to a homeless shelter? He would probably still be wasting away in the streets. Do you think maybe the Lord could have wanted the missionaries to help Louis in the way that they did? I think that the Lord–in his wisdom–often works this way. I think the greater sin would have been for Lozano to have ignored the promptings of the Spirit. Again, I’m only assuming that he was prompted–I can’t prove it. Where would we be if Nephi had ignored his prompting to kill Laban?
And long as we are judging actions here, I think we should be giving people the benefit of the doubt. I see a lot of judging of Richard Dutcher, his motivations, actions of characters in his film, etc. Why? I’ve read some pretty ridiculous statements here based on impartial and/or incomplete information.
I’m just grateful that in the city where I live of almost 2 million people, there are 2 men who have the authority to judge me–my Bishop and my Stake President. I assume it is the same for Mr. Dutcher. And if any of those authorized men are called upon to judge, I think they take it pretty seriously. They gather all of the information available to them. They talk to the person being judged. They try to talk with everyone involved. And after all of that, they take it to the Lord. He is the judge.
If you don’t like a guy’s movies, fine. This has gone way beyond–keep it on his movie, not his motives. For the record, my wife and I really enjoyed States of Grace and I think Mr. Dutcher is trying to do some good.
Sure. In a “more universal” and “evolved” way, I’m sure.
Dutcher made the comment that his movie–oh, I may be mistaken, it might be he agreed with the comment that his movie transcended religion, it was simply couched in terms of a Mormon missionary’s experience. I submit the movie would have been mediocre if based on any other religions’ missionary experience and the only truly interesting interpretation is based upon Mormonism. I don’t think anybody would have gone to see it had it not been about Mormonism, its mediocrity would have been more apparent. I appreciated his message that God is present in all religions, but I was also a little insulted that he felt he had to speak for Mormonism in presenting this message. What would have been truly unique is to show a Baptist missionary bowing before a Mormon creche. (Not that our creches are any different, but one with a sign “presented by the Mormon Church).
It’s sort of like Brokeback Mountain. Which would have been just another love story had it not been about two totally handsome gay men.
You can’t have it both ways, Richard. Make a movie about something besides Mormonism, shed the uniqueness that being a Mormon brings to your work and see if you really have anything to offer. For Mormons, you’ve offered a fresh perspective, but not necessarily an excellent one. I’m still looking for the truly excellent “Mormon” movie, as I’m still looking for the truly excellent Mormon novel. Well, excluding The Backslider.
annegb,
You’ve hit the nail right on the head—-especially in your last paragraph.
Mike (#20), yes indeed, all personal worthiness issues are not the responsibility of the person actually not being worthy — they are the responsibility of all of the people in the Church not being nice to them. This is a constant theme of yours and one that is answered quite effectively by Elder Bednar in this conference address here:
http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-646-32,00.html
To quote:
“When we believe or say we have been offended, we usually mean we feel insulted, mistreated, snubbed, or disrespected. And certainly clumsy, embarrassing, unprincipled, and mean-spirited things do occur in our interactions with other people that would allow us to take offense. However, it ultimately is impossible for another person to offend you or to offend me. Indeed, believing that another person offended us is fundamentally false. To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else.”
I sincerely hope that someday you will understand this principle. It will truly help your personal development and progress.
Dutcher (by lamenting the rules in his interview) invites the question does he bring transients into his home? He may (though I doubt it) and I would think that sharing his experiences in doing so may have been a better guide and example than just whining in an interview.
“Constant theme” of mine? Actually, I really liked Elder Badnar’s talk the first time around and appreciate you mentioning it here. The principle he espouses is incredibly empowering. People stuck in the victim mindset are typically depressed, angry, and unable to change their lives. Thinking that way brings progress to a halt.
Just because I disagree with some of your theology and many of your moral/political views doesn’t mean I don’t get this.
Mike, in many threads on many subjects you have written that people don’t go to Church because LDS members are intolerant and mean to them or make nasty comments, etc. Such a claim takes the responsibility for not going to Church off of the shoulders of the person who doesn’t go and places it on the shoulders of “everybody else” who is supposedly being mean, intolerant, etc. In comment #20, you repeat this theme by saying that Dutcher is feeling estranged from the Church because people make mean comments about him. Elder Bednar directly addresses this issue in the talk I linked.
To sum up: if you decide not to go to Church, it is a decision for which you will be held accountable. It is not the responsibility of others for being mean, intolerant, judgmental of you. Those people will be held accountable for not providing proper fellowship, etc, but at the end of the day you and you alone are responsible for your salvation. The Church teaches that that salvation also includes regular sacrament attendance and hopefully, as you progress, being temple worthy. It is your responsibility, and yours alone, if you do not live up to these standards. So, if Dutcher decides to leave the Mormon community, as he says he has done, it’s his decision and has nothing to do with all of the mean people on the bloggernacle or all the rubes in Utah who don’t go see his movies.
I would agree with you 100 percent that this principle as expressed by Elder Bednar is incredibly empowering, and I also agree with you 100 percent that there are many people who are, as you say, stuck in the victim mindset (”I stopped going to Church because my bishop wasn’t supportive enough”). Such a mindset is destructive and does, as you say, bring progress to a halt.
Geoff,
I guess I haven’t seen the accusations you describe as having come from Mikeinweho in his comments. That may be because I have not read all of his various comments on all the threads you have in mind. I have known Mikeinweho’s commentary to be quite measured and not severely critical of the Church or its active members.
Similarly, I do not read Dutcher’s comments as meaning that he has “left” the Church (unless all nonattending or questioning members are treated as having “left the church”), or that he has nothing but contempt for those of us who participate in it.
In addition, I may be one of the few who finds himself troubled by the possible implications of some of Elder Bednar’s comments (even Mikeinweho does not seem troubled by the remarks). I fear that Elder Bednar’s talk may be taken as license by many Mormons to worry less about being kind or tactful, or to be more blunt in criticism, or to be even outright offensive, because, after all, if someone is offended, Elder Bednar’s talk might be misconstrued to mean that it is entirely that victim’s fault, not the offender’s. (Compare this approach with Elder Wirthlin’s, who felt it important for the Church to “ma[ke] right” a wrong done long ago to an inactive brother. Joseph B. Wirthlin, “The Virtue of Kindness,†Ensign, May 2005, 26)
Elder Bednar’s personality and personal style may be such that many people open up to him about why they do not attend church, and that many of those appreciate being bluntly reminded that their feeling of offense is their own problem (not the Church’s). But that sort of bluntness is very inconsistent with my personality and personal style, and the few times in the past I tried anything like it, did not yield helpful results. I am glad Elder Wirthlin’s talk implicitly authorizes us to apologize for offenses done by church members and to try to make amends to those who have been offended.
And, on a personal note, I would add that you, Geoff, are among the kindest and thoughtful posters and commenters in the bloggernacle, and I suspect your personal style is also like that described in Elder Wirthlin’s talk.
DavidH, its hard to disagree with anything you write, especially when you sum it up with a compliment!!! But seriously, you make some good points. I would especially agree with you that it’s always best to use kindness, which I have not pointed out in this thread, but is certainly the most effective tool to build fellowship. Having read Dutcher’s comments carefully, and having considered to whom he gave the interview (a web site with an anti-Mormon bent), I would argue that he is certainly inactive and angry at the Church with serious problems with his testimony. This is especially sad given the wonderful message of “God’s Army” in which the missionary throws out the anti-Mormon garbage and goes straight to the Lord. Having been inactive myself, I can say that sometimes periods of inactivity can increase your testimony, and I will pray that this is what will happen to Dutcher. But at the same time, he would be better served by continuing to take the sacrament and keeping his temple worthiness during this “questioning” period. I don’t think Dutcher has contempt for all Mormons, just the people who don’t appreciate his “art.” And, yes, he has angry contempt for them, as the interview will attest.
While not offended : ) I want to respond to the statement that “in many threads on many subjects you have written that people don’t go to Church because LDS members are intolerant and mean to them or make nasty comments.”
If I am miscommunicating so badly that you believe this represents my view, I would value feedback with specific examples of where I write things along those lines. My feedback to you, Geoff, is that you are prone to rather broad, inflammatory language when you feel individuals are opposing the Gospel. Dutcher “has angry contempt,” MikeInWeHo believes “all personal worthiness issues are not the responsibility of the person,” etc. Being no stranger to occasional rhetorical excess myself, I admire your zeal even though I respectfully disagree with your perspective in many cases.
People go inactive or leave the Church for lots of reasons, some quite shallow (feud with Sister Anderson), some thoughtful and profound (Church excommunicates same-sex couples), and some inexplicable. How can any of us possibly know, based on an interview in an Evangelical magazine, what is going on in Dutcher’s heart?
Hmmm, I should have said “If I am communicating so poorly” or perhaps “miscommunicating so effectively.” LOL Hey, maybe I can become a presidential speech writer. Don’t misunderestimate MikeInWeHo’s language skills!
BTW, Happy New Year, y’all.
Well Mike, maybe we can’t know what’s in his heart.
But as a Mormon blogger, I feel obligated to give it the good ole college-try.
LOL, thanks for that Seth. I just hope that the many LDS who do value Dutcher’s work (especially SoG) will rally round him and help keep him in the community. Who knows what his home ward is like? Maybe there IS a role for the bloggernacle there; why don’t organize a little Mormon online Dutcher fan site or something? It would be a shame (even if it is 100% his own fault, amen and amen, thank you Geoff) if he landed in the arms of the Evangelicals. That has to be a huge temptation to him. They would heartily embrace his edgy style, and the money he could make producing films for that community would be just staggering. Certainly worrisome that his next film is going to be called Fallen.
Maybe if he’s lucky, he can get in on one of the inevitable “Left Behind” installments that we are most certainly going to have inflicted upon our society… repeatedly.
Missionaries are to teach and follow the rules. Send all other Christ like problems to the mission presidend, AP’s or Bishop. Then when you get home you can solve and Christ like problems you like. Just the oppion of a convert and missionary.
The point of the movie was that discussions like this happen (excepting the last 10 or so). Good job, Richard!
So. . .it’s a worthy movie if people discuss it and criticize it. Hmmm. . .maybe, maybe not.