oh boy…that’s too bad, Mr. Dutcher. I wish you luck with your temporal endeavors.

“It’s clear Dutcher has put his art before the church.”

I don’t know that it is that cut and dry. Don’t get me wrong, pride is a big, big part of this, but I think Dutcher is speaking from real spiritual conviction. He obviously feels he had an important spiritual message for us all and was upset by its recetption. In the end this shows a lack of compassion for your audience and a lack of humility, but I also see in it some very real spiritual conviction. Anyway, there but for the grace of God go I. I have to worry to much about my own beams to get to worked up over Dutcher’s mote. He may yet end up as Cowdery.

Everything he wrote about Mormons cinema is spot on. 99% crap. Too bad he’s decided to leave, even though I didn’t think most of his movies were much better than everything else, he is clearly a superior director to everyone else in the genre.

I think the key (relating to LDS cinema) is what he said about focusing on story instead of making sure there are no swear words or breasts in your movie. Up till now it seems like filmmakers think they’ve made a good LDS movie if it is full of LDs references and is rated PG or G. Obviously it takes much more than that.

Ivan,

I share your sentiments in your first thought; but, not your second. I didn’t detect the hubris you described. His prayers and answers were private. AS long as he leaves as you describe:

“with no overt explicit attacks on the church as a whole”

I think we should be as gracious in letting him go. I too wish him well, and hope he gets different answers at some future time.

Sad to see him leave, but when you put something before God and the Church you create problems for yourself. I think you have it right on when you say, “It’s clear Dutcher has put his art before the church.”

Now the question comes for me… Do I by his videos (I currently own none), or not?

Weird, I was just thinking about this an hour before I read Ivan’s post. Funny how the mind works. Anyway, I have many, many thoughts on this, but just a few quick ones:

1)He basically already announced this in his CT interview a few months back.
2)He has a wife who is apparently still active in the Church.
3)The movies he is currently working on are R-rated blood fests. Yuck.
4)I will always count the faithful scenes in God’s Army and Brigham City as great spiritual moments in LDS film.
5)I hope he follows in Oliver’s footsteps, and if he does I will celebrate and welcome him back with big, open arms. In the meantime, I hope he is inspired to follow good paths by the Light of Christ.

We hurt his feelings. “Goodbye cruel world.”

This little essay is a bit too dramatic. There’s nothing humble about it. He’s cast himself as the true artist, the truth-seeker at all costs - speaking to us from his mountain-top.

He really needs to get over himself. He’s talented but he’s not Michelangelo.

But I think he’ll be back and we should welcome him when he returns. His movie-making shows how important Mormonism has been to him and I don’t think he’ll ever really be able to stay away from it. Which is great.

People leave the church all the time for many different reasons. Some come back, some don’t. I appreciate those above who have said they will welcome Dutcher back with open arms. We should all be so Christ-like.

I am not completely sure what Richard means by “a spiritual path which may ultimately prove incompatible with Mormon orthodoxy” or what the “unexpected surprises” or “deepest sadness” are. I am also not sure that not presently being a “practicing member of the church” means Richard has “left the church”, any more than have the large number of other members who may not currently attend or may not presently strive to live all of its standards. Leaving activity in the Church is not necessarily the same, in my mind, as “leaving the Church.”

Perhaps it means he, for a time, will be part of the “third way”. Perhaps he too, in a few years, will be posting about considering renewing a temple recommend, notwithstanding a lack of unshakeable faith in the church as an institution or in its history. http://theculturalhall.com/?p=94

A couple more things Richard said in the article that have significance to me:

“One fundamental thing I have learned over the past few years is a genuine humility regarding my spiritual beliefs.

“I know that some of you will not understand my decisions. Please know that I will always be not only a great friend to the Mormon community, but also one of its strongest defenders.”

I have taken some spiritual journeys myself. And I, like many others, have discovered that a loving Heavenly Father will gently (and sometimes not so gently) guide us, sometimes in ways we would not expect–even on “paths that [we] do not know.” Hymn 270

In the meantime, Richard, if you happen to read this, know that I, and many others, appreciate you, respect you, love you, and support you (and your loved ones), as you strive to follow God’s path as best you understand it. And please know that I, for one, continue to consider you not just a “great friend” of the Mormon community, but a vital part of us.

An alternate translation for “still small voice” in 1 Kings 19:12 is “gentle breeze”. May you (and all of us) find continual or frequent refreshment and strength in the gentle breezes of God’s spirit and guidance as you (and we all) humbly continue seeking it.

In comment #5, Travis asked: “Do I buy his videos (I currently own none), or not?”

I would still buy his videos. For one thing, I think he made good movies. Though I think he’s acting a little childish, I don’t dislike or hate the man.

Just yesterday morning, I showed my seminary class a video in which Dutcher plays Oliver Cowdery.

It is interesting that he addressed this farewell solely to filmmakers, a few dozen people out of the thousands who read the Daily Herald. His farewell to moviegoers can be found in his vulgar comments on this web site three months ago. Devotion to art has become confused with an obsession with artists.

John Mansfield:

Do you happen to have a link to the “farewell to moviegoers” you mentioned above?

Saying one is humble about his spiritual beliefs is only an alternate way of saying he’s lost his testimony. Truly, Brother Dutcher is a great artist to come up with such a self-flattering way of describing his descent into the spiritual wilderness.

I did like most of his comments about cinema. And having seen States of Grace, I will say that he’s a technically much better director than other LDS directors whose works I’ve seen. But States of Grace also contained plot lines and themes that grated on my nerves, displaying a pop-Gospel mentality and a lazy emphasis on Hollywood-style compassion.

As Brother Dutcher says, it isn’t enough for LDS films simply to be unoffensive. But it should go without saying that films marketed to Mormons, and particularly ones that try to be profound and inspiring, should actually make sense in the framework of LDS doctrine. States of Grace seemed to me more of an attempt to convince both Mormons and non-Mormons that we’re really just another bunch of born-agains. Dutcher’s spiritual journey away from Mormon orthodoxy had already begun.

I truly hope he comes back, and I am encouraged by his self-identification with Oliver Cowdery. Because Cowdery fell away with the boast that, if he left the church, it would fall. Joseph invited him to find out, and he did. Dutcher, too, considers himself more important than he is. Cowdery made a grand contribution to the rise of the church, and we are grateful for the contriduction Brother Dutcher has made to LDS entertainment. Now we hope he will eventually return and benefit from the blessings of the gospel that inspired him through most of his life.

Anybody interested in this thread should visit Richard’s web site and see the two new movies he is working on now:

http://www.richarddutcher.com

Look at the descriptions of “Falling” and “Evil Angel.”

Also, go to http://www.evilangelmovie.com.

Guy, please see this thread and read all the way down to Dutcher’s comments, around #40:

http://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2007/01/15/p1934#more1934

I’m pretty sure that’s what John M was referring to.

Who knows? Maybe, like Oliver Cowdery (to whom I’ve always felt an uncommon kinship), my travels will someday lead back to Mormonism and to this effort. Such an end would be beautiful and, in a strange way, an answer to my prayers. But I don’t know. One fundamental thing I have learned over the past few years is a genuine humility regarding my spiritual beliefs.

God be with you till we meet again, Richard.

Kieth Merrill responds here:

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/218036/3/

And that’s actually toned down considerably from an earlier version I saw on a mailing list but which (as far as I can tell) hasn’t been published on the web.

I always question people who claim to be humble.
With that said, I have been an admirer of Dutcher’s work, and actually have tried to interest others in his films. I am not sure why his work was not generally accepted by the Mormon community.
I genuinely feel said about his departure from Mormonism and I sincerely hope he returns someday.

Geoff B.

Thanks for the link. Interesting thread

Dave Wolverton on Dutcher vs Merrill

In my most recent novel, I have a woman who is preparing to cross the
plains with the Willie Handcart Company tell a church leader, “I’d
rather hear one ugly truth than a thousand pretty lies.”

It’s because she knows that the truth, even one that hurts her
feelings or is hard to bear, gives her some sort of framework to work
from so that she can protect and better herself. She knows that church
leaders are downplaying the rigors of the trail ahead, and she knows
that if she is going to bring her family through alive, the truth
isn’t an option, it is a necessity.

I see some parallels to the remarks made by Dutcher and Merrill.

So Richard Dutcher told us some hurtful truths: a lot of LDS
movies have been real stinkers lately. Our audience is fleeing the
theaters. We have to do better. And he touched on some of the
reasons behind their weaknesses—we’re too afraid to offend anyone.
Good for him.

I’ve noticed it, too. Everyone in the industry has begun to
recognize that the market is dying. Lately, when I see an ad for an
LDS movie, I have to resist the urge to run the other way. I’ve
wasted too much precious money on bad films.

Does that mean that I agree with everything that Richard says?
No. Richard is choosing to leave the church for awhile, a course of
action that I would not recommend to anyone. I don’t know all of his
reasons, but I suspect that he has been deeply offended. Thirty years
ago, I had a bishop who offended me so deeply that I didn’t go to
church for nearly a year. I had to fight the urge to vomit each time
I sat in the same room with him. I eventually forgave the man and
moved on. I think that whatever Richard’s reasons for leaving the
church, he will do the same.

As evidence for this, I’d suggest that you look at his films.
The moral themes are so deeply woven into them, his ethical dilemmas
so heavily textured, it is obvious to me that he’s a decent, wonderful
human being. And essentially I think that he will continue on that
path.

Years ago, before I ever joined the church, I looked into dozens
of other religions. Even as a teenager it seemed to me that most of
those religions had little or nothing to offer. It’s a spiritual
wasteland out there. Richard may see this, too.

But even if he never returns to the church, I don’t think the
kind of person that he is will change much–whether he decides to
become a Buddhist, a Baptist, or an agnostic. So I’m happy to
consider him a friend and a brother.

On the other hand, I had problems with Merrill’s response to
Dutcher’s letter.

First of all, Merrill says that Richard only ever made one
halfway decent movie. Say what?

I’ve seen four of Richard’s movies—”God’s Army,” “Brigham City,”
“States of Grace,” and “Falling.”

Each was a worthy film. “God’s Army” was the weakest of them,
in my opinion, while “States of Grace” was the finest LDS film ever
made. “Falling,” Richard’s latest work, is one of the five most
powerful movies that I’ve ever seen. I viewed it in a private
screening and was asked not to talk about it previous to its release,
so I won’t say more.

But I will say this: Richard Dutcher is the best storyteller
working in the LDS film market today—hand’s down, bar none.

For Merrill to declare otherwise suggests one of three things:
Either he is a slack-jawed, inbred hillbilly; or his own artistic
sensibilities are so screwy he doesn’t know good when he sees it; or
he is being dishonest in his assessment of Dutcher’s work.

Personally, I don’t believe that he’s a slack-jawed inbred
hillbilly. Certainly Merrill’s own films show him to be an
intelligent, sensitive director who has crafted many fine films worthy
of praise. I, too, have been moved to tears by some of his work.

It may be that he doesn’t recognize the value of Dutcher’s work.
I’ve seen such things in the past. I once had a painter friend who
loved Rembrandt but couldn’t abide “posers” like Chagall, Monet, or
Picasso. In short, he had something of a blind spot that didn’t allow
him to appreciate certain kinds of genius. Merrill may have a similar
blind spot.

But I’m going to vote here for dishonesty. I think that Merrill
was so deeply hurt by Dutcher’s words that he struck back without
thinking. Indeed, his own admission that he felt saddened to hear
that Dutcher was leaving the community suggests that he places a high
value on Dutcher’s work.

Yet I suspect Dutcher has some blind spots, too.

With each work, Dutcher has been delving more deeply into issues
of violence, racism, infidelity, and so on. As Merrill puts it,
Dutcher’s work is edgy. That doesn’t mean that it’s evil. “Falling”
is a deeply moral film, even though it is so visceral that it would
have a hard time qualifying for an R rating. I suspect that there
will be some redeeming value even in “Evil Angel,” which Merrill
decries as being “raunchy.”

So Dutcher is focusing on the fringes of society, and decries
people who resort to making “family” films as being people who
generally have nothing of value to say.

I’m sorry Richard, but those films we create that deal with the
central issues of family and community relations could well be the
most important films of the coming century. We are entering an era
where powerful forces are working to tear our families and communities
apart. We need filmmakers with foresight and vision to heal the
damage.

Yes, much of what we’ve seen lately has been dreck, but that
doesn’t mean that it has to be.

So I’m going to tell the truth as I see it. Neither filmmaker
here is entirely right, or entirely wrong.

Dave Wolverton/aka David Farland

The big question for me is how this will affect other LDS film makers. Given how many film makers seem to go inactive or leave the church, will this have a chilling effect of artists who want to do something other than the Halestorm bit?

Clark,

I have stated before my concerns whether Church discipline has been used to influence the work of LDS film makers–for example, Neal LaBute’s report that he was disciplined for writing a play that portrayed some Latter-day Saints in a very negative light, and was told that he must commit to creating no new work dealing with Church members.

Richard’s distancing himself from the Church is in a very different category. Some speculate that this resulted from negative reaction and harsh criticism from rank and file Mormons. I choose to take Richard at his word, that the distancing is part of his personal spiritual journey. In either case, I do not see his personal decision as having a significant chilling effect on others’ considering a film making career (any more than the leaving Church activity by a democrat or a epublican or a believer in evolution might have a chilling effect on a member’s deciding to become a democrat or a republican or believer in evolution).

Richard Dutcher is just a man who has traveled a path that some of us don’t seem to understand. He is as genuine as they come though. He knows the effect of this in his own spiritual journey as well as in his circle of influence and, I assure you, this has broken his heart. I take particular offense at anyone who is not familiar with him personally attempting to label his decision or point out his weaknesses. He does not deserve your judgement. Every day is another day to find truth and happiness and this is a man who has simply found another path.

LDS cinema would have absolutely no credibility were it not for the efforts of this man. While he does not define LDS cinema, and I doubt he wants that mantle anymore, he is integral to the foundation that exists. There is a fine line between LDS cinema for the sake of selling to a built in audience and a story that is told for and about members of this faith, family films or films that explore the darker side of what it takes to stay true. Most of LDS cinema, as in all film really, is about making money. Halestorm found a way to make money while others were still trying to tell stories and we have lost a true story teller. Remember that he is one of us, a young man who came here to do what we do every day and he has struggled. I doubt that any of us are quite yet able to cast stones.

Given some of Neal Labute’s works and his photographing playmates for Playboy I think that a slightly different case.

But the worry I have isn’t church action on members (the sort of thing Sunstone worries about). Rather it is a kind of self-censorship or external pressure due to the fear of losing ones testimony. We all know some activities are more conducive to the spirit than others. Were this a single case I’d think you have a point. But I hear among many the perception that this is the rule, not the exception.

The issue is less whether this is Dutcher following his “spiritual journey.” Unlike some I can understand why some might come in and out of activity as part of their necessary development. Rather, I think the issue is how those who value their testimony view risks to that testimony.

Dave Wolverton

Well said. The truth usually does lie somewhere in the middle.

I’m more or less indifferent about the loss to LDS film that Dutcher’s departure represents.

But I also feel no real need to speculate or explain away why he left.

Neal A. Maxwell’s quote “if you do not choose the kingdom of Heaven first, it will ultimately make little difference what you chose instead” is being misused here.

Elder Maxwell meant that quote to be used as a tool of PERSONAL reflection. Not as a club to beat heathens over the head with.

So let’s can the “there goes one more spiritual weakling who couldn’t hack it” hot air OK? It smacks a bit too much of self-congratulation.

In reading Dutcher’s comments and Kieth Merrill’s response, I have a few thoughts:

1)Keep in mind that Dutcher directly attacked Merrill’s work and that Merrill has been around a lot longer than Dutcher and is considerably more respected.
2)The core of this issue is extremely relevant to today’s society: Merrill firmly believes that LDS filmmakers should keep LDS values when making movies. In plain terms, he believes movies should not portray sex and violence and glorify infidelity, adultery, pre-marital sex, etc. Dutcher’s movies are straying more and more into the territory of “exploring” these issues in a way that glorifies them. There is a central battle of worldviews here in which Kieth is on one extreme and Dutcher is moving to the other extreme.
3)I am certain that Merrill, if he could turn back time, would tone down the rhetoric of his comments about Richard. When we write in anger, we always write things we later regret.

But I do think this exchange offers an opportunity to explore the central issue here: which viewpoint is more positive? Which one is more likely to support the Savior and his mission? Which viewpoint will bring more good and bring positive change to society? Which one will help spread the gospel and build up the Church and its values?

Obviously, I have framed the questions in ways that support my worldview, but I do think filmmakers, especially LDS filmmakers, have a responsibility to consider these issues. Some will say, “well, it’s just entertainment. Entertainment does not have to do all those things.” And that is exactly the point: what is the purpose of entertainment? Is it to “explore the human condition,” even if it means two hours of gore, sex, blood, etc on the screen?

I would argue that any form of entertainment that you would be embarrassed to see with President Hinckley sitting next to you is questionable. Note the word “questionable,” not “bad.” You need to question why you are seeing things that Pres. Hinckley would not approve of. When I pose that question to myself, I get answers that point toward: “Geoff, you shouldn’t see that stuff.” Other people will get their own answers.

Merrill’s position is that entertainment should build up all that is good and is in line with Church doctrine. Dutcher talks about “art” and “high quality films.” That is what is at the heart of this debate.

Seth -

You’re reading my initial comments completely wrong.

I was not implying, and I did not mean to imply, “there goes one more spiritual weakling who couldn’t hack it”

But I’m not interested in hashing all that out.

Dave Wolverton said it best, so I’ll just ditto his and leave it at that.

How ironic, I just watched God’s Army for the 5th or 6th time last night. Didn’t hear about this until just now. For what it’s worth, I probably would have joined the church a lot sooner than I did had there been a movie like God’s Army available to watch. One of the most real LDS movies I’ve seen, if not THE most real movie. Every time I watch it, a different scene causes me to get all emotional. This time it was the father of Laura finally kneeling down and praying. Elder Banks’ description of how he gained a testimony should be mandatory viewing in all seminary classes, IMNSHO.

But I do think this exchange offers an opportunity to explore the central issue here: which viewpoint is more positive? Which one is more likely to support the Savior and his mission? Which viewpoint will bring more good and bring positive change to society? Which one will help spread the gospel and build up the Church and its values?

The answer to that question isn’t self-evident to me. In many ways, the type of film that Merrill produces is preaching to the choir. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and I for one have enjoyed his work and found it spiritually edifying. But the same is true for me of Dutcher’s work.

I haven’t seen States of Grace yet (it’s high on my Netflix list, so I’ll see it soon), but one of my teenagers saw it during a visit to Salt Lake City. It made him think about issues such as repentance and perseverance more than any Merrill film ever would. I’m not in any way denigrating Merrill’s work to say that. What I am saying is that both types of films can be edifying, but in different ways.

One thing I appreciate about the Old Testament is that people’s warts are showing. Even great people, Noah is one who comes to mind, are imperfect, and we can learn from that. Yet how often when we tell the story of Noah do we talk about his getting rip-roaring drunk? Not very often. Usually that’s fine, but sometimes we need to see the ugly side too in order to put his later faithfulness in context. If that part of the story is in Scripture, it’s there for a reason. There’s nothing inherently wrong with only telling the inspirational parts of a story, and I’m glad we have filmmakers such as Merrill who are able to do that. But I’m also glad we have storytellers such as Dutcher who (at least to this point) have been able to put the ugly side in context rather than simply glorifying it as many secular filmmakers today do.

Keith Merrill apologizes today in the Daily Herald

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/218124/3/

I really hope he comes back.

I have enjoyed his movies quite a bit.

I hope he can hold it all together and hope his family can endure.

I would argue that any form of entertainment that you would be embarrassed to see with President Hinckley sitting next to you is questionable.

Why would you speculate about President Hinckley’s taste in movies? Wouldn’t it be wiser to speculate about Christ’s taste in movies?

This is a disaster for Mormon arts. Lots of Mormons were wary of Dutcher’s so-called “edgy” material. I loved it. But they turned out to be more right than I was.

Every artist who apostatizes is a double-blow to the Kingdom. Not only are they and their contributions lost but they make it that much more difficult for those of us who remain true to the covenants.

I hope Mr. Dutcher comes back, and sooner and with less travail than Oliver Cowdery.

Dave Wolverton is a gentleman and a Saint. Ditto to what he said.

I think Clark Goble is right that self-censorship can be a problem and I think DavidH is right that fear of church censorship can be a problem. Every artist who apostatizes makes individuals more likely to self-censor and local church leaders to be more suspicious of their artists. But I’m also concerned about audience censorship. Arts need an audience and artist apostasy diminishes that audience.

Re: #33: My feelings precisely. There are many things that I don’t feel Pres. Hinckley would need to approve or sanction, that I might do. I feel plenty inclined to make out with my wife when the time and circumstances are right, but would not do that if GBH were sitting next to me (it might put a real damper on the mood). Likewise, I am not so sure that GBH ought to know every book I read or every film I watch. Christ can know and see everything I do, and I am okay with my actions before him. Comparing GBH to Christ is akin to idolatry. A man can be a prophet and a man of God, but that does not make him God. Sadly, many testimonies I have heard in FTM talk way more about GBH than Christ. I do think many LDS idolize GBH way more than ought to be acceptable. (And yes I realize I could get stoned for saying this!)

Christ is the standard. Not GBH. Nice a man as he is, and even though he is president of the Church, I run things thru the WWJD test, not the WWGD test.

Also, WRT Dutcher: I loved States of Grace. About danged time LDS church members got an in-your-face lesson on the Grace of God. We get so caught up in being goody-two-shoes and holier-than-thou, and forget all about the wonderful Grace that God grants us. You don’t appreciate forgiveness or even understand it until you REALLY experience it.

A few months ago Dutcher stated that he’d love to have the opportunity to direct an episode of “Big Love.” I hope he gets that opportunity. He is a brilliant director and has such a strong knowledge of the Restoration and its doctrines, he could do well with that.

One advantage of the WWGD test is that Gordon B. Hinckley is a lot more concrete for most of us and our ideas of what he would do are a lot less susceptible to our own imagination and desires.

A few months ago Dutcher stated that he’d love to have the opportunity to direct an episode of “Big Love.” I hope he gets that opportunity.
Heck yeah. Now that he’s finally freed himself from the restrictions of the church, he can do all kinds of things! He can make raunchy B-grade movies with peace of mind, knowing that he can’t be censored by the Brethren. After all, art is all-important. And how could it possibly be art without a little skin, a touch of infidelity, a pinch of explicit language, and a dose of violence?

That top paragraph should be in blockquote. Sorry.

I don’t understand the need for so many on this thread to attack Dutcher. I don’t agree with his comments. I believe they are arrogant and unwise. But two wrongs don’t make a right.

What we are talking about here is bigger than LDS Cinema. We are talking about someone who has left the Church. We should pray for him - for his success on whatever path he chooses.

I feel that Mr. Dutcher is a good film-maker. If he no longer makes LDS themed movies the loss is ours. He has a unique and talented way of bringing in the Spirit through his films. I realize that this is only my opinion, but I know many who feel the same.

Remember the Lord has called all of us to be his missionaries. Some of these comments don’t jive with this calling. Let’s try to be true Christians.

I find the WWJD line of thinking problematic. First of all, which Jesus are we talking about? I don’t really imagine the great I AM sitting down and watching a movie. Being omniscient and everything, wouldn’t He already know how it ends anyway?

The mortal Jesus missed the whole movie craze by at least a couple of years. What would have been the equivalent in His day? What we know about His life on earth can be summarized in an afternoon of light reading–and that only covers a few months. Do we know that He never attended a play that made a few jabs at the Romans or took some swipes at the Jews? What if some of the lines in this hypothetical play were off color? Would that have made Him imperfect? I don’t think so.

I guess the point of these guilt inducing cutesy type phrases is to not-so-subtly remind us that we’re all sinners and fall short of Christ’s glory. I can’t disagree with that. I get that I am not perfect. I just don’t know what good (or action) comes from making a statement like that.

If I applied the WWJD phrase to every aspect of my life, I imagine I would be in my own kind of private Garden of Eden. I would remain innocent by always being perfect like Jesus. Didn’t Adam and Eve leave the garden for a reason? Weren’t they “perfect” while in the Garden? Wouldn’t they still be in the garden and wouldn’t we all still be hanging out pre-mortally if they had strictly followed the WWJD cutesiness?

I get a bit frustrated when I allow these cutesy phrases to make me feel like I need to put fences around the law. I don’t like the guilt and baggage that follows from realizing how imperfect I am. It isn’t helping me.

I have been taught and I believe that I came here (to earth) expecting to be tried and tested with the ultimate goal of returning to my Heavenly Father and becoming (action) like Him–not to return to the Garden of Eden and become like a terrestrial Adam. To be like Heavenly Father, I need to learn good from evil and then choose the good–not choose the good because it’s the only thing that I allow to come into my life (that was Satan’s plan). I think living my life the WWJD way would leave me pretty innocent (read naïve) and open to being beguiled.

So I guess the question that should be asked–the question that actually applies to our current circumstance of being imperfect mortals is: will this action help ME (not Jesus–He already made it) return to my Heavenly Father? The important difference, for ME, is that the answer to that question can and will be different depending on where I am on my road back to Him. The answer will also be different from person to person depending on their current situation, location, and timing in their own lives–thus making judgment of other peoples actions irrelevant. Imagine that.

I wish you well, Mr. Dutcher, on your path back to Him. If I can be of any assistance, please let me know. You have already helped me a great deal.

Nathan Cartwright

Edited (Please delete prior):

I find the WWJD line of thinking problematic. First of all, which Jesus are we talking about? I don’t really imagine the great I AM sitting down and watching a movie. Being omniscient and everything, wouldn’t He already know how it ends anyway?

The mortal Jesus missed the whole movie craze by at least a couple of years. What would have been the equivalent in His day? What we know about His life on earth can be summarized in an afternoon of light reading–and that only covers a few months. Do we know that He never attended a play that made a few jabs at the Romans or took some swipes at the Jews? What if some of the lines in this hypothetical play were off color? Would that have made Him imperfect? I don’t think so.

I guess the point of these guilt inducing cutesy type phrases is to not-so-subtly remind us that we’re all sinners and fall short of Christ’s glory. I can’t disagree with that. I get that I am not perfect. I just don’t know what good (or action) comes from making a statement like that.

If I applied the WWJD phrase to every aspect of my life, I imagine I would be in my own kind of private Garden of Eden. I would remain innocent by always being perfect like Jesus. Didn’t Adam and Eve leave the garden for a reason? Weren’t they “perfect” while in the Garden? Wouldn’t they still be in the garden and wouldn’t we all still be hanging out pre-mortally if they had strictly followed the WWJD cutesiness?

I get a bit frustrated when I allow these cutesy phrases to make me feel like I need to put fences around the law. I don’t like the guilt and baggage that follows from realizing how imperfect I am. It isn’t helping me.

I have been taught and I believe that I came here (to earth) expecting to be tried and tested with the ultimate goal of returning to my Heavenly Father and becoming (action) like Him–not to return to the Garden of Eden and become like a terrestrial Adam. To be like Heavenly Father, I need to learn good from evil and then choose the good–not choose the good because it’s the only thing that I allow to come into my life (that was Satan’s plan). I think living my life the WWJD way would leave me pretty innocent (read naive) and open to being beguiled.

So I guess the question that should be asked–the question that actually applies to our current circumstance of being imperfect mortals is: will this action help ME (not Jesus–He already made it) return to my Heavenly Father? The important difference, for ME, is that the answer to that question can and will be different depending on where I am on my road back to Him. The answer will also be different from person to person depending on their current situation, location, and timing in their own lives–thus making judgment of other peoples actions irrelevant. Imagine that.

I wish you well, Mr. Dutcher, on your path back to Him. If I can be of any assistance, please let me know. You have already helped me a great deal.

#42: I agree that the WWJD line is too cutesy for real application, however, I was speaking in comparison to the poster who lives his or her life as if Gordon B. Hinckley were standing beside them during everything they do. My point was not to emphasize the worn-out cutesy WWJD stuff, but to indicate that the higher standard is Christ. We must seek to please Christ, not any man. And I do believe that.

And in other news …

11.99 million Mormons are asking, “Who?”

Me, I looked at the picture and thought, “Wait, I thought Wilford Brimley had already left the Church.”

Trying to live a life like Christ and other role models is not cutesy or part of Satan’s plan. Absurd.

Are some of the commenters under the assumption that Dutcher has requested name-removal?

I read Dutcher’s statements to mean that he is no longer participating, inactive. He’s made some other wishy-washy statements that can be interpreted several ways. And Geoff is right, this latest article is only a re-hash of what he stated in a prior _Christianity Today_ interview.

Based on what happened with Neil LaButte, there may be church action after “Falling” and “Evil Angel” are released, if they portray members in a bad light.

But dang, I think some people are being way too harsh on Dutcher personally. Go ahead and criticize his movies, just as you would any work presented to the public. But as for his standing with the church and the Lord, let him work out his own salvation.

And let’s remember that the organizational church isn’t the gospel. The organizational church is the official box that the official gospel comes in. Or as Stephen Covey wrote, the church is the scaffolding.

You know, something’s been really bugging me about this whole “gotta leave the Church to be a true artist” thing. I understand Dutcher’s dilemma here. But has it occured to anybody that there are plenty of art forms out there that allow full, honest expression, but that don’t involve “spiritual journeys that are incompatible with Mormonism”?

I know an LDS guy who writes for a popular magazine. The man is one of the most amazing writers I’ve ever seen. He is able to fully express himself through his medium without a second thought about conflict with doctrine.

And what about music? What about other forms of fim-making? It seems the gray territory comes more easily in fictional film-making. Personally I’m more apt to be inspired by a good documentary or a great piece of music than a novel or a fictional movie. That may just be me. I wasn’t particularly touched by either of Dutcher’s pre “spiritual journey” films.

I’m an artsy type of person, whatever side of the brain that’s considered (which is unfortunate because I have no artistic ability). But I watch artists and it seems to me there’s an innate tendency among them to 1) take their work more seriously than they should, 2) become obsessed with their medium, and 3) become increasingly non-committal.

In order to create, one must focus completely. In order to focus, many artists become obsessed- which isn’t too tough because most artists have obsessive personalities in the first place. When you become obsessed with something, it becomes all-important. Anything that you even percieve to be a possible threat to your work is marginalized. Your passion for your work becomes your rationale for a non-committal lifestyle.

This is, of course, a generalization. Not to offend all you artists in the ‘naccle. But this is how I am, and I think it’s safe to say that one or all of these traits are shared by the majority of artsy people. I certainly understand them all.

I don’t know that there is a feasible solution to these problems other than a set-in-stone committment that God and family come first.

Trying to live a life like Christ and other role models is not cutesy or part of Satan’s plan.

I should add that people do sometimes talk about imitating Christ in a way that is cutesy. But there’s nothing cutesy about the concept itself, which is central to the gospel. There is certainly nothing Satanic about it. Not even close.

Adam, why don’t you try quoting what I wrote. Show me where I made the statement that trying to live a Christ like life is cutesy. Show me where I said trying to live a Christ like life is Satanic. Obviously, you are confused.

If you take issue with something that I wrote, respond to what I wrote. Please do not respond to your simplistic interpretation of what you think I mean.

“I take particular offense at anyone who is not familiar with him personally attempting to label his decision or point out his weaknesses. He does not deserve your judgement.”

I find that one of the better ways to avoid having my decisions judged is to not print them in a mass publication–say, for example, a moderately large newspaper. I’ve found that after making such a publication, whether my decisions *should* be judged or not rarely matters from a practical point of view.

I am responding to what you wrote. WWJD means “What would Jesus do,” right?

I did not write that WWJD means “What would Jesus do”. However, I do agree with that statement–and the statements of others that the four letters, WWJD, are commonly understood to be an abbreviation for the phrase “what would Jesus do”.

Are you suggesting that asking yourself “what would Jesus do” and living a Christ-like life are somehow equivalent? I don’t see any connection at all and I never implied any connection in my previous post.

Has asking yourself “WWJD” (or imagining President Hinckley or some other role model sitting next to you) prior to making a decision helped you to follow Christ’s example?

Please articulate for me, in the case of Jesus, how you came to understand the thinking and/or personal preferences of an omniscient, omnipresent, perfect and incomprehensible being. In the case of imagining other mortals sitting next to you, please take me step by step how having this “imaginary friend” has helped you to live a Christ-like life.

What would this internal dialogue and/or figments of your imagination accomplish? These cutesy little tactics are usually used for one thing–not sinning. I mean, how embarrassing would that be to have Captain Moroni watching you while you’re trying to get to second base with your High School girlfriend. Right? Oh my gosh, that would be SO embarassing. I’m going to embarrass myself all the way to the Celestial Kingdom. I won’t need Christ or his atonement because I will be too embarrassed to sin. I am so grateful to whoever came up with that nifty little phrase. IT. IS. SO. CUTE!!!!! I will praise his name forever!

I find this line of thinking to be a very juvenile interpretation of the Plan of Salvation and Christ’s mission. I did not come here (to get this body) to “not sin”. Satan offered that plan. It was rejected. You and I both chose the other way. This way–Christ’s way–was the only way.

“Not sinning” and following the example of our Savior have absolutely nothing to do with another.

“Not sinning” and following the example of our Savior have absolutely nothing to do with another.

Nothing at all, other than that Christ never sinned and so by following his example we would also not be sinning…

You agree that we are supposed to be Christ-like. You say that asking yourself “What Would Jesus Do” is impossible because we can’t have any idea of what an immortal being is like. I say that if we can’t know what Christ is like it is impossible for us to become Christ-like.

I disagree that (1) becoming Christ-like and (2) trying to do what Christ would do are “without any connection at all.” In my mind, it is impossible to separate out cleanly what a person is and what a person does. In my mind, one of the ways that we become like a person is by imitating their actions.

Christ himself commands us to do what he does. 3 Ne. 27:21 “for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do.”

Its sometimes messy figuring out what Christ would do in our particular circumstances. In my mind, this is precisely why it can be helpful to look to the example of contemporary followers of Christ. I have at various times derived spiritual benefit from asking myself “What would Jesus do?”, “What would Pres. Hinckley do?”, “What would my Bishop do?”, “What would my father do?”, and “What would my wife do?”, among others.

“Christ never sinned and so by following his example we would also not be sinning…” (#53)

So what? What does “not sinning” look like anyway? Please demonstrate specifically–through action–how you have followed Christ’s example of “not sinning”. If you were playing the game Charades and you drew a card that said “hint: action, clue: not sinning”, how would you act that out?. How are you following someone’s example by not doing something that that particular someone didn’t do? Let’s examine that logic:

A. John did not go to the game last night.
B. I did not go to the game last night.
C. Therefore, I equal John

Is not breaking a rule something that should be admired? emulated? “imitated”? “Hey did you see the game last night?”, asks one fanboy to another. “Yeah, Kobe was amazing!!!! Did you see that one time where he didn’t double dribble?”, replies his super-excited friend. “Oh, I know”, says the first guy, “I couldn’t believe it when he deftly didn’t get that 5 second violation”. “The guy is amazing”, they exclaim in unison… and then they break into an off key rendition of “If I could be like Kobe…”

“Not sinning” was a by-product of Christ’s perfection. He was not perfect because he didn’t sin. I can’t think of a single time where he asked us to follow his example of “not sinning”. Christ came to earth and played the absolute perfect game–so to speak. He made every shot. His Grace was pure poetry in motion. His quickness. His timing. The way he eluded and outplayed His adversary had people on their knees trying to worship him. His poise. His humility. His perfect Charity towards all who witnessed his incomprehensible greatness.

He does all of these great things and all you want to focus on is the fact that he didn’t break any rules while doing it? Give our Savior some credit!

“Christ himself commands us to do what he does. 3 Ne. 27:21 “for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do.”" (#54)

Amen. Well quoted, Nephi, son of Helaman. It sounds like you, me, and Adam Greenwood agree that we should do the works we have seen Christ do. Is “not sinning” a work? Would you use a shovel? A forklift? But I digress. I never said that “(1) becoming Christ-like and (2) trying to do what Christ would do are “without any connection at all.”". I said, “Not sinning” and following the example of our Savior have absolutely nothing to do with the other.” Do you see the non-connection between “not sinning” and “doing the works we have seen Christ do”? If not, please make the connection for me. First, you will need to show me what a “not sin” looks like.

Adam, my brother in Christ (and this is where I am being totally serious), I have no issue with anyone using any tool they can think of that will help them DO Christ-like works. I just don’t see how speculating what another person would do in your particular situation is:

A) Possible. No other person has ever walked your path. Our spiritual journey is ours alone (we are never alone, but no one can walk the path for us). Any speculation as to what they would do is, at best, an educated guess.

B) Relevant. Even if you could know what another person would do in your particular situation, what good does that accomplish? They are a separate, unique individual. Their gifts, talents, knowledge, progression are different than yours. An appropriate action for them may not be an appropriate action for you.

C) Helpful. If I could know what [insert contemporary follower of Christ here] would do and that the action was relevant for me in my particular situation, is that knowledge helping me? To whom did I look, in order to acquire this knowledge? If I were to DO this action as I have seen [insert contemporary follower of Christ here] DO, would I understand why I did it? Sure. I did it because that is how [insert contemporary follower of Christ here] did it. I don’t think that is helping me.

Do I believe that it is wrong to ask yourself “what would Pres. Hinckley, Jesus, Bishop, Father, Wife do?” No. I just think it is pointless. I think it is about as helpful as trying to “not sin”. I think it is trite. It is cutesy. It is fluff. It lacks substance. It is a distraction. It is a crutch. It is a way of trying to cruise control to exaltation. It is a way of saying that I don’t need to know the why. I don’t need to sweat and bleed and work out my salvation with the help of my Savior, alone on the court, like I came here to do. Just show me what Kobe did in this situation–then I’ll copy it. I’ll just keep practicing this half court shot until I can do it “perfect”. That’s what I saw Jesus do. Then I will be as good as Jesus.

When I was a little kid–about 7 years old–I remember my dad struggling with a decision. I remember that it had something to do with taking a job that required him to work on Sundays. This was a big deal for my family at this time–more dire a situation than it might appear to you. I remember that my Dad struggled a great deal with this. I remember seeing him on his knees, praying to his Heavenly Father. My Mom’s Dad passed away during the week or so period of time that my Dad was making this decision. My mom took my sisters to be with her family. My Dad and I were home alone one night and he asked me to say a prayer. He told me that he didn’t know if he had the faith to receive an answer. I don’t remember the prayer, but he told me later that with the help of divine guidance, he had decided that he should not take the job that required him to work on Sunday. He did what his Heavenly Father asked him to do. My Dad was a different man after that experience. He was a better man. Dare I say, he was more like Christ because of that experience.

Can you guess what I would DO if I found myself in a situation where I would be required to work on Sunday? I hope that I would DO the same thing that my Dad did. I would put my game shoes on. I would look to my right and to my left–to make sure my constant companion/personal trainer was with me. Then I would go to my coach (My Father in Heaven) and ask him what he thought I should do. He knows me perfectly and he knows my game. He is the only one that can get me from where I am now to where I want to be (exaltationally speaking).

My Dad won’t be judged by whether or not he took the job that had him work on Sunday. A year later or a month before, my Dad’s answer may have been different. What mattered is that he did what his Heavenly Father asked him to do. My Dad, you, me and President Hinckley will be judged by whether or not we DO whatever it is that our Heavenly Father has asked each of us individually to do. This process is made possible by the atoning sacrifice of Christ and we can do it with the help of the Holy Ghost. That is my focus. That is what my Dad taught me to do. That is what President Hinckley teaches me to do.

That is what Christ did.