Other Gods

I remember learning about the ten commandment from an early age in Primary. The first commandment is to not have any other gods before Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. My teachers told me that other gods included TV, movies, video games, and other things that took the place of church stuff.

In more recent years church members have heard about being careful with the Internet because of pornography and other things that take away the Spirit and distract us from family time and eternal progression.

Elder Bednar specifically talked in a CES fireside about not letting Second Life and other online sites where you create an avatar and live in another world. He said that this is not real and that we came to earth to experience our own real life. http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,538-1-4830-1,00.html

I think that Elder Bednar's talk and the counsel of church leaders in recent years on the dangers of the Internet tie in well with what I learned at an early age about what the first commandment.

So my question is: How will following the counsel of church leaders concerning the Internet help us obey the first commandment and bring us closer to Christ?

What Does "Religiously" Actually Mean Anyway?

"I love Lost. Sawyer is a man I tend to fashion my life after and Kate is going to have my children. I follow Lost pretty religiously." Thank you Scott Stevens for a look into your Tuesday night activities.

The idea of following a television show religiously nowadays is pretty common. Scott, in describing his dedication stated he religiously follows Lost. What would he say if I asked him, "What about Sacrament meeting, do you follow that religiously?"

Now lets listen to another friend of mine, ironically her name is Kate. "Oh. Freinds is my favorite show of all time.

I followed it religiously and now I go back and watch them since I have the DVDs." Kate Todd is not alone. Sometimes we get so attached to our shows that we watch episodes that we have seen already just to remind us how much of an idiot Joey is, how mixed up Rachel and Ross are, how inept Phoebe is, and how unbelievable Chandler and Monica were (metaphorically speaking of TV as a whole and not just trying to call Friends out for basically rehashing Seinfeld without the humor).

What if I posed a similar question to Kate that I did to Scott, "Have you watched reruns of General Conference?" I don't want to condemn my friends. In fact, if I had to do a little investigatorial research on myself and my TV habits I would have to admit that I watch 30 Rock with a zealousness that would impress David Koresh. I watch General Conference religiously, but that doesn't mean I bought all the episodes on itunes...

Now I pose a couple of rhetorical question with hint of hyperbole, a trace of tongue in cheek, and a sprinkling of serious reflection. What do we mean when we say "I _______ religiously"? Do we really show as much dedication to certain things in the media as we do to our actual religions? I mean, we are told to avoid idolatry and we are often warned that the idols of today are not golden calfs. Does Scott go to the LDS church on Sunday and the church of Lost on Tuesdays?

Did I just blow your mind? While you regain consciousness from that last truth bomb I just dropped on you I want you to ponder one more thing. We go to church once a week and most television shows that people admittedly watch fairly "religiously" show only once a week. Is Sunday the Lord's day and Monday Jack Bauer's day? What does that mean? I'm not sure, I just thought it was interesting.

So, here are my questions to you: What media do you consume "religiously"? And what do you think this phrase means today, to do something "religiously"?

Celebrities as religious leaders

Back in the day when I was an impressionable young lad developing my taste in music, I used to listen to a little-known rock n' roll outfit called "Rage Against the Machine." It was a fitting name, because, as witnessed by the photo, the band members were apparently very angry about something. If you cared to pay attention to the lyrics, you would hear them criticizing the government, large corporations, the police, and many other things. At their concerts they often took time to discuss political items and encouraged their fans to join their causes — which the fans often did. Of course, the band members weren't experts on politics, sociology or fields related to their causes, but that didn't stop them from advocating nor did it stop people from believing them. I eventually grew tired of their music and political diatribes, sold my CDs, and moved on to other things. However, Rage Against the Machine was not the last time I was to see celebrities taking the role as leaders of popular causes.

Pop culture figures have also spoken out against the war in Iraq, called for the release of political prisoners (Rage Against the Machine), spoken against Scientology (the band Tool and the show Southpark), and led many other social and political causes.

Insofar as these actors and musicians gain broad bases of support and often dictate the tenets of belief for a certain cause, I feel that celebrities often function in the same way as religious leaders. A person may not believe in God, but they may certainly believe in the doctrine of Sean Penn and go to worship at his movies or at protests and rallies that he supports.

A good example of this is with California's recent battle to pass Proposition 8. On one side of the debate were religious leaders, such as those of the LDS and Catholic faiths, who proclaimed a certain set of values. On the other side were various secular groups, which had their own set of values, and who often employed celebrities as their figureheads. Ellen Degeneres, Jack Black, Kathy Griffin, Drew Barrymore and Brad Pitt were used as spokespersons and figureheads in the campaign against the Proposition.

In a double-whammy of Hollywood support for overturning Prop 8, Brad Pitt appeared on The Ellen Degeneres Show and delivered the following statement:

"That to me is an issue of equality. And um, you know, I go back to the Declaration of Independence. We're all created equal, um, we all free to for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And um, that proposition was stepping on people's pursuit of happiness and people's liberty and I don't think it has any place or in our definition of America so I hope we figure that one out [sic]."

Thanks for the legal analysis, Brad.

Now leading or believing in causes is fine, but what I think is worrisome is that large groups of people join celebrity causes simply because the person is a celebrity. I fail to see how being really good at playing guitar or being really good at pretending to be someone else on film also makes that person an expert on law, morality, or politics. How in the world does Brad Pitt, who doesn't hold a law degree and has a long trial of failed relationships, become an expert on marriage or its legal roots? Maybe it's his abs.

So here we have these pop-culture prophets preaching to their dedicated minions. They give their (uneducated) opinion on an issue, and their believers follow. However, if I was in their position, and had the power as they do to influence popular opinion, would I let my lack of knowledge prevent me from exerting my influence?

This brings me to my question: do celebrities have a greater obligation than the average person to study out issues before they try and influence others concerning the issue, simply because so many people blindly follow them? Or if you think that question is lame, you could also explain why people adopt celebrities' opinions on issues about which the celebrities have virtually no expertise (why do these pop-culture prophets have converts?).

Universal Religion?

Reading through the news online over the past month, I’ve noticed one recurring story that stuck out from the rest. It wasn’t about politics, relationship scandals, murder, or anything else that would be generally newsworthy. It was about who was rumored to be auditioning for and who was eventually hired to play Captain America for Marvel’s upcoming superhero films.

Significant focus and discussion about Chris Evans, the actor hired, can be seen on blogs and news stories that deal from actor hired and range from everything from how his past roles and physical looks will affect the “Captain America” image. Then thought struck me: the only other time I can remember focus on a casting decision being this strong was when James Caviezel was cast as Jesus in “The Passion of the Christ.”

But in today’s world, superheroes are celebrated at Comic Con, adult and kids costumes, art, toys, kids and adult apparel, movies, etc. Why? A superhero is a type of stock character possessing "extraordinary or superhuman powers.” Their purpose is to use their powers to keep peace and protect the people of earth from supervillians.

Isn’t that sort of what God is for us? Teach us moral values through stories, provide peace, and protect us from Satan?

It is easy to see how a monotheistic culture would identify with single superheroes characters like Superman because many times the stories mimic that of the Christ archetype: they manifest divine qualities display loving kindness and forgiveness, fight for justice, being guided by the spirit of the character's father or father figure, and are often martyrs, sacrificing themselves for the greater good.

On the other hand, polytheistic cultures can identify with the superhero groupings. In superhero groupings, even though each character have in their own comic books (Captain America, Thor, etc) they also join together in comic books series’, like the Avengers and X-Men, which shows how the superheroes use their powers to achieve a common goal. The dynamic of these groupings mimic ancient religions like Norse and Greek mythology, as well as modern day religions such as Hinduism. Some characters, like Thor, have even been based off of polytheistic gods.

The even cooler thing is that even with the Christ archetypes and polytheistic undertones, superheroes still appeal to atheists. The comics themselves never allude to a supreme god and superheroes never seek to be seen as gods. In fact, many of the superhero creation myths mimic that of the atheistic position of evolution. The Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtles bathed in the toxic ooze thus mutating their DNA, a radioactive spider bit Spiderman, and the X-Men got theirs through a gradual and natural evolution.

So ponder this readers… Has society’s deification of superheroes, and superhero stories themselves, in essence created a universally unified religion?

From one extreme to another…

Doing a simple search of “Mormon” or “Mormonism” brings up a variety of websites. Some are sponsored by the church itself, others by members, some by groups who are very much against the teachings and practices of the church, and some who are trying to prove that the church is false. As you can imagine, the content on these sites is very different from one another. One says the Book of Mormon is true; the other says it is false. One says that Mormons are not Christian; the other says that they are. Mormon’s are polygamists; they’re not. Mormonism is a religion; it is a cult. Mormonism destroys families, it strengthens families. The list goes on and on from one extreme to another.

For a curious person or the seeker of truth, seeing such websites right next to each other could create some sort of cognitive dissonance. They see so many contradictory ideas and can’t be sure which are right and which are wrong. The way Mormons are portrayed in TV shows like South Park, or Big Love can also create a sort of dissonance for people who are somewhat familiar with the church. Even news reports about things like Prop 8 or the Mitt Romney campaign portray the religion in ways that are often inconsistent with the way members of the church understand them. This cognitive dissonance can be felt not only by people who are seeking to learn more about the church, but also by the church members themselves.

Is this good or bad? Would it be better to just have information from the church itself out there for people to read? Or do the conflicting views of those who do not agree with the church and its teachings help people to search harder for truth?

Also, knowing that there is so much negative and false information about our religion, does this change the way you seek and accept information about other religions?

From the Outside Looking In

Growing up in California, a large number of my friends were not LDS.  Most of what they learned about the LDS faith came from the media.  When I was a senior and people found out I would be attending BYU almost every student made a comment to the effect of, “Oh like Julie from Real World.”  (For those who don’t know The Real World is one of the original reality TV shows and airs on MTV)

 

To be honest, at the time I had never seen an episode of the show and since then have only seen one or two episodes so I got all of my information by what people told me she did.  The biggest thing people remembered about her was that she went to BYU but after choosing to be on the show was kicked out of the University because she wasn’t living the “Mormon life.”  I actually hadn’t thought much about that incident until this assignment.  And now after learning about framing theory in this class I decided to go back and try to do some research on how Julie Stoffer was portrayed on Real World.  I found the following from Realitytvworld.com:

“On the series, Stoffer was depicted as a naive, somewhat racist, goofy girl who knew little about life beyond her Latter-day Saint upbringing in Wisconsin (she had attended Brigham Young University for 3 years prior to the show). Her conflicts with living a secular, adventurous life while claiming to adhere to the Mormon religion were topics covered by the series.”  It goes on to say that she was kicked out of BYU for living in the same house with unrelated people of the opposite sex, which is a violation of the honor code.

I remember my friend’s in school thinking what strict rules we had to live by because of incidents like that in the media.  One other Mormon in the media I wanted to talk about is Mitt Romney.  I served my mission in Wisconsin during the time when all of the election fervor was happening.  And to my surprise a lot of people stopped us to talk about Mitt Romney and most of the comments they made were positive.  They thought he lived by good values and based on the comments they made I am assuming at least some of the framing in the media was positive.  I am sure, however, that the media focused on the fact that he was a Mormon since everyone made that connection when they saw us. 

 

And the list could go on with Mormons in the media from contestants on American Idol to Steve Young or even TV shows like Big Love that talk about Mormons.  So my question for you is

 Question:

 How do you think Mormons are framed in the media and how does that affect an outsider’s view of the LDS religion?

 

Being Mormon Is Cool...

Some would argue that being Mormon is more of a social handicap than an advantage for teenage adolescents. This may not be the case in Utah and in areas of some other states, however those who were raised outside of the state of Utah would probably all agree to a certain extent. I would argue that now more than ever the opposite is proving to be the case. In a world where it is becoming more and more common for adolescent youth to come up with ways to set themselves apart from the “norm,” whether it be by the clothes they wear, the music they listen to, or the length and style of their hair, members of the LDS church seem to have a unique advantage just by their differences in lifestyle. Mormons don’t have to wear all black or wear preppy clothes or be the best athletes in the school to set themselves apart.

In the world of high school “clicks” the Mormons stand alone as far as groups that are classified by the religion by which they practice. I don’t know about your high school, but there wasn’t a Muslim group or a Catholic group that everybody around campus knew exactly what religion a person was based on the people they hung out with. Except for the Mormons... I would venture to say that at any given high school outside of the state of Utah where there was any significant amount of LDS students at a given school there was a group of students known as the “Mormons.” The Mormon group is starting to be known for the things that Mormons do rather than just the things that they can’t do. As more and more adolescent Mormons are achieving successes on TV and in music scene, being Mormon is becoming more and more mainstream rather than being on the extreme.

Recent TV successes by LDS teens like Julianne Hough and David Archeleta as well as appearances on popular TV shows such as So You Think You Can Dance, The Biggest Looser, MTV Real World, Survivor, Dancing With The Stars, The Next Food Network Star, and American Idol have all contributed to changing the perception of LDS youth.

The commercialization of Mormons has even gone so far as to tap into the Mormon missionary as an icon of coolness as shown as this ad by Axe:

Here's the question... Can the mainstreaming of Mormon culture that has been perpetuated by the media be considered as missionary work or is it more so an indication of the growing size of the church. What are some of the benefits and harms that can be associated with this type of exposure?

Josh Scott

Mormon Radio - The Icing on the Cultivation Cake

It seems that those Mormons are up to their Mormonizing ways again. To hear tell these days they got their own radio station. Oh yeah, it’s true. They’re spreading their word and getting it all into the collective subconscious of anybody with a mind to hear it, or at least not be inconvenienced enough to tune away.

Yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a radio station. And it seems like a perfect example for cultivation theory. The radio doesn’t seem to be the kind of medium to declare new doctrines or to give out the latest. Rather, their mission is to get the Gospel out on the airwaves 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

In my time as a member of the LDS faith I have wondered time and again if the Church is intentionally flirting with the line between teaching and brainwashing. I get this especially when I think about some of the primary children’s songs. Think of the song Follow the Prophet. Over and over we hear the children chanting repeatedly in a gloomy minor key, “Follow the prophet! Follow the prophet! Follow the prophet! Don’t go astray! Follow the prophet! Follow the prophet! Follow the prophet…”




But it isn’t really brainwashing, it’s cultivation. These kids are getting it into their heads so when the time comes for them to screw their courage to the sticking place, they needn’t even think about it. They just know, “Follow the prophet. He knows the way!”

Now with Mormon radio we can get the same function as they load their programming with interstitials consisting of the testimonies of average, garden-variety, everyday members.

Couple that with our hymns, what a medium. We give everyone books and make them speak in unison what is arguably our scripture put to rhyme. Mormon radio brings us the music of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir to complete the cultivation in great triumphant song. They echo the songs we have been cultivating into our brains in every meeting during a 3-hour block, and every day if we are in early-morning seminary.

We use cultivation in our meeting houses by having pictures of pioneers going through hardship as a way to kind of condition us to not be surprised when things are difficult, or as a way to never give us the excuse to think “our lot is hard.”

I don't think we're surprised that we are cultivated by the Church. We hear the parables of the sower of the seeds and we like the idea of thinking we are a "good seed." We don't want to sow the hurricane only to reap the whirlwind in the end.

We like to be cultivated so much, we write catchy songs to brainwash even ourselves.



So. Tell me what you think. Do you think Latter-day Saints are aware of the fact that our teaching methods are akin to brainwashing? Do you think they resent it?

Josh Guest wrote this. And I make it with mine own hand.

The official mission of BYU Athletics “is to conduct the Athletics program in a manner that will develop student-athletes of excellence in academics, athletics, faith, and character, and to contribute to the mission of the LDS Church through the visibility of our positive example and our accomplishments.” Over the past few decades it has been clear to see that the accolades and visibility of individual BYU athletes as well as the success of entire teams have aided the LDS Church’s emergence from obscurity. Though it may be impossible to measure this effect or the correlation our culture draws between the university and the Mormon faith, I’m sure we can agree that there is at least some significant impact.

In recent years Mormon athletes, especially those who play for BYU, have gotten a lot of face time in both the local and national media. Most of this coverage has focused on the outstanding play of an individual (think Jimmer Fredette scoring 49 points against Arizona) or BYU team (think ESPN College Gameday coming to Provo for the football game vs. TCU). We can’t forget about the other instances that are just downright unusual, such as BYU’s role as the victim to the feisty play of a New Mexico soccer player (shown below).

Though most of these portrayals of the BYU athletics program do bring greater visibility to the University and by association to the church, I’m not sure that they really contribute to the mission of the LDS Church. As the mission statement of BYU Athletics clearly dictates, it is through the visibility of not only the accomplishments, but also the positive examples of these athletes that the athletic program contributes to the mission of the Church.

Although the local papers often give us good coverage, it is nearly impossible to find any widespread (beyond the state of Utah) articles or clips that highlight the good examples of BYU’s student athletes. Still, I do remember a number of occasions where announcers have briefly mentioned the missionary service of some football players or the humanitarian work they’ve participated in. More recently they noted the family-centered priorities of Andrew George who returned to Utah during a road trip to see the birth of his baby, and then quickly flew back to Albuquerque the next morning on less than two hours of sleep to play in a game vs. New Mexico. If that wasn’t enough, he also managed to catch a 27-yard touchdown pass in the game.

In contrast to the stories that showcase these positive examples of BYU athletes, there are plenty more widely circulated stories that focus instead on improper or unsportsmanlike actions of BYU athletes. Consider for example the criticism that ex-BYU star Austin Collie drew in 2007 when he said, “Obviously, when you're doing what's right on and off the field, I think the Lord steps in and plays a part." More recently a lot of publicity has gone to this brief clip of Max Hall venting some pent up feelings after an overtime triumph over rival Utah:

I strongly believe that for the most part, BYU athletes are setting a positive example and are exceptional ambassadors for the church. However, on rare occasions when athletes say unsportsmanlike things in the heat of the moment or that are taken out of context, the media makes a big deal out of their seeming lack of honor.

Do you think that the BYU Athletic program, as it is portrayed in the media, contributes to the mission of the LDS Church?