Media & Religion

Facebookism

2010-11-16T22:45:00.002-08:00

The first weekend of October, I traveled to Las Vegas with a few other students for the National Journalism Conference. It was not quite what I had expected, yet eye opening to discover what other journalists beyond the scope of the Brimhall building had to say about the industry.

The emphasis of the conference was heavily placed on Facebook. This was not the most useful focus as I have been a member since it abandoned its age-restrictive college demographics. But I can't imagine the whirlwind I would be caught in had this been my first exposure to Facebook.

Although a little repetitive, they helped us understand one thing; Facebook is a social sphere defined by the social graph, the mapping of connections between all people and charts how everyone on Facebook is ultimately connected to one another.

No matter the depth of your involvement, if you are a member of Facebook, you are numbered among the 500 million people within the social graph who practice Facebookism. You may only be the person who visits for the holidays, but you are a Facebookie nonetheless.

Personally, as long as my computer is on, Facebook is creepin’ in the background. For the sake of this argument, I am the Facebook extremist, who has loyal followers that take my word as though it were sanctioned doctrine. In the world of Facebookism, we are given the power and authority to fill both the roles as preacher and congregation member. Facebook is the media medium we practice as religion daily.

Think about it this way, the friends we follow are leaving digital imprints of their life through status updates, wall posts and likes on Facebook. They are compiling a book, a record of their life, that we have access to daily. How much time do you spend reading their gospel versus the Church’s?

With this new perspective on how we use Facebook, do you believe your time spent using the social tool has become a media religion you practice? And since Facebook is only growing in numbers and popularity, how does this change the way you will let your children practice media use?

A "Modern" View of Religion

2010-11-15T14:22:00.000-08:00

Statistics have shown that overall, regular religious attendance has declined over the years. While religion was once the only way to be a part of something bigger than one's self, this is no longer the case. Back in the days of early America going to church was the only form of entertainment that one could get to escape from a monotonous, day-to-day existence. Today, however, other things have begun to replace the need for traditional religion. The role that religion played back then has evolved now to be a role fulfilled by various forms of media.

Though traditional religious attendance has gone down, religion in the broadest sense is still a part of virtually every person's life. Dictionary.com describes religion as "something one believes in and follows devotedly; usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

So someone who may believe they are not religious because they are not affiliated with a particular religious group should look again at the patterns in their life. Consider for example,

Something one follows devotedly:

Usually involving ritual observance:

Often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs:

http://www.movieweb.com/tv/TVGq2MLMWvjIKN/season-2-modern-family-wins-a-respect-award

The television show Modern Family is a great example of the many television sitcoms that pull people in and provide this sort of ritual experience. In replacing religion it allows one to be part of something bigger than themselves. Watching television shows like Modern Family and other sitcoms is most definitely a religious experience. maybe not in the traditional sense that we think of but in that it is something someone believes in enough to ritually sit down and watch it on a weekly basis.

Sitcoms like Modern Family also have a specific moral code that they relay to the audience. As shown through the linked video, these sitcoms are more than silly, meaningless content but actually portray serious issues in a funny, sentimental and light way that ensure people will return again and again to receive the moral messages they contain. Because by doing so they are participating in a fun and fulfilling (also known as religious) experience.

The chapter we read on Cultivation Theory spoke of Gerbner's views specifically relating to this phenomenon. He said it used to be that the only "acceptable storytellers outside the home were those passing down religious tradition." But now, "At its root, television is 'story,' and a society's stories give a 'coherent picture of what exists, what is important, what is related to what, and what is right'" (p. 353 of Chapter 27 "Cultivation Theory of George Gerbner).

Do you agree or disagree with this argument that television shows like Modern Family have become a form of religion? One that replaces the need for traditional religion and is now a means of providing the "stories" that shape society's moral codes?

(For the record, I am a ritualistic viewer of Modern Family.)

Saturday is a Special Day...Sports as Religion

2010-11-14T20:48:00.000-08:00

Just like many of you, I thoroughly enjoyed BYU's beat down on Colorado State in football this past weekend . It is almost as if balance has been restored to Cougar football as we know it, or at least it appears to be going in that direction. I did not have the opportunity to watch the game live, as I had to go to a church meeting and take a test at the wonderful testing center, but thanks to the miracle of the DVR, I was able to watch the game.

I would NEVER miss watching a BYU football game, whether they are playing at home or playing away. My wife and I got Comcast Cable just for the football season so we could have the Mountain and Versus networks and watch the away BYU games. We’ve had season tickets for three years and took our one-month-old daughter to the BYU/Utah game last year. To say the least, we are diehard fans and follow it with religious devotion. Much of the rest of Saturdays after BYU games are devoted to watching whatever other games are on TV. It’s amazing I get anything else done on the weekends.

OK, so I may be over exaggerating the whole football fan scenario, but for many, sports are a form of religion. As mentioned in our reading in RCPA chapter 10, there are many similarities between sports and football. Both are organizations and are structured. Michael Novack, the theologian who is quoted throughout this chapter said, “Like religions, which ‘place us in the presence of powers greater than ourselves, and seek to reconcile us to them,’ sports help participants confront uncertainties of ‘Fate” by playing out contingencies in games, and recognizing the role that chance plays in the outcome of contests.” Novak also points out that both religion and sports help people confront “anxieties and dreads about failure, aging, betrayal, and guilt…”

Novak also points out that both religion and sports have high standards and expectations, demand discipline and strive toward perfection. Both also have chants, hymns, and gestures. (The Cougar fight song and the clapping and hand actions that go with it) Each has a place of worship in a sense (chapel vs. a stadium) and a designated day of worship. (Sundays vs. Saturdays for college football) All of these attributes, whether as church leaders /players and coaches, or as fans/active members of our church, have a sense of uniting people to a common cause. It can also cause rifts and fights between people from different faiths or different sports teams. Just look at the rivalry between Catholics and Protestants or BYU and Utah.

This is an example of the rift sports can cause between people just like religion can: (Watch the first minute)

Max Hall Expressing his Feelings about the "School up North." People expressing their disgust about other religions in a similar fashion sometimes...

On the other hand, here is how sports can unite people:

That is all fine and well, but does a unifying cause and zealous devotion to sports make it a religion? When I wrote down my generic definition of what religion is at the beginning of the semester, I wrote down that it is an organized concept that helps unite people to a power and cause greater than the individual. Going by that, sports certainly can unite a group of diverse people to something greater than the individual. If you look at football, no one person can do anything without the help of his teammates. A football fan who is watching from the stands or a Lazy Boy chair really has no control over what happens, but there is a sense of commrodery with those playing the game and those they are watching it with.

Whether football or any other sport is considered a religion or not, people spend a massive amount of time consuming it, especially thanks to various forms of media that make it possible to do so. This brings me to my next question, since many of us are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, how weary should we be of sports becoming a form of idolatry? Since the days of the Old Testament, we have been warned about worshipping idols. We have been counseled by our church leaders that idolatry worship happens in many forms. It can be an obsession with cars, money, a house, or many other things. Can sports fall into that as well? Participating in or watching sports can take away from other things that we should be focused on such as increasing our faith or spending more quality time with our family members. Is this something we should be weary of?

My questions to you are: Do you think sports can be considered a religion? Should we be concerned that sports is actually a form of idolatry that is taking our focus off of Jesus Christ? What think ye?

World of Warcraft - The Religion?

2010-11-13T18:21:00.000-08:00

World of Warcraft, also known as WoW, is a very popular online gaming program where people can create characters and complete quests. For many people who play WoW, it becomes more than a game; it becomes a religion. Applying some of the characteristics of religion presented in Chapter 8, It’s About Faith In Our Future: Star Trek Fandom as cultural Religion, it is evident that World of Warcraft has become a religion.

Mythical Narrative/Cannon/Language

WoW has a whole back story that involves dwarves and elves and what-not. While knowing the legend of the World of Warcraft is not necessary, most players know something about it. A few weeks ago, there was a young man who asked a complex question of the game designers regarding the story of WoW. The designers did not know the answer and later honored him with an in-game character for stumping them.

WoW has a unique language. Abbreviations make up a lot of the language, but there are also terms. Here is a small reference guide.

Toon – Character
LFG – Looking for Group
DPS – Damage per second
Noob – New or inexperienced player
Tank – A character in a group quest that can get hurt more than other players

Healer - A character in a group quest that does not fight but only heals other players
Cloth – A character who cannot wear metal armor and cannot get hit a lot

Schisms

In the game, there are two factions, the Alliance and the Horde. While players don’t have to stay true to one faction, they often have a preference and are vehement supporters of the faction they are playing on at the moment.

Organizations/Clubs with Hierarchy

WoW can be a social game if the player decides to join a Guild and play with the same group of people. The groups are run by a Guild Master (GM for short) and officers who are appointed based, in part, on their participation in the guild. While players do not have to play in groups or with other people, the quests are easier when there are more than one player.

Pilgrimage

Every year, the creators of WoW hold a convention known as Blizzcon. Ardent fans of the game come with obsessive and finicky questions dressed in extravagant costumes.

Guides/Affects People’s Lives/Sacrifice/Devotion

WoW, though only a video game, drastically affects people’s lives if they allow it to. Addicts or adhereants will put WoW before family, work, church, etc., just to play more World of Warcraft. News articles have linked extreme cases of WoW addiction to cases involving death (just News Google “World of Warcraft death”). It is also not uncommon for people who are in the same guild to schedule real life meetings where they hang out for a weekend.

Another way people express their devotion to WoW make videos and post them online. There are many popular videos (Leeroy Jenkins, World of Warcraft Dancing, Mr. T WoW commercial), but a lot of those have strong language. There is even a web series called The Guild that focuses on a woman with and addiction to WOW. This is one of the few inoffensive videos I could find. You don’t have to watch the whole thing, just the first couple lines of the song.

Stigma

There is a stigma associated with people who play WOW. They are thought of as single nerdy people in their thirties and forties.

By fulfilling these criteria, World of Warcraft can be regarded as a religion. What do you think? Can World of Warcraft be viewed as a religion?

The spread of Mormon beliefs through media

2010-11-08T20:42:00.001-08:00

One of the questions we needed to answer in our World Religion presentations was: “What the leaders of each specific religion had to say about the use of media?” During these last weeks this question has been on my mind, so I have been going through some talks and articles by LDS leaders so I can share them in this blog post. I found LDS leaders warn us about the bad use of media how it can destroy families and relationships, but also they motivate us to use media to bear our testimonies and share our beliefs.

First I would like to share with you two statements made by LDS leaders warning the members about media’s negative influence:

In 2003, for example, Elder L. Tom Perry warned all the members of the LDS church about how media can directly influence in a positive or negative way on families. He said: “Oh, what impact advertising, television programs, the Internet, and the other media are having on our family units! We remind you that parents are to preside over their own families. Helps and reminders will come from the Church Internet site and television channels, as well as through priesthood and auxiliary leadership to assist you as we strive to fulfill our family responsibilities.”

Last year, Elder David Bednar talked to all the LDS Young Single Adults. He talked about the spiritual hazards in the technologically oriented and rapidly changing world. He said: “Today I raise an apostolic voice of warning about the potentially stifling, suffocating, suppressing, and constraining impact of some kinds of cyberspace interactions and experiences upon our souls. The concerns I raise are not new; they apply equally to other types of media, such as television, movies, and music. But in a cyber world, these challenges are more pervasive and intense. I plead with you to beware of the sense-dulling and spiritually destructive influence of cyberspace technologies that are used to produce high fidelity and that promote degrading and evil purposes.”

LDS LEADERS URGE MEMBERS TO USE MEDIA TO SHARE THEIR BELIEFS

Now I would like to focus on how media can be used to share LDS beliefs. Media allow us to spread our ideas and beliefs in seconds. A couple of weeks ago, one of my friends posted the following Mormon Message video on her Facebook page:

Thanks to that simple video one of her friends who was going through a hard time of her life asked her more about the LDS church and her beliefs.

Can a simply video, Blog post, Tweet make the difference?

This video certainly made a difference in someone’s life.

On 2007, Elder Russell Ballard gave a commencement address at BYU-Hawaii titled: Sharing the Gospel Using the Internet: “Now, may I ask that you join the conversation by participating on the Internet to share the gospel and to explain in simple and clear terms the message of the Restoration. Most of you already know that if you have access to the Internet you can start a blog in minutes and begin sharing what you know to be true… You can write to media sites on the Internet that report on the Church and voice your views as to the accuracy of the reports. This, of course, requires that you understand the basic principles of the gospel. It is essential that you are able to offer a clear and correct witness of gospel truths. It is also important that you and the people to whom you testify understand that you do not speak for the Church as a whole. You speak as one member—but you testify of the truths you have come to know.”

HOW DO LDS MEMBERS SHARE THEIR BELIEFS ON THE INTERNET?

Here are some specific ideas of how LDS members share their beliefs through the Internet:

Share/post your beliefs on social network sites as Facebook and Twitter.

Include some of your beliefs and spiritual experiences on your blog/other website. For example, there is Web site called “Mormons Believe” where LDS members can share their testimonies.

* Share inspirational videos with your friends.

*Comment on other blogs/websites answering other people’s questions about the LDS church.

*For other ideas visit: "Ways to Share the Gospel Online"

DO LDS MEMBERS WHO SHARE THEIR BELIEFS CONTRIBUTE TO THE CHURCH'S GOOD REPUTATION?

It is important to use powerful media tools to spread our feelings and experiences based on our beliefs. I know this will help draw more people to the church, however I also think this will benefit the image of the church in the media and will clarify some misconceptions people have about the LDS church.

Michael Otterson on his article: The Church's Reputation: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunity, said: "Monumental progress has been made during the past century, and particularly in recent years, in gaining respect in the public's mind. Significantly, studies show that people who know Mormons on a personal level typically have great respect for them..."

Based on Otterson's opinion and/or in your own opinion. Do you think LDS members who share their beliefs on the internet are contributing to the church's reputation? Why?

Mormons in the Media

2010-11-08T13:16:00.000-08:00

The Monday after the October conference the first headline or front page of any Utah newspaper focused on the Gay/Lesbian Rights uproar. I have noticed throughout the years, a pattern in religious issues in the media and I wondered is this what everyone else is reading? Whether it is about; proposition 8, Glenn Beck the fanatic, or Mitt Romney in the 2007 election. After this week’s class reading I began to wonder how the media frames Mormons in the National setting. I will use Romney’s experience as a specific example of how the media frames Mormons.

According to the handy dandy theory sheet provided by Professor Randle: “Framing, a term used in media studies, refers to the social construction of a social phenomenon by mass media sources or specific political or social movements or organizations.” The paragraph concludes by saying that framing can have, “Selective influence over the individual’s perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases.” For Mormons, it can be the skewing of religious beliefs, for example: categorizing Mormons as not knowing the Lord (a comment yelled at a Florida campaign event). So, is there a big deal about being LDS? Or has the media in Utah caused LDS to think that we are a big deal?

Pew research center focused on this exact topic, and from their analysis of the media they found that Romney was the lead newsmaker in stories that focused on the politician’s religion (as shown below).

An example of how media covered the issue of religion, was an article in The Boston Globe that was released just after Romney announced he would be running, “The Boston Globe reported that Romney had acknowledged he was thinking about running for president, it printed an article on July 21, 2005, entitled ‘Are we ready for a Mormon president?’" This was a topic that was not ignored by several media providers. The Times did a similar article, “A Mormon as President” Nov 26, 2006, “many Americans remain suspicious of them, maybe because so many aspects of their faith remain mysterious.” This article focuses on the LDS religion as a whole; but, was Romney not elected because he was Mormon or because of his political stance?

For our class reading Dixon concluded his case summary that “the coverage of the religious issue…was driven more by political considerations than by the religious content of the stories.” However, did Dixon consider what effect the stories would have on the reader’s perception of the religion? Sure, we can see the political issues but for those who are not LDS are they susceptible to the media framing us as an oddity, like a cult, or as a religion that America—and therefore Americans—are not ready to accept as a president yet? From what we have learned about stereotyping, I would argue that the media is framing a stereotype for LDS. And although there were other issues that prevented Romney from continuing on in the race I would say that media not only framed Romney as a religious radical but LDS as radical religion. Analyze the following links to news stories and watch it from a non-LDS standpoint. My question for you after reading through this article and looking at some examples is: How do you think national media frames LDS and what do you think are the consequences?

Coverage of Segregation in the church

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pcw0woPX5VY&feature=related

ABC coverage of Hill Cumorah and Mormonism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1lNW7-sVFo

Is America Ready? From a comical standpoint

(careful at the 2 minute marker) Probably do not want to watch the whole thing..

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-12-2007/is-america-ready----mormons

Harry Potter and the Religious Zealots

2010-10-05T15:56:00.000-07:00

Harry Potter has fast become one of the most recognizable names in the world. The star of a series of books by author J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter has become associated with movies, theme park rides, websites etc. Little kids dress up like Harry Potter for Halloween, he's on sheets, and then there is of course this:

This cat wants nothing but death.

What the books don't tell you though, is the deep dark secret of Harry Potter: it's all about witchcraft! Oh, they do tell you that? Wait, it's plastered all over everything associated with Harry Potter? Hogwarts is a school for witchcraft AND wizardry? WTF guys? If it is so obvious that this is about witchcraft and wizardry, then why do good religious parents let their children partake? Isn't this book about a little boy wizard and his friends corrupting souls by creating an interest in the occult and leading people away from the gospel? Hang on one second. Let's step back and reevaluate.

Around the time that the third Harry Potter novel came out, families in Minnesota, New York, Michigan, California and South Carolina began asking for the books to be banned from school libraries and removed from the classroom. These families felt that Harry Potter promoted interest in the occult and more specifically satanism.

scene from Harry Potter movie (photoshopping may have happened)

Speaking out about religious folks banning books, Judy Blume, author of Are you there God?It's me, Margaret said:

"What began with the religious right has spread to the politically correct. (Remember the uproar in Brooklyn last year when a teacher was criticized for reading a book entitled "Nappy Hair" to her class?) And now the gate is open so wide that some parents believe they have the right to demand immediate removal of any book for any reason from school or classroom libraries. The list of gifted teachers and librarians who find their jobs in jeopardy for defending their students' right to read, to imagine, to question, grows every year."

Another quote comes from Kimberly L. Keith who talks about how Harry Potter is good for children because it is basically a modern fairy tale:

"A fairy tale, or great children's book, guides the child's unconscious in a structured way to resolve painful feelings. This frees the child to cope on a conscious level without being overwhelmed by underlying feelings of anxiety and alienation. The Harry Potter books have all the elements of a classic fairy tale, but they speak to modern children in a way that classic fairy tales probably do not anymore."

On the other side of the coin we have this quote from Ray Novosel from www.jesus-is-savior.com:

"But as wild as children seem to be about Harry, no one is happier about the phenomenon than the old-school Satanists, who were struggling to recruit new members prior to the publication of the first Potter book in 1997. “Harry in an absolute godsend to our cause,” said High Priest “Egan” of the First Church of Satan in Salem, MA. “An organization like ours thrives on new blood - no pun intended - and we've had more applicants than we can handle lately." In 1995, it was estimated that some 100,000 Americans, mostly adults, were involved in devil-worship of some sort. Today, more than 14 million children alone belong to the Church of Satan, thanks largely to the unassuming boy wizard from 4 Privet Drive. Yes, the numbers ARE horrific, but the total sales of Harry Potter books, plus the natural hand-me-down factor where many people read a book that has already been purchased, easily equals or exceeds this staggering figure of 14 million."

Here's a lovely video put together by the folks over at everythingisterrible.com you should watch that will really drive home the point of view that Harry Potter is taking people away from good and placing them on the path of evil.

So this brings us to the question of who is right? Are religious folk correct in worrying about what our children (and everyone else's children) read and see? Are these kids really on the path to destruction:

Doomed?

Or are religious people overreacting? Is Harry Potter just a kids book with an interesting story, no different then the hundreds of fictional children's books that have come before it?

"De-coding" the Power of Literature

2010-10-04T09:33:00.000-07:00

We talked about questing, or searching for religious truth through the Internet, in class. We also found that often times these quests end with people finding information from people who feel the same way as they do about religion. I want to explore how literature aids, or halts questing for religious truth.

When people think of religion and literature, The DaVinci Code comes to mind. Its deep and detailed storyline was something that readers grasped on to. However, it was the book's controversial material that really put the book ahead in the race for religious truth. The controversy has created quite a stir among the religious. As we have learned

in class many study groups and religious classes have been created based solely on this book. Some have taken the popularity of the book and used it to create Web Sites that allegedly dispel the rumors and lay down the truth about Mary Magdalene and other DaVinci Code falsehoods. Below is an example of such a Web Site. The creator and content manager of this site have dedicated a large amount of time to "de-coding" The DaVinci Code. Most of the content is in response to the book and the claims that it makes about the Catholic church and Mary Magdalene. Such effort spent focused on proving false someone else's work seems like a waste of time and a bad idea if you want to convince people that the book is false.

To me, it is an example of the power of the medium of literature. Some put so much stock into fictitious literature that they spend most of their time trying to prove it is false (even though it is "fiction"), for fear of someone fostering ill feelings toward their beliefs. As my mother used say, "I wonder how much good people could people be doing with all the time they spend trying to prove other people wrong?"

The following video asks an interesting question:

(double click to view)

"How can a novel, a work of fiction, have such an impact?"

Exactly. A work of fiction. How does it have such an impact? And how has it cause you to hold a seminar for hundreds, maybe thousands, of people?

I don't know the answer to the questions above, but I do know that, in some cases, people are spending too much time worrying about this work of fiction and what it means to their faith.

On the other hand, I do feel that The DaVinci Code and other religious literature does do good among those that are "questing." At times, I am of the opinion that any press is good press for religion. Those who truly want to learn about the truth can be urged by books like The DaVinci Code and, through sincere research, can be educated and enlightened. Those who don't really care about religion and what the book says will take is as a good story, maybe accept some of the "facts" presented and move on.

With the explosion of the Internet at a tool for questing, what role does literature other than canonized scripture play in finding religious truth? Does religion benefit from any mention in literature or does some literature negatively affect it?

Eat, Pray Love and finding yourself through self serving spiritual journey

2010-10-04T07:36:00.000-07:00

Eat, Pray, Love written by Elizabeth Gilbert, a very popular one this year, is a book full of religious content. What I found most interestingly religious about both the book, and the

recent movie, is the protagonist's search for spirituality by undertaking the adventure of her life. In one part of the book Gilbert does reach out to God in a prayer, and essentially prays for the first time in her life. She says, "Are you there God, It's me Elizabeth". She finds peace through this prayer on her bathroom floor and even claims to hear God's voice. I am very comfortable with this portrayal being a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day-Saints. It is very interesting to me that an author would expose herself enough in a popular book and reveal such a sacred experience. That is not my judgement call. How amazing it is that she did so though. It may just mean that those going through confusing, painful situations will kneel down at last attempt because of Eat Pray Love. Books and movies have so much power, they mold the social conciousness and have the ability to cause those who are touched to take action.

Another couple facets of her popularized journey, in my opinion, hurt tenets of religion that many of us find important in our lives. Elizabeth's confusion and consequent divorce lead her to a spiritual journey where she finds pleasure through food in Italy, Spirit through meditation in India, and a balance of the two in Bali. Of course she found herself again, she wasn't looking for anything else, or for anyone else's happiness. It was all about her. But my question is, d

id Elizabeth Gilbert Glamorize and Glorify leaving her husband? .In one part of the book she says, " The many reasons I did not want to be this mans wife again were too sad and personal. I equal parts loved him and could not stand him." Where's the part where she touches on the fact that we all experience that in marriage but find patience and compassion? Again, it's a little touchy that I'm making a judgement call here, but this facet of the book really emanated with me. This common social trend of divorce, was given the hollywood makeover. Not only divorce, but leaving your husband without a chance to speak, without trying to solve differences, in an entirely self serving manner. Oprah even gives Gilbert the hoorah when she gives her motherly, "OK" to Gilbert's love affair with a twenty-something actor during her divorce. Talk about the universal stamp of approval in consumers' eyes.

A book review on good reads.com, though, summed up my feeling. MelssaS said, " A responsibility towards a marriage and spouse is now considered an unwanted "obsession" and one's own pursuit of happiness supercedes everything else? If a man decided to dump his wife and family to flee to the Himalayas to meditate we wouldn’t be calling it a spiritual journey...we would call it irresponsibility." Go Girl.

Considering that divorce is a religious issue for most classical christian, jewish, and muslim faiths, I pose the question... Has media glorified divorce? Is it becoming more permissible because popular media figures participate in it? Step outside the LDS perspective of divorce and do we see something trending in media affecting society like a plague?

Apologies for the formatting. I have never blogged and the pictures are throwing off my text!!!!

Cullenism – Giving people religion they want

2010-10-03T23:17:00.000-07:00

Religion and books is an interesting topic since most religions are built upon a religious text or scripture for established instruction. Chapter 7 of the “Religion and Popular Culture in America” discusses popular culture in religion. I would like to discuss books as popular culture as religion.

Cullenism as defined by Urban Dictionary: “A new religion based off of Stephenie Meyer's Twilight Saga. They believe that the Cullen's (also including Isabella Swan, Jacob Black, and all other characters) are indeed real, and they deserve to be worshiped. They believe that the author of the successful series is a prophet, and that the books are a series of holy books, and the "Cullenists", or "Cullenite" must read a bit of it every day. If you live your life well, in their belief, you will spend eternal life with the Cullen's.”

Ok, so the whole idea of Twilight actually being a religion is a bit of a stretch, and most Cullenist’s actually will state that they are a nondenominational and nonreligious group. Simply put they are fans who “cherish values of Twilight (not just how cute Edward is).”

Religion in America defines religion as “an integrated system of belief, lifestyle, ritual activities, and institutions by which individuals give meaning to (or find meaning in) their lives by orienting themselves to what they take to be holy, sacred, or of the highest value.”

Considering that the Twilight series has sold over 100 million copies worldwide, been translated into 38 different languages, and people gather together to discuss the book and wait for new installments/movies. Based on the Religion in America you could argue that Twilight is a religion.

Cullenism is a “seeker” church in the sense that it’s developed based on individual and unique orientation and interest. If Cullenism really is a new ‘religious’ movement, are people doing this because they find comfort with people that share similar ideas and interests? Based on the definitions of religion, could Cullenism be considered a religion?

So my main question is this: In this “new age of spirituality,” where people are becoming less spiritual and more secular, is it ok for people to create religion they want rather than adhering to traditional religion? Discuss.

What do you think about quest religion and how is the internet helpful in quest religion?

2010-09-29T11:31:00.000-07:00

What do you think about quest religion and how is the internet helpful as a tool in quest religion?

This is my question for you to think about and answer as you read this post.

I am focusing on "The New Individualism" section in Chapter 6 on pages 126-129 and more specifically quest religion because it was interesting to me.

Quest religion, defined by the book (Religion and Popular Culture in America), is religious seeking motivated by dissatisfaction with existing answers.

So, it is an individuals' or a questers' search for answers.

A quester may or may not be a part of an exisiting religious community as they seek for truth by themselves. They're willing to explore the depths of other religious traditions in order to find the truth or answers to their questions.

The book states it well, "questing is a kind of religious indivualism, one that refuses to accept pat answers and accepted dogmas. "

So, I decided to be a quester because I think it is good for an individual to seek out knowledge for themself and to examine their belief system. And the internet is a great way to find, compare and synthesize information, especially in the subjest of religion. For this blog I went to these sites and challenge you to do the same. http://www.beliefnet.com/, http://www.bible.com/, http://www.quran.org.uk/, and http://www.mormon.org/.

Here is my discovery from beliefnet.com. I took the 20 question Belief-O-Matic personality test (it is under the tab for "faiths & prayer"and I have posted my top 13 results for what religion my thoughts and values best matched (see below). I tied with a 100% match for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jehovah's Witness. This was followed by 82% for Orthodox Judaism. Try it yourself.

On the bible.com they have a scripture of the day and one of the tabs was a prayer room. This is the prayer of the day:

"Dear Heavenly Father, I am thankful for all of the good foods that You created for our pleasure. They have been a blessing and I have enjoyed them. Lord, help me not to over-indulge and put too much emphasis on food. Give me a desire to eat things that are good for me and deliver me from those things that are not healthy for me. Since You created our bodies, I trust Your wisdom to know what things are best for me to eat. Forgive me for any lust for food, and may I eat those things that will cause me to have a healthy body so that I can serve You without illness and lack of energy. I ask this in the name of Jesus. Amen."

This Arabic text was on the home page of the quran.org.uk. It is the scripture of the day.

[27:14] And they rejected those Signs in iniquity and arrogance, though their souls were convinced thereof: so see what was the end of those who acted corruptly!

This was one of the screen shots on the home page of mormon.org:

I enjoyed my quest and will pose my question again: What do you think about quest religion and how is the internet helpful in quest religion?

Blog your prayers, Tweet your scriptures, and Google to church.

2010-09-27T19:39:00.000-07:00

Has it really come to this? The Internet is evolving every facet of our lives. It is becoming faster and wider spread than ever before. We can access it from personal computers, phones, and our televisions. With greater accessibility comes greater utilization. We use the internet to shop, socialize, study, and now more frequently worship.

I have only recently realized the extent of the Internet’s influence on religion. In our text book, it quotes a survey done by the Pew Internet and American Life Project that claims, “a quarter of all internet users have searched the web for religious material” (pg. 124). Newer websites such as godtube.com and faithout.com are dedicated to faith based content. The following clip demonstrates the growing popularity of faith online.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53wucE8muP4

Another news articles explains that more youth are turning to the Internet for religion.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/07/millennials-finding-religion-online/

If you didn’t take time to read the article, no worries, my emphasis is on the thought provoking conclusion of the articles that states “Young people are not only creating their own religious identities, they may also be changing the future of worship itself.” It seems religion to many is leaving the chapels and finding refuge in the individual. So, YouTube makes people like Antoine Dodson a celebrity, and GodTube makes people like me and you pastors of our own fold.

Ok, so we’ve briefly discovered that religion is finding a new home in the Internet. How can we compare this to the past? Can you think of another time religion evolved along with technology? The parallel is with the invention of the printing press in 1450. Our text states that “for the first time, everyone who was able to read had access to the Bible, making it possible for them to disagree with Catholic authorities and even the Protestant Reformers themselves” (pg. 125). The new technology was a catalyst in causing major reform and lead to dissent and the forming of a great number of new denominations.

Now, the Internet makes an incredible amount of information available to each of us. It also affords us the means to communicate our own message to others anywhere on the globe. With the impact of the printing press in mind, my question is, IS THE INTERNET CAUSING A SIMILAR REFORMATION TO THAT OF THE PRINTING PRESS? WHY OR WHY NOT?

Online Confessions

2010-09-27T08:58:00.000-07:00

For those who are sick of the traditional method of going to your religious leader and confessing it's time to try a new tactic--online confession. There are several websites, including ivescrewedup.com, and mysecret.tv where people can go to confess their sins. (The second site asks you if you are 18 before you enter because some of the sins that are confessed are very sexual in nature.) In addition, you can read the confessions of others and ask for prayers on your behalf. I wouldn't necessarily recommend reading over the confessions because they are pretty depressing, but they are interesting.

The title page of mysecret.tv asks, "Are you living under the weight of a secret? No matter who you are or what you've done, God wants to remove your guilt and fear, restore you, and transform your life. You can take the first step toward healing right now by confessing your secret." It also quotes John 1:9 which states, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

IveScrewedUp.com has a simple subtitle that says "Confession is good for the soul." Anyone who has been under any sort of stress from hiding a lie or other misdeed knows that it can be quite painful. Getting things off your chest does feel good. But will it have the same effect if you are blasting it out to the internet instead of going to personally visit a church leader and talk about it? What does this say about the way that we communicate?

In Chapter 6 of our book Greg Peterson talks about the impact of the internet on religion. He says, "Instead of liberating us from our bodies, the internet creates an alienation from our true, physical nature. Instead of community we get pseudo-community; instead of true religion we get a false idol." (p. 130) What do you think about this? Has the internet helped to create a greater sense of community for churches and religions? Or has it just allowed people to take a step back from their traditional religious community and search for answers individually online?

One more question. The philosopher Alfred North said, "Religion is what people do in their solitude." (p. 126) Do you agree with that? Or is religion an intrinsically communal activity?

Here is a link to an article CNN did on these online confession sites from a couple years ago.

I felt the Spurrit surrisly SO strong on facebook last night!

2010-09-27T00:46:00.000-07:00

(The title of this post is to be read in the most terrible Utah accent you can muster. Please go back and read it again with that in mind. Many thanks.)

In the month of December, 2009, Americans sent over 10 Billion textual messages, according to Matt Richtel's New York Times series, “Driven to Distraction.” We send them to our friends, our family members, our co-workers, our business clients, and even our bosses. Facebook, Twitter and email all offer similar, instant communication to texting.

Many people – especially the older generations – complain that these social media are deteriorating people's abilities to develop good interpersonal skills to build meaningful relationships.

As social media has become more and more pervasive in our society, it has incorporated even some of the more personal and even sacred areas of our lives, including our belief systems.

With the advent of the Internet in the mid-1980s came the ability to quickly communicate with other people and even ministers of other faiths quickly jumped on the bandwagon, going so far as to develop Web sites that allow professionals in religion to collaborate with other professionals in their field. One such Web site is www.ecunet.org, which doubles as both an online meetingplace, as well as a collaboration center for professionals of religion.

Reverend Charles Henderson (http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/religion.html) first discovered this resource in the late 1980s and started using it to formulate his sermons. It even allowed, as the link explains, ministers to use others' sermons and then return to the forum after giving the sermon and give an evaluation of the sermon itself. Henderson cited ecunet.com as a great resource for his sermon preparation.

More and more people are using the beloved interwebs to share their beliefs. I (although slightly shamefully, for the mere reason that I consider it to be “succumbing to Mormon culture”) frequently post links to www.mormon.org (ps – have you seen the new mormon.org?! It'll blow your mind.) on my facebook because I want to share the gospel in a fast, convenient way with past acquaintances thousands of miles away who I am now not terribly close to, but still feel a moral duty to share the gospel with (that was a terribly constructed sentence. My most profound apologies.).

Similarly, the MTC has people working on mormon.org as “chatters,” answering people's questions and, in essence, teaching them the gospel. I have even heard of people being taught all the lessons through the chat function on mormon.org and being more than prepared for the baptismal interview, in which they participated and were subsequently baptized.

And the Church hasn't stopped there – select missionaries are now allowed to keep blogs and maintain facebook accounts about their work so they can hopefully access people whom they normally wouldn't be able to. Some are allowed to spend up to an hour every day working on their blog or facebook account.

A missionary facebook profile: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001108500975&ref=sgm
Said missionary's blog: http://restoredtruth.wordpress.com/
And another's: http://www.dannytcook.blogspot.com/

The purpose of bringing up these social media is not to highlight the Church's new and innovative approach to missionary work – about which I am skeptical, by the way – but to bring to the surface my question: what role does real, interpersonal interaction play in someone's spiritual development? Is our use of social media affecting more than just our interpersonal relationships - could it also hinder our own spiritual development? Can those people who are “attending” church services online or chatting with a Church representative online have equally powerful spiritual experiences as those who physically attend church services or meet with missionaries? Does the electronic element of the spiritual development dull the power of the Spirit? Think of your personal studies that you have done online: when you read the scriptures online, does the Spirit communicate differently than when you are reading your leather-bounds?

I certainly have my own opinions on the matter, but I am curious to know your views and even hope to see some links to empirical evidence supporting your opinions.

Paganism and Heavy Metal

2010-09-20T11:16:00.000-07:00

I remember listening to Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven when I was a kid and thinking it was the most beautiful song ever written. Apparently, many others agreed. According to Wikipedia, the most famous song off Led Zeppelin's classic 1971 album was the most requested song on FM radio station in the U.S. throughout the 1970s. It was among the most requested songs for me and my brothers growing up as we raided my fathers music collection, and all of us at one point in time even learned how to play the song on piano or guitar. What we didn't realize, though, was the controversy that has followed the song for so many years, specifically it's content. It amazed me to find out how many people at church believed Led Zeppelin was a satanic band, and that Stairway to Heaven was an occultist song with pagan themes (check out the Wikipedia section on backwards masking Stairway and judge for yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stairway_to_heaven#Allegation_of_backward_masking). I'm not sure about the satanic accusation, but the pagan themes in the song are real and probably ignited the firestorm about anti-Christian themes in the band's music.

Fast forward to 2010. Thanks to the internet, diverse music sub-cultures are able to thrive via chat rooms and message boards, and the ease of travel and increased connectivity in the world have allowed such people to even coordinate and gather at more and more music festivals all around the world. Heavy metal has evolved from a niche branch of rock music in the mid to late 1970s to a fully-blown genre that has seen more and more of the popular music charts. While the popular and broader side of the genre has captured a segment of the public, more niche branches have evolved, and sub-cultures within the metal community have taken root around the world.

One of the more interesting branches is the pagan or folk metal branch. These bands, mostly from Scandinavian countries, use folk instruments in their extreme styles of music in an attempt to fuse heavy metal with native folk influences. Lyrical themes are usually related to pre-Christian pagan beliefs and mythology. If you're brave, check out a song from the Finnish band “Turisas” (most of the vocal parts are harsh):

This form of music has a small yet devoted fan base worldwide. There is probably some correlation between these bands springing up in the region lately and the rise of Neo-Paganism in Europe recently, but that's not the most interesting part of this genre, mostly because they're from those countries and are getting in touch with their history. It's the people outside of the countries that are taking on this pre-Christian paganism as their own religion, if just for a few hours each day. Take a listen to the first few minutes of an interview with a member of “Tyr”, a band from the Faroe Islands:

I had several friends who saw this band in concert in Salt Lake City. When the lead singer asked in there were any pagans in the audience, most of the crowd yelled in agreement. I doubt many of you believe most of that audience would classify their official religion as some form of paganism, but at least for one night, many in the audience identified themselves within the culture surrounding the music, a culture we got a glimpse of in the interview. I've read message boards with fans from Maine to Pennsylvania to Texas to California all wishing they lived in Finland or Sweden, with some outwardly admitting they considered themselves pagan even after admitting they were raised Christian.

My question: is it necessarily bad that some people are identifying themselves with another people's culture and religion through these musical communities? Or is this passing “fad” destructive on one or more levels to a person's “religion” development? Remember that most, if not all, of these fans see themselves and deeply entrenched within a culture and community.

Can sex speak to the soul?

2010-09-20T00:27:00.000-07:00

For anyone who missed out on the Madonna chapter in our book, not to worry...I've got you covered. While I can't say I was the biggest fan of A. reading the wrong chapter or B. the chapter itself, I inadvertently stumbled onto my topic for this blog post. Sex sells music videos. No denying that. Hundreds of artists have tried to cash in on provocative content.

But what about those videos that are truly unforgettable? The ones that keep people talking, whether they liked it or not? The magic word: controversy. And when you pair sex with strong religious overtones, themes, and imagery...you strike a chord with people on both sides and create...you guessed it...controversy. Fierce loyalties and strong opinions lead to a lasting dialogue, and the longer we talk, the more money they make.

As the author of the chapter said, "...it takes effort to remember when Madonna videos were not moldy oldies on VH-1." So for those of you, like me, who would get smashed in an 80's Pop Culture trivia challenge, let's start the discussion with someone you know. Someone whose wardrobe, music, and image scream promiscuity. Someone whose lyrics contain so many explicit sexual references you wonder how certain songs clear the FCC for daytime radio. Someone with music videos so controversial they've been both banned and censored from YouTube and MTV. Someone whose taste for shock value rivals that of even Madonna.

Meet...Lady Gaga.

Labeled this generations's "Queen of Controversy," Lady Gaga is known for her taste for taboos. With her music video for her latest single—Alejandro—she's lived up to her name. I'll embed the video below, but be advised...it's racy, raunchy, and unsettlingly risqué.

For those of you who want to spare yourselves from its graphic nature, here's a brief description of the controversial imagery that's causing public outcry. I'm not inclined to rehash it in detail, so I found a blip from FOXNews that I believe does it justice.

"The pop princess, real name Stefani Germanotta, recently released the music video for her single “Alejandro” and has sparked quite the outcry given its saturation of controversial imagery, including her swallowing rosary beads in a latex-version of a nun’s habit, holding the crucifix in front of her crotch and simulating group sex with a bunch of beefed-up men, who are nearly naked save for underwear and high heels."

As expected, Gaga has received quite a bit of praise for pushing the envelope. But this song is the first that has had an overwhelming negative response from the music community. Music critics have called the religious elements of the video "confusing" and "over-the-top." They fail to see how the religious imagery ties into the video's narrative (which the video's director, Steven Klein, describes as "the character's battle between the dark forces of this world and the spiritual salvation of the soul).

Fellow pop artists are voicing criticisms as well.

Despite her skin-baring spreads for magazines and highly provocative lyrics, singer Katy Perry launched an attack on Gaga's Alejandro video back in June. In a twitter post, Perry said "blasphemy as entertainment is as cheap as a comedian telling a fart joke." In a later interview with Rolling Stone she spoke up again, referencing Gaga's video before saying, "I think when you put sex and spirituality in the same bottle and shake it up, bad things happen."

Like A Prayer, one of the highest selling-singles of Madonna's career, featured similarly controversial religious images. Complete with a gospel choir, Madonna's passionate kiss and implied sexual encounter on an altar with a black Jesus, seductive dancing in front of burning crosses, and a clearly drawn comparison between Christ's suffering and the suffering of a man who has been wrongly accused of rape (and is later cleared by Madonna's Good Samaritan act of testifying on his behalf), it's clear that this video is rife with religious imagery. It caused so much fall-out with religious communities that Pepsi withdrew a very lucrative ad campaign to save itself from from being labeled as "the blasphemous cola."

Madonna, on the other hand, defended her video. She said, "Passion and sexuality and religion all bleed into each other for me ... I think I’m religious in the broadest sense of the word, and I am very sexual in that I’m very aware of my sexuality and other people’s, and am very interested in it."

Not a very strong defense, but that's how some artists see it. They see music as an arena for artistic expression and see no lines, no restrictions, no protected territory. They play on the most sensitive issues because they feel those elicit the strongest emotions and leave the greatest impact...good or bad.

But my question to you is if it's right. I realize our bias and conservative tendencies, but try and think of it from a free speech perspective. Is this ok? Can you juxtapose religion and sex to make a statement? How about to make a buck?

And another angle...how does this affect religion? Does it undermine that which is sacred? Or do the religious symbols retain their value because people simply write these controversial videos off as cheap attempts at producing shock value?

Music and Lyrics

2010-09-19T22:14:00.000-07:00

As I was reading chapter 5 in our book I was intrigued by the discussion on when Christian music becomes secular. Is it only about the lyrics, or is a musical type itself spiritual? I think the nature of the music does play a large role in the spirituality of a song, or in the emotion of the song in general. I'll give my opinion in this post, but I'd love to hear what you think in the comments.

I worked at Seagull Book for a little while. (For those of you from outside of Utah, it's the discount version of Deseret Book.)
Here is an example of the type of music I would here while working there.

The lyrics are nice, but the music itself is formulaic and predictable, like most other forms of LDS music. To me, it's trying to hard or cheesy. I have a hard time feeling the Spirit when I listen to it because it seems to diminish the glory and power of Christ by putting Him in a formulaic and cheesy song. It also gives an impression that all Mormons are squares.

Here is an example of Amy Grant and Michael W. Smith (both of whom were mentioned in the book.)

The music is still a bit formulaic, but it doesn't matter as much to me because the subject matter isn't as deep as the previous Kenneth Cope song. The lyrics match the music better.

Here is a song that became very popular about five years ago. "I Can Only Imagine" by Mercy Me.

To me, this is an incredibly beautiful, spiritual song. I think the music matches the subject matter in a simple yet moving way. Notice how his voice goes from weak and quiet at the beginning to a near shout with the excitement of the thought of meeting the Savior. The drums also enhance the feeling.

Now to contrast that, listen to this by Mama Shirley Caesar.

Can I get an Amen? For some reason, this music just gets to me. I can't get enough of it. I listen to it on Sundays all the time. A lot of people in the LDS Church complain that it is far too rowdy for religious worship. I feel that it might be a bit much for a Sunday meeting, but I'd love to sing in a choir like this on weekdays, or Sunday nights. God, of course, deserves reverence and respect, but doesn't He also want us to rejoice in His Word? This, to me, is sincere rejoicing.

This song is by Fireflight, who are a Christian Rock Band very similar to Flyleaf and Paramore. (Flyleaf is also a Christian band)

I actually enjoy this music. I'm not sure it would be something I'd listen to on Sundays, but I appreciate the goal of singing about God to an audience that may not be looking for Him. If it opens their hearts to start to believe, then I can certainly appreciate this music for that. I think this music would have a more powerful influence on someone who had never been introduced to the gospel than the first Kenneth Cope song. However, I think the Mercy Me and Mama Shirley Caesar songs have the most powerful spiritual effect.

This one, by Disciple is interesting to me.

Here is an example of one that isn't very Christian. Saying that you will be "Brought Down" if you defy God is a little contrary to Christian love and tolerance. I don't think this kind of music or these lyrics are likely to bring anyone to an understanding of God's love and mercy.

This of course, is my opinion. Everyone is touched by the Spirit in different ways, so I want to know:

When does Christian Music become secular? Is it no longer Spiritual if it is too rowdy, or is it not spiritual when it is too formulaic? Are the lyrics the most important factor, or does the music itself need to be a certain way in order for it to be religious?

Religion=Music

2010-09-19T19:07:00.000-07:00

At the beginning of class we defined religion. In order for us to understand religion in pop-culture, we must have an understanding of the broad definition. Towards the beginning of our book religion is described as "an integrated system of belief, lifestyle, ritual activities, and institutions by which individuals give meaning to (or find meaning in) their lives by orienting themselves to what they take to be holy, sacred, or of the highest value."

Just as we discussed in class the relationship between religion and sport, the concepts of the definition of religion can draw similarity to music. Perhaps out of all the outlets of media, music can pull out more passion and emotion then any other. Part of the reason why is music comes from a source and is transmitted to to us, and by using our imagination, we interpret the lyrics, beat and rythm, and overall presentation of the music. Just as we read about the divine feminine in books like The Da Vinci Code and The Secret Life of Bees, our imagination is sparked with curiosity due to the arthur trying to paint a picture in our mind. Music can have the same affect on us. We listen to it and interpret it how we want. This can cause very emotional and passionate feelings.

Also, just as religion brings people together in a group for the same purpose, music draws many people together in concerts. In the definition listed above, religion is taken as something personal, sacred, and held to the highest value. Many people are greatly influenced by their taste in music. It is commonly the focus of our lives, conscientiously or sub-conscientiously. Different music has different effects on us. It can inspire, motivate, anger, move, and change our feelings. Just as religion is thought to be able to change or mind and attitude for the better, music can alter and influence us in the same fashion.

To many, religion=music. In many religions, music is a vital tool in involving spirituality. The conclusion I have drawn is, there are many similarities in the definition of religion and music. What I have noticed is music is many people's religion.

Another phenomenon in pop-culture is many people view others as being "religious" by solely listening to "religious music." In this clip on Seinfeld, Elaine is surprised at her boyfriend being religious by finding his radio stations in his car being christian rock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3BDY3tfs8M

(Here is the URL. I tried to post the video, but it wouldn't upload.)

What makes someone religious? In this case, Elaine discovers Puddy's christianity by his taste in music. By this discovery alone, she comes to the conclusion that Puddy is a very religious and spiritually person. I have noticed in our society that some people in order to get their religious fix, they will listen to religious music and consider themselves performing a religious act. Rather than living the principles their specific religion teaches, they feel they are fulfilling their religious duty by listening to religious music.

I would like to pose two questions to the class: Using the your understanding of the definition of religion, how have you seen music become religion to some people? Also, have you seen (if so, please elaborate) any examples of someone listening to religious music as their only religious practice?

Spreading the Gospel Message: One Way or Another

2010-09-18T22:23:00.000-07:00

In class, we’ve talked about the pros and cons of demonstrating religion in television and film and how it can influence the audiences’ outlook and opinion of that certain religion. There are countless examples of how that plays true in music as well. Through music, like television and film, we can find connections to emotions inside of us that we wouldn’t necessarily express with others freely. Our emotions play heavily on music and vice versa. How many times when we are upset do we turn to a hard rock song to get out that anger, and then afterwards we suddenly feel better? Musicians understand this as well as we do and for that reason, there are times when some of them use this power to influence us in one way or another. In an essence, through these examples that I’ll use, these musicians are spreading a gospel message in one way or another by promoting a certain religion’s beliefs or causing the audience to evaluate that religion and the things that they believe in.

A More Serious Promotion

The first example is of solid Christian beliefs of charity, love and giving back. Now there are countless examples of Christianity undertones in music, especially country music. This video is from American Idol’s Give Back Charity Concert raising money to help children and families in need throughout the U.S. and the rest of the world. Carrie Underwood performs George Michael’s “Praying for Time”.

How do you feel after hearing this song? Do you feel you need to become more Christlike and give back to those in need? Do you think that after viewers listened to this song and other songs performed that night, that they called in and donated money to American Idol Give Back?

The second example is the song, “Legalize It,” by Bob Marley who was a member of the Rastafarian faith. Rastafarians believe deeply in the use of cannabis or marijuana as a part of their religious, spiritual life. Anyone that has visited the Caribbean will see that this faith is very prominent and many people believe that Bob Marley was a prophet, promoting the Rastafarian faith.

How do you think this song empowers Rastafarians? And for those that listened to Bob Marley when he performed it, do you think that their opinion changed on the use of marijuana?

A Little Less Serious Promotion

Now, let’s think about how other religions have been promoted in a less-serious way. Here are two examples: Adam Sandler’s, “Hanukkah Song” about the Jewish faith and Weird Al Yankovich’s parody, “Amish Paradise,” about the Amish or Mennonite faith.

Now after seeing this video by Adam Sandler, who wouldn’t want to be Jewish? Adam Sandler’s saying that after all these decades before of WWII, Civil Rights Movement, etc., it’s cool to be Jewish. Weird Al Yankovich’s parody of the Amish faith raises questions for the audience about this faith, that maybe they had never heard about. Isn’t that a form of publicity for that religion?

So my friends, what do we think about all of this? Do you believe that it is morally correct to play on emotions to promote causes, such as Idol Give Back and legalizing marijuana?

AND…do you believe that by spoofing religion is a good way to promote that religion?
Okay…have fun…Discuss!

Emily Borders

P.S. Not part of the blog…but it is interesting how Jack Black portrays Catholicism and just I LOVE this song! Nacho Libre’s Encarnación:

Religion and Film-The Feminine as Divine in the Arts-Literature, Media, Fiction, and Film-Moving the discussion from fiction to NON-FICTION?

2010-09-13T01:10:00.000-07:00

Blog Post B-Religion and Film by Brittany Glas, COMMS482

September 15, 2010

As discussed in the third chapter of the text Religion and Popular Culture in America primarily, a new wave of thought and analysis of the divine as feminine, as opposed to masculine (and Caucasian), is resurfacing... and it is resurfacing in the arts-FILM, particularly. As mentioned in the chapter, Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code and Sue Monk Kidd's The Secret Life of Bees, both best-sellers in the world of literature and both later turned into successful films, have been revolutionary pieces of fiction that have spurred the debate surrounding the divine as feminine. And in some cases, they have really caused audiences to see or at least begin to see the information presented in this art form-film-as pieces of legitimate NON-FICTION.

To push this topic further, the chapter discussed the imagination of the divine as feminine through ICONS. Immediately, the term "icons" makes me recall art and its history (specifically Early Christian and Byzantine Art concerning the divine), in various mediums relating to the representation of a female divine figure, or "Madonna," as it is often referred.

The Madonna and Child-The BEARER of all humankind? The Divine?

The Madonna-as in Christ's mother, the Heavenly Mother, or even as the divine as the bearer of all humankind beginning with Adam and Eve-has been represented in art since nearly the beginning of time, identifying this figure with some sort of spiritual power and authority at the very least.

And even in Egyptian Art and architecture prior to this time with goddesses such as Nefertiti of the Armana period.

Nefertiti-Female Divine-An Egyptian Goddess-A Female Divine

And now, to the medium of FILM, a more interactive outlet of the arts...

After reading the text, I first remembered the scene in The Da Vinci Code (2006) where Tom Hanks and others debate the relationship of Mary Magdalene to Jesus Christ. In this scene, they evaluate Leonardo Da Vinci's famous PAINTING-another medium of art-The Last Supper to debate their TRUE relationship.

See the video below. Most interesting discussion of this begins at/around 3:30.

The words, "The mind sees what it chooses to see" spoken by Tom Hanks's character were quite eery here... as if to call out to the audience-in the theater-that they too may refute or join in this intellectual discussion spurred by the supremely famous work of art whose focus is the divine. Remarkably though, it is here that it is actually CHALLENGED. As if a revolutionary idea.

-----

To continue, The Secret Life of Bees (2008) calls upon various forms of art to experiment with the identity of the divine, both in gender and race, as well. Miss August Boatwright, the character played by Queen Latifah, can arguably represent a "Black Madonna," as discussed within the chapter. She introduces Lily Owens (Dakota Fanning), and her family of Black women to multiple forms of art including music, painting, and dance as a sense of therapy (spiritual therapy, perhaps) and is seen as a Christ-like Savior figure. She takes in the troubled girl. It is in her home that the girl finds refuge from her abusive WHITE MALE of a father (living with him was void of any artistic and spiritual experience-their home was small and white in color and expression). The Black Madonna continually tells the young girl that "love is everywhere."

Below is the trailer of the film where these things can be noted.

Ironically, Lily even says, "They're so cultured. I've never met women like them before." This remark implies that WOMEN; ARTISTIC WOMEN (perhaps even Black women) are divine. And she says she's never met any women like them... as one might say when they are first introduced to the feeling that comes with the presence of the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit in Christian doctrine. She polarizes the idea of the divine's identity directly by race and gender to her previous experiences and interactions (White people would have been the superior class at this time and yet Lily's speech is more broken than Miss August's and her families--in this voice-over particularly--and also, each member of Miss August's household has some sort of experience in the arts-instrumentalists, vocalists, dancers, painters, etc. introduced by none other than the Black Madonna figure herself).

-----

In an alternative interpretation of the feminine as divine in the remake of The Wicker Man (2006) with Nicolas Cage, we see an obvious representation of art as power and literal craft for deceit and manipulation with the use of artistic masks by the members of the feminine spiritual cult. Ironically too, each of these women seem to be quite beautiful-almost porcelain-esque-faced women that could be painted themselves. So too important an artistic figure as the Wicker Man itself in the final scenes of the film. Though the cultish frame is a bit different in comparison to the other two films mentioned above, it is undeniable that the women in the film occupy a sense of divinity with their role as mothers (HEAVENLY, DIVINE MOTHERS?) in their spiritual worship and rituals. Women in the film reign "divine" and men, primarily Cage, are but human sacrifices in their religious sect.

The feminine cult partakes in musical chants with demonic tones and throughout the film, Neopagan symbols are prevalent.

-----

QUESTIONS:

So what does this all mean? I beg the question: Is it solely in artistic outlets of discussion and representations that we beg the question of the feminine as divine? Is it only in these "safe place" arenas that we can beg the question gently so as to make sure we do not upset our white male religious superiors? Are images and icons (and the arts overall) overwhelmed with supreme limitations in this aspect? Is there a possibility to provide stronger and more serious debate concerning the matter of the divine as feminine in the arts? Is there real argument and legitimacy to this debate elsewhere then if not through artistic portrayals only?

I believe that in the world we live-engrained in a cultural and religious society overwhelmed with the white male as supreme ruler-film and the arts overall have been the outlet wherein we have experimented with the idea of FEMININE as divine instead primarily; as if we have pushed the envelope in an artistic portrayal only versus more legitimate discussion of the idea out of fear to a degree. Has this debate been more seriously established outside the artistic world today? I'm not so sure... I do firmly believe however that the root of feminine as divine comes from art... Egyptian goddesses found in ancient hieroglyphics to the introduction of a Heavenly Mother as Mary Magdalene in Leonardo Da Vinci's The Last Supper...

What are your thoughts? Is this movement just the beginning of questioning and probing alternative thinking concerning the divine as feminine or will it fade out? Will there ever be a time, now or in the future, that we can see the divine as feminine on the same level and to the same scale that we see the divine as masculine? If so, do you believe it might be because of this idea represented in the art world and more specifically in the medium of film and documentaries?

More specifically...

Do you believe that there will be spiritual feminine institutions that will be strong enough to become TRUE contenders against modern organized masculine religious institutions that see the divine as solely masculine (like the Christian feminist non-profit centers mentioned in the text)?

-----

The entire discussion of the arts and feminism paralleling with spirituality urges me to introduce a documentary series entitled "Who Does She Think She Is?" Here is a trailer for the large documentary series directed by Pamela Tanner Boll.

Take a look.

-----

To discuss the outlet of film as a whole (including documentaries), this shift of thinking comes without surprise to me. I believe film is a unique medium of art that is not meant for the sole purpose of entertainment. Because of its unique venue and experience, it often has the ability to cause its audience to think. To evaluate. To QUESTION. And to DEBATE. Though it allows for the depiction of scenes that are clearly unrealistic, it allows for its audience to picture the unbelievable and suddenly sometimes... believe. For this reason, I believe that we have not seen the last of this idea of the feminine as divine in modern society and popular culture.

Religion and Film.

2010-09-13T00:35:00.000-07:00

Viewers and critics alike always have plenty to say about film adaptations of books. Some complain about missing scenes or critically components or misrepresented characters. However, they often remain silent on subject of religiosity and its transplantation onto the big screen. For example, the prominent Christian author CS Lewis wrote the series The Chronicles of Narnia, series about a battle between good and evil and a Christ figure purifying power. CS Lewis wanted to portray these characters as biblical people. For example, the Lion is supposed to be Jesus and the Queen represents Satan. In the film the Lion is preaching the better life to everyone and the evil people end up killing him. He is then resurrected because of his pure intentions, which, all leads to a battle to cleanse the earth.

Now this example is one that is deep and makes one really think about religion and the way Christians view their beliefs. Can someone who is not Christian see this film and know what symbolizes are taking place? Probably not. So, can all religious films be understood the way they are suppose to be?

Another example is in Passion of the Christ. This film was very controversial in the sense that no one made a film to be so intense and detailed about Christ’s life.

In the film, The Passion of the Christ it covers Jesus’s last twelve hours of his life. It starts with the Agony in the Garden and ends with his resurrection. Throughout the movie it shows us flashbacks of his life and everything he went through, from when he worked as a carpenter, the Sermon on the Mount and the Last Supper.

The Passion of Christ Trailer

People saw The Chronicles of Narina for the effects, but did they see The Passion of the Christ to fest on Christ or for the controversy? This was a film that I believe to be one that people went to see because of all the hype that was talked about with it. I personally never saw it but had friends who did because they heard it was so controversial.

Religion movies always seem to cause some type of disagreement usually having to do with someone of the opposite faith.

It is the writers job to get the audience drawn in with the movie and wanting to learn more about the religion. But, are movies the place for that? There are tons and tons of films out there having to do with religion. I think its up to how the director portrays the film that makes us view that certain religion in a certain light. For a religion I know nothing about and see a film on it, most likely that is how I will view that religion.

So my question is: can religious themes be portrayed effectively in wide range of audiences? Is film the right place to be portraying religion?

Conditioned to Religion in Film

2010-09-12T22:54:00.000-07:00

When I walk into a movie theater I leave reality behind. I recline in the often broken seat, un-stash some hidden candy, and wait for the dimming lights to shut out what little is left of what is noticeable as the real world.

So what happens when, after making that escape, we are presented with representations of religion and so-called truth?

When watching movies that are completely fictitious, such as my most recent in-theater experience (Inception), I am well prepared to receive what I know it is going to be purely entertainment and not necessarily true. In fact, most movies are completely fabricated and meant merely to entertain. However, it is not uncommon for movies to contain material that is religious in nature and even in accordance with one's religious beliefs. There is a chance, however, that after years of mentally setting our minds to "Entertain" when watching movies that we might reject some of the religious truths presented to us in the name of "entertainment." Have we chosen, in our desire to escape "real life," to consider everything presented to us as opposite of reality and what affect does that have on our own personal beliefs? Similar to the way individuals become desensitized to violence through repeated viewing of violent acts in film, our society may becoming conditioned to the type of religion that is presented to us in film.

Maybe it is too extreme to say that we reject/accept everything that is shown in the movie. Clearly we can separate the obvious and pick out that which we recognize as true/false. God probably doesn't look just like Morgan Freeman (Bruce Almighty). For the strongly religious, themes and characters that are religious in nature are far more likely to be accepted/rejected immediately, regardless of ones "escaping from reality."

However, what about those who are merely casual church-goers or those who are even less spiritually inclined? Perhaps the portrayal of religion in fictitious movies will cause them to file "religion" more closely to the "fiction" category in their lives. Perhaps all of the different ways that religion is portrayed, usually in gross generalizations, in film has driven people away from participation in their chapel and synagogues. The constant use of film as a medium of escape from the real world may be diluting our faith as a society.

Are Screenwriters Religious?

2010-09-12T17:55:00.000-07:00

There are plenty of movies out there which show religious settings and have religion in them, but my question is, do screenwriters portray a sense of their own beliefs in their films, or do they make us think that there is some type of religion in their films, without doing it on purpose?
For example in The Lord of the Rings and Chronicles of Narnia there is an obvious correlation with religion, because they were both written by religious writers and then became movies. But the two movies I want to look at are Gladiator and Field of Dreams. The writer of Gladiator, David Franzoni, who also wrote the screenplay for King Arthur makes an attempt to tie in a sense of a christian afterlife in a movie which deals with pagan Rome. Throughout the movie Russel Crowe, Maximus, has dreams of an afterlife where he meets his wife and son, who were murdered at the beginning of the movie. At the end of the movie Crowe is talking with Djimon Hounsou, Juba, about how he will see his wife and child again. I guess even in a pagan tradition people believe that they can live with their families in an afterlife.
In the movie Field of Dreams the screenwriter Phil Alden Robinson who also wrote The Sum of all Fears and Band of Brothers, takes a different approach and doesn't make it as obvious, but as you watch the film you can't think that the film portrays some type of afterlife. It is a movie where there are plenty of metaphors, but to me I can't help but think that it tries to show that there is a close tie between those who are living and those who have already passed. And when Kevin Costner, Ray, meets up with his dad who is dead, it makes you think "is there really supposed to be some correlation here with family and the afterlife?"
I obviously recognize that these religious hints in these movies come from the religious screenwriters, but I'm curious if it reflects their own beliefs, and are they doing it on purpose to show us that the whole film was about that religious point, or is it just simply an insight for us to think about?

Religion and Film

2010-09-12T13:04:00.000-07:00

As I reflect on the movies I have seen that include a religious influence I am reminded of many movies that have aspects of the Catholic church with regards to Nuns and the Pope. Every religion wants to be portrayed in a positive light but I feel as if members of the Catholic church are the most "forgiving" and take things less serious then members of other faiths. One of my favorite movies is Sister Act, where the main character played by Whoopi Goldberg goes into hiding by playing the role of a Nun. Rather than attempt to fit in to the Nun's way of life, she influences all of the other Nuns to change and become less strict/obedient. (This picture shows the "rebel" Nun and sassy attitude the movie portrays.) However, I have never met a Catholic who thought the movie was offensive. When Goldberg takes over as the choir director the difference between entertainment and reverence is easy to spot as this clip shows. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqp89bkFe8k. (My next door neighbor in California is a Catholic Priest and having gone to some of his church events I never heard any song the way they do in the film...and I assume nobody else has either.) However, for me the biggest controversy is not the music but rather the whole idea of someone pretending to be a Nun and all of the other Nuns being lied to because the cops want to get someone safe.

The Catholic Church is also mentioned in other blockbusters such as The DiVinci Code which gives them a lot of plublicicty eventhough some of it is not ideal. However, I think having religion in films is very important because for a lot of people their religion is more important then their nationality. Religion also plays a big role in many aspects of society such as education, politics, sports, entertainment, etc. Having a movie such as Sister Act brings the Catholic church into pop culture and it shows that many people know about the religion. I have never seen a blockbuster about being LDS, Baptist, Methodist, etc.

My question is: Do movies like Sister Act do more good or bad for the particular religion being portrayed? Why isn't there other religions portrayed in films at the same degree as the Catholic church?

South Park and the Sacred

2010-09-06T09:09:00.000-07:00

The satirical comedy South Park recently celebrated it's 200th episode. And to celebrate the show decided to do it's best to offend absolutely everyone by making a mockery out everything from popular movie stars, minorities, Tom Cruise, and every major world religion in one hour.

But the show outraged some extreme Muslim groups when it decided to include in it's vast list of targets the prophet Mohamed.

I do not wish to dive into the question of Islam and South Park, (although here a discussion on Larry King Live.) but rather dive into the idea of South Park and the sacred. At first glance South Park would seem to not hold anything sacred at all. It degrades religious figures ranging from Buddha, to Joseph Smith, to Moses, Jesus and yes Mohamed. Nothing is off limits, and if you're going to try to tell them something is off limits then they're going to make sure and say it louder.

But in an interview with BB Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of South Park, reveal that there are perhaps things which are sacred to them to. (Here is the link to the youtube video, but be warned, although the vast majority of the interview is profanity free Matt and Trey still manage drop a few in there, so I felt it more wise to put the quotes I wanted in quotations.)

"South Park matters to us, it's our whole world."

Matt Stone

"It matters to me that when we talk about Mohamed that we can say that this or we did this me. Just me. I don't think it's going to change the world. But just being able to have that conversation.

Trey Parker

(For those who ventured to watch the youtube I may not have quoted them word perfect since the interviewer would interrupt from time to time, but I digress.)

An earlier post commented on how no religion is safe on TV. This could be because Television writers, producers and actors, although having a value structure very close to religious folks, have a very different value system.

What I mean by that is although South Park is not a religion itself, like the religious group it has its articles or faith and sacraments. Only, in the case of South Park, your right to ridicule, satire, and offend others is what you hold as that which is sacred to you. Both of these guys were willing to risk their lives as a testimony of how much they value free speech.

Certainly there is merit to this view. If people, like say Galileo, were overly cautious of offending their community at the time, many breakthroughs in science, religion, and philosophy which we have benefited from today.

But could there be a middle ground? Is there a way to have a productive debate on different belief systems and religious institutions without being intentionally offensive? Are free speech and civility inherently at odds? The argument goes that if civility limits us in how we voice our opinions or what we words we say then we are not truly free to say what we want. But I believe there is a middle ground where South Park (and in the larger context society as a whole) can still voice their incredulity at certain traditions in various religions while still showing the same respect for the sacred as they would want the religious groups to respect what they think is sacred.

So I guess my question is, in a televised 21st century are free speech and civility towards religious views inherently at odds, or is there a place in the middle where religions can be critiqued but not ridiculed? And if television shows like South Park tried this strategy would people still watch or would it be too boring?

No Religion is Safe

2010-09-06T00:48:00.000-07:00

In today’s television world no religion is safe from being used as humor on television. Most comedy shows will have at least one episode’s plot centered on a religious topic. Throughout the episode they will poke fun and at said religion. The following three clips will be of three different shows making fun of Judaism, Christianity and the Bible, and Palestinians.

My first clip is from the show Arrested Development that ran for only three seasons on television. It is about a dysfunctional family whose father is in prison for fraud, doing business with Iraqi officials, and other offenses. In this clip the father “converts” to Judaism to try to show that he is becoming a better person so that he will get a lighter sentence at his trial.

The second clip is from the show South Park. South Park has made fun of just about every religion there is to make fun of and has become very notorious for having no censor for any religion and will make fun of anything in the name of comedy. The video does not start until 0:18 and you can stop watching at 2:10.

This third clip is from Family Guy and the main character Peter Griffin complaining about his Palestinian alarm clock.

This final clip is going to springboard me to my finals thoughts and question for the class.

I do not believe that Lewis Black is alone in his feelings. It is easy for us to lose track while we are here living in the BYU bubble. We lose track that society really does not care about religion. I was living in California during the Proposition 8 campaign. While we were canvassing the neighborhoods trying to get people out to vote, I noticed an interesting trend. Most people who were fence sitters were not really worried about the religious or moral implication of the proposition they were more worried about the impact it would have on how schools taught sex education or some other topic of the proposition.

I believe that television has caused religion to be such a mockery that it is not viewed in a serious light. I think that religion with each new television episode that mocks God, Allah, Jesus Christ, Mohammad, Judaism, ECT. is losing it authoritative figure that it had in the past and is viewed by each new generation as something that only crazy people believe. I believe that television is not the only factor but a big one in forming this new way of thinking.

So my question is how do we get people to care again about religion again and what role has television played in causing this disinterest? Also how can how can television play a realistic role in bringing back the interesting religion?

This question is not meant to bring interest to the LDS church just religion in general.

Characterizing Religion

2010-09-05T23:36:00.000-07:00

Until fairly recently, the main characters in television series never fully embraced and accepted God and religion in their daily lives. Perhaps there was an occasional episode in which the main character dealt with a religious matter, but hardly ever was there continual religious discourse. However, it seems as of late that all main characters are forced to take some sort of religious stand. We see within the first couple of episodes the character being defined as a Christian or Jewish or Atheist or whatever. Sometimes is makes us love the character…. And sometimes we get mixed feelings about them. Unfortunatley, it’s all because of the stereotype we tack on to that religious set of beliefs.

My first example of this need for religious commentary come from Dr. House and his blatant way of expressing his feelings.

Of course, if any of you are familiar with House, you know that he isn’t afraid to hold his feelings back on really any issue. So I present Exhibit B… This archeologist turned FBI aide has struggled since day 1 with the idea that God exists. And within the first 5 minutes of the show, she is not afraid to express her feelings on the issue so openly.

The characters in current television shows are now forced to have open feelings and beliefs about religion. Stereotypically we see doctors and highly-educated characters, like Bones, with little or no belief in a higher, superior being. Meanwhile, there are characters more like Boothe that have strong, deep-rooted religious beliefs that clearly guide their actions. Either way, the main characters are forced to choose and to let their choices be known. It has become a sort of defining attribute of the characters.

I wonder why there has been this shift in character development. Why do writers feel the need to include strong religious beliefs in their characters? I’d like to believe that religion is important to the us as viewers and the writers write for our senses and that it’s not some crazy copycat effects that makes us think religion should be important to us because it’s important to the characters.

And so I conclude with this question: Why is religion such a defining quality of the characters we seen in our favorite television shows?

The Casualness of Televised Prayer

2010-09-05T19:16:00.000-07:00

Prayer is seen and used as a crucial means of connecting with the divine in most major religions. For many, it is reverently regimented through memorization or dignified, solemn language. In recent years, particularly in the Evangelical Christian realm, an emphasis has been placed on prayer as something that can flow spontaneously from an individual's heart and/or lips.

Prayer as depicted in modern television appears to acknowledge this increasingly casual mode of prayer, though it is largely up to the audience to determine whether this acknowledgement reinforces or mocks this philosophy.

A mild example comes from the episode of "Full House" when Stephanie's favorite toy, Mr. Bear, goes missing. She offers a simple child's prayer, though notice the audience reaction to her conclusion (fast-forward to the 4:54 mark):

To me, it the laughter after the phrase "happy camper" means the audience recognizes the odd casualness to Stephanie's words, but still accepts them.

There is no audience reaction from these two "Simpsons" clips to help us, so the motive behind these representations of prayer is left for us to scrutinize. Notice the juxtaposition between Homer's traditional approach to prayer (head bowed, eyes closed, hands clasped) and the crassness (and loudness) of his words:

To me, the key to interpreting the writers' attitude toward prayer is Bart's reaction in the second clip. When Homer suggests they pray, Bart's eyes shut halfway. In my view, his visual disinterest is not with prayer itself, but his anticipation of Homer's irreverence. Through this subtle facial expression, I believe the writers and animators intend to mock what prayer has become to many in the modern age.

The most over-the-top example I could find comes from "The Colbert Report." When Stephen expresses his outrage over President Obama's decision to keep his recognition of the National Day of Prayer a private matter, Stephen sees the need to "make up" for it with his own ridiculously casual prayer (the prayer prep begins at the 2:28 mark):

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Clasp Your Hands Say Yahweh

http://www.colbertnation.com/

Colbert Report Full Episodes

2010 Election

Fox News

The satirical nature of Colbert and his program can lead to a dual interpretation of this clip. Colbert and his audience may accept the casualness of prayer as increasingly popular, and thus use this segment as an intentionally ludicrous example.

However, it could also make a mockery of what prayer has become. This segment may have been prepared in protest of prayer becoming too casual, meant to belittle the overly casual zealot.

Because the real-life Colbert is a practicing Roman Catholic, I lean toward the second view. Casual prayer is in contrast with Colbert's Catholic belief, so he and his writers use the satirical Colbert character to exaggerate the error of modern prayer.

So, which side are you on, classmates? Does the depiction of prayer on popular television reinforce or belittle the increasingly casual nature of prayer?

Other Gods

2010-03-30T13:14:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-03-30T11:29:00.001-07:00

"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

2010-03-29T21:57:00.001-07:00

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?

2010-03-26T22:52:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-03-16T12:52:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-03-16T10:48:00.001-07:00

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...

2010-03-15T21:48:00.000-07:00

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

2010-03-15T21:00:00.000-07:00

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.

2010-03-15T19:53:00.000-07:00

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?

Watered Down

2010-02-09T08:25:00.000-08:00

Religion in literature is as old as writing itself. Since people began to write, they have used the medium to express, define, and share their beliefs. In history, religion was more documentary and informational than what it is today. Actual religious texts were valued highly both in their time, as well as today. Such works include the Bible, Qur’an, various scrolls, the Book of Mormon, among other various examples. Other types of literature are meant to compliment these aforesaid texts. The most popular type of religious literature today is vaguely seen as such- rather they are fictitious works that illustrate types, or allusions to religion.

Writing about religion has transformed over the years. For example, one of the most famous ‘religious’ texts in history is Dante’s Inferno. In this writing, Dante is specific about various saints, sinners, and religious historical caricatures. Although a fictitious story itself, it is very clear as to the journey the character takes, in how it is a religious experience, and relates to each of the various points in the religious beliefs and teachings. It is graphic in its depictions of the Christian beliefs of hell, and what sinners would experience:

"they had their faces twisted toward their haunches/ and found it necessary to walk backward,/ because they could not see ahead of them./ …and since he wanted so to see ahead,/ he looks behind and walks a backward path.”

More recently, however, religious beliefs in text are being expressed in a more round-about way. Using allegory, archetypes, and allusions, authors are being more careful about how they write religion. Perhaps this is because of fear of scrutiny, backlash, or opposing theories (such as Brown’s novel DaVinci Code). An example of this style of writing is Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. story, Scrooge is shown the consequences of living a selfish, and unfruitful life- and the consequences thereof. Although the spirits themselves may not represent specific saints, or deities, the idea behind the novel is certainly religious in nature(albeit not a specific religion), in that it teaches that we are all under judgment, and must live kind and good lives. In fact, this story is used above all others during Christmas time, rather than even the story of the Nativity in popular media. So My question is:

Q: Why do you think people write today in the style of fictitious writing with allusions to religion, along with archetypes and roundabout story lines as opposed to obvious religious writing and storylines?

Sarah Wett

Learning from the Learned

2010-02-08T23:30:00.000-08:00

A Christian scripture found in the King James Version of the Holy Bible in John chapter 21 verse 25 reads: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”

O f course Jesus is our perfect example, but there are many other great people who have lived and left a record of their learning in books. It is my argument that we can learn so much about religion through the general, non-religious books from people who have lived and learned before us.

In 1450 when Gutenberg made his first printing press, the world was forever changed. It was one of the most important inventions in the history of the world. Education and literacy boomed and with that, religion boomed as well, specifically Christianity. Our world today exists based on the knowledge we have from the written word. Without the order and education that writing and mass printing brings, our world would be much less religious and much more chaotic.

I think it is a good idea for people to educate themselves, and strengthen their own convictions by learning about opposing views, commentaries, biographies etc. through books. These things are not necessarily religious in nature but I think that they can teach us a lot about ourselves and our own beliefs.

Even for us non-readers out there, we all have been affected by books, weather they were read to us at bedtime before we could even talk or whether they were forced through our ears in 3^rd grade reading time. Every book teaches something, and I argue that because books are the primary source of discovered knowledge, we can learn so many things about religion even through secular books that teach us about peoples’ lives, stories based on true events, and even made up stories. The more we educate ourselves with books, the more we can learn about our own beliefs. Even a Physics text book or a horror story like Silence of the Lambs can teach you a thing or two about religion. You can learn lessons, morals, ways of life, things to do, things not to do and so on.

The great thing about books opposed to all other media is that they are not limited to 2 hours on a screen. The depth and learning of a book goes as deep as a reader’s imagination and the time spent learning through a book can take as long as a lifetime.

So as dorky as it may sound, in our world where so much time is spent in front of a talking box, individuals can do nothing better to learn more about their own beliefs than to explore more truth from the books of this world.

QUESTION:

Do you agree that since even the world itself can not contain the books that should be written about all the doings of Jesus, that we should take advantage of the books that we DO have to further our knowledge of truth? Or in other words, can we further our own knowledge of religion through other non-religious books?

Once upon a time, when I was dead...

2010-02-08T14:12:00.000-08:00

I once got into a great spiritual/doctrinal discussion with someone... atleast I thought it was great, until I realized that the other guy was basing his beliefs and everything he was saying on a certain collection of books he had read. These books were not the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud or anything popularly considered "scripture." They were books written by people who "died" and then came back to life due to miracle or medicine.

I guess this happens often enough that there are many books written by come-back-to-lifers. One of the most famous is 90 Minutes in Heaven, a New York Times Bestseller. Don Piper, a baptist pastor, talks about being crushed by a semi truck, dying, and experiencing heaven. He saw loved one, gold roads, and of course, the pearly gate.

On the other end of the spectrum you could read 23 Minutes in Hell, and no it's not about my experience sitting through a Drew Barrymore movie. I'm telling you, there are plenty! Ones written by monks, ones written by women, and I'm pretty sure a mormon lady wrote one that my friend had, but I can't find it online anywhere (look for me to post a comment with that info.)

So here's the question: Do you believe this stuff being written? If you are not sure... let me ask you this: Do you think the fact there are so many of these books is a good thing or a bad thing?
Lemme know. Peace out.

Finding Christ and Religion in Literature

2010-02-08T10:33:00.000-08:00

There are many popular books that include the lasting concept of good versus evil but there also a few that take this concept a bit further by incorporating “Christ-like” characters into their pages. Some examples, like The Chronicles of Narnia, are quite obvious with their religious allusions. Others, may at first appear to have nothing to do with religion but actually have religious undertones due merely to the fact that they create a discussion about the idea of good versus evil.

One of the most popular examples of religion in literature C.S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia. Aslan, the all-powerful golden lion, sacrifices himself to save one of the young characters, Edmund, and then rises from the dead to defeat the wicked White Witch, saving all of Narnia. The Chronicles of Narnia became popular with Christians and non-Christians alike, even being turned into a series of films both by the BBC and Disney. Lewis’s other novels, which are much less masked in terms of their discussion on religion, have been and continue to be popular with Christian groups, but do not have the same appeal to non-Christians as his Narnia books do.

The Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling is an example that many people would not think of as religious at all. Though often controversial among Christian groups, the novels actually contain many religious undertones. At the beginning of the series, Harry’s parents selflessly sacrifice their own lives to save their son and at the end of the series, Harry is ready to sacrifice his own life in order to save the entire wizarding community from Lord Voldemort. Just as Christ’s birth was a fulfillment of prophecy found in Isaiah, Harry’s birth was also in fulfillment of a prophecy made before he began his

life.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Books/2002/11/Harry-Potter-Christ-Figure.aspx

After searching for examples for this blog post and thinking about many of the books I’ve read in my life, I found that he majority somehow incorporate the concept of good versus evil. Although not all books have characters who specifically parallel Christ, you can usually find some aspect within a large majority of books that can be related back to Christ or one of his teachings. It seems, whether the author intends it or not, by using the concept of good versus evil, religion has a better chance of becoming part of the discussion about a novel.

So my question is this: Are we so used to allusions to Christ being incorporated into literature that we don’t notice or can these allusions cause people to make meaningful spiritual connections that ultimately cause them to become more religious?

-Molly Turner

The Da Vinci Code...

2010-02-05T08:38:00.000-08:00

When I first started thinking about what I could write about, I decided to do a Google search for the “best selling books of all time” and other variations of that phrase. Not having any certain expectations when I began the search, I was surprised at what I found. Each list I found was slightly different, and I don’t know the accuracy of any of them, but here are some common titles I found:

The Bible
The Qur’an
The Book of Mormon
Quotations from Chairman Mao
The Lord of the Rings
The Da Vinci Code
Harry Potter series
The Catcher in the Rye
The Guinness Book of World Records
The Chronicles of Narnia series

It was interesting to me to see how many of these books were about religion or had strong religious themes. It becomes apparent to me that religion has been a popular topic in literature both in the past and the present. The book I am going to discuss in a little more depth is The Da Vinci Code, which was published in 2003.

This book raised a lot of heat among Catholics and Christians alike. Many feel that its author, Dan Brown, distorted and fabricated the history of Christianity and the Catholic Church. Many were upset about Browns opening of the book with his statements of fact, arguing that his statements are not true and that he should have done more research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_inVOSGLuI

What I also found interesting is that on the publisher’s page, which comes before his “fact” section, it says, “This book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, business, organizations, places, events, and incidents either are the product of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, events, or locales is entirely coincidental.”

With this disclaimer at the beginning of the book, do people have the right to be upset about his distortion of facts? It is an interesting thing to consider. The same controversy is raised over both the book and the movie.

Movie director Ron Howard responded to the criticism, “It's supposed to be entertainment, not theology. It causes people to stop and think about what they believe. I think that's healthy."

I would have to agree with Howard’s statement. I think that it is important to distinguish between what we are calling theology and what we are calling entertainment. When individuals do this, it can completely change the perspective of what is being read, or seen in the case of The Da Vinci Code.

On his Web site Dan Brown says, “While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.”

About the controversy he says, “Admittedly, this may be the first time these ideas have been written about within the context of a popular thriller, but the information is anything but new. My hope for The Da Vinci Code was, in addition to entertaining people, that it might serve as an open door for readers to begin their own explorations and rekindle their interest in topics of faith.”

Question: What difference does it make when distinguishing between entertainment and theology in books and are people justified it taking offense to fictional books with religious themes?

Harry Potter: Christian, Wiccan or Neither?

2010-02-04T21:34:00.000-08:00

When contemplating what I would write about when it came to books and religion, I thought what better subject than one of my personal favorites and the series whose last four books were the fastest-selling in history? And so I began an inquiry into the religious implications of books that consistently topped another list—the American Library Association’s Most Challenged.

Conservative Christian groups have been in an uproar about Harry Potter since its inception in the late 90s. I read an article on ChristianAnswers.net called “Is Harry Potter Harmless?” Let me share some quotes that seem to sum up the conservative Christian point of view :

“I don't think people fully realize what they're dealing with, and I think anyone who knows anything about spiritual warfare knows those books can open the door to spiritual bondage.”
-Clara Sessoms, manager of Living Water Christian Books

"With the growing popularity of youth-oriented TV shows on witchcraft—'Sabrina, the Teenage Witch;' 'Charmed;' 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'—a generation of children is becoming desensitized to the occult.”
-Author John Andrew Murray

It’s not out of the ordinary to have a segment of what some might call fundamentalist-types up in arms about something they find spiritually detrimental. It happens quite frequently and with things that seem to be less offensive than a teenage wizard and his pals.

What really intrigued me about the whole Harry Potter situation was that there are those who argue, vehemently at that, that the best part of HP is that it has no religiosity at all. On the Harry Potter Lexicon Web site a contributor known as glamourousgeek wrote a detailed essay about all the pains J.K. Rowling took to avoid religion in the books including how no characters say prayers despite being in life-threatening situations, deity is not mentioned in the celebration of Christmas and neither side uses religious arguments to win supporters for its cause.

Author J.K. Rowling that she skirted the issue of religion in the books so that people with Christian backgrounds wouldn’t know what was coming in the closing seventh novel. And what came was an undeniable nod to Christianity complete with a sacrificial death that leads to a sort of resurrection of the title character. The Christian values of love, courage and loyalty are also promoted throughout the series.

While the tide of conservative criticism did wane after the publication of the final book, many conservative Christians still feel that Harry Potter is an invitation to join the occult and become a practicing Wiccan, which could be another blog post entirely.

So, after synthesizing all this information, my question is how can people read the same exact story and find not only different meanings but also conflicting ones?

New medium for debate or yelling competition?

2010-02-02T11:42:00.000-08:00

Religion has been a topic of debate ever since its beginnings and in every culture. While there are many different religions and beliefs in this world, as well as mediums used, that have changed over time, one thing that has always remained constant is this continuing war of words about such beliefs.

It is interesting to find that when it comes to religion, something created to bring people together, it has become one of the biggest wedges in dividing humanity. While I see no problem with having differences in beliefs or opinions, it seems that is what the world focuses on.

Ralph Waldo Emerson stated: “In the matter of religion, people eagerly fasten their eyes on the difference between their own creed and yours; whilst the charm of the study is in finding the agreements and identities in all the religions of humanity.”

The internet has allowed people to become connected like never before. The vast amounts of information about all subjects in this world are now only a few key strokes away. Surely, this new medium and its connective power have allowed us to find that charm of study expressed by Emerson. Instead of just the leading preachers, rabbis, imams, and others heading the religious debate, members of such religions have been empowered to voice their own views. In this era of understanding and enlightenment, the internet allows the everyday person to discuss what differences they have in faith. Instead of individual pamphlets written and distributed in town, people now have blogs. Instead of meeting in the town square, we are meeting on social websites. Instead of sharing our opinions in giant forums, we turn to YouTube. There are so many avenues to which people can come together to talk religion.

While this is the case, I find that instead of coming closer in understanding our similarities and respecting our differences in beliefs with the use of the internet, the exact opposite is occurring. Christianity seems more divided today than ever before, the Muslim faith cannot decide which group is truly correct, and it seems that everyone is becoming quickly offended by a certain type of prayer in school, holiday greeting, or even a question of curious observance. Instead of becoming more enlightened, society is choosing to become more entrenched in its own beliefs.

It seems that instead of using this new tool and medium to change ways of understanding different views, the internet is used as just a new way to bring fire to an old argument.

My question is: So is the internet really a place where multiple opinions and ideas have come together in discussion and expression for further understanding, or is it just our new way of yelling at each other that “my religion is better than yours”?

BY: Neal Minson

Google is...

2010-02-01T19:11:00.000-08:00

The internet is the ultimate source of all information. Search engines are what narrow down the massive amounts of information found on the web into manageable and specialized chunks.

Google, the most prominent search engine on the web, has recently started including drop down suggestion lists as searches are typed into the search bar. However, recently the following has happened:

Google's search Suggest function treats Islam a bit differently from the other major religions of the world. It's willing to suggest "Christianity is bullshit" or "Judaism is false," but if you begin to ask what Islam is, it won't suggest a thing.

Google says that this search oddity is a bug - and that its search gurus are working to fix it. But several days have passed since it was publicly uncovered.

As originally noticed by The Next Web blog, Suggest isn't shy about suggesting search queries that put several major religions in a less-the-favorable light. If you type, "Christianity is" into Google's search box, for instance, the web giant suggests queries such as "Christianity is bulls***," "Christianity is not a religion," "Christianity is a lie," and "Christianity is fake."

This is only what you'd expect. Suggest suggests queries based on what others have searched for in the past. If you type "Judaism is," "Hinduism is," or "Buddhism is," Google also provides a long list of suggestions - some with a negative bent, some not. But if you type "Islam is," you get nothing.

On January 5, Google told Search Engine Land that its Islam Suggest block is a bug, saying "We’re working to fix it as quickly as we can."

Six days seems like an awfully long time to fix what would seem to be a simple bug, but there you have it.

Another question worth asking: "If Google unblocks suggestions for 'Islam is,' will they then suggest links pointing out that Google blocks suggestions for 'Islam is?'"

One way or another, Google engineers will actively intervene - the company has said they will - and when they do, you wonder how far they will go. Just as you wonder how far they go in actively tweaking any of Google's search or ad results. Google search is run by algorithms, but algorithms are written by people. And these faceless engineers have more than a little control over what so much of the world sees when visiting the web.

A third question worth asking: "If Google is intentionally blocking certain suggestions for 'Islam is' - for whatever reason - would we ever know?"

So my question to you is: Do you think Google should censor religious content in their searches if it is too inflammatory or do you think that that would encroach on religious freedom of information and freedom of speech?

Cyber Faith

2010-02-01T15:04:00.000-08:00

Numerous religious websites have emerged recently as a result of society's search for spirituality. Although some of these sites are run by specific religious groups trying to communicate more frequently and conveniently with their members, a large number of them are devoted to general spirituality.

This trend mirrors how society in general feels about religion. People are moving away from the organized, structured religions, towards individual beliefs of self-improvement, spirituality, and meditation. In a way, this movement towards individualism is also a movement away from God.

Take, for example, one of the most popular online religious websites, beliefnet.com. Instead of focusing of topics from the Bible or other religious texts, this site offers tips on self-esteem, stress relief, and holistic living.

Religious websites, such as this, have a huge potential for growth and success. For the most part, when someone is looking for a quick answer to a problem, he or she searches the internet. For example, author Elena Larsen reported that "after September 11, 41% of Internet users, many of whom had never considered themselves online spiritual seekers, said they sent or received email prayer requests; 23% of Internet users turned to online sources to get information about Islam; and 7% of Internet users contributed to relief charities online."

Like it or not, the internet has become the source of society's information. So my question to you is: Do you think cyber religions or self-improvement websites can have the same spiritual effect on people as does traditional religions? Why?

The Internet Factor : Does it help or hinder?

2010-02-01T14:31:00.000-08:00

With the Internet as one of our stable necessities in the US in the last twenty years or so, people are turning to it for everything, including religion as mentioned in the other posts. However, with people using the Internet as a source of information, there is obviously going to be posting from people on both sides of a religion fence - people for it, and people against it. While some people will actually post true doctorine of a religion, how does someone who knows nothing actually get correct information?

The Church has recently launched a new channel on YouTube called Mormon Messages.

http://www.youtube.com/user/mormonmessages?blend=1&ob=4&rclk=cti

I'm sure at one time or another, a BYU student has been subjected to this new multimedia method of presenting Church doctrine in a artistic and simplified way using talks from General Conference and quotes from past prophets coupled with photography and words to emphasize a point that seem to sometimes dance off the screen. Right now there are 79 videos listed, and they are met with some positive comments from people who are non-LDS like this post:

juliantb7777 (2 days ago) Show Hide

+13

I'm not Mormon, or religious in any way, but this is a great message that we should all think about.

As many of us know, the Church undergoes a lot of persecution, and it's not any different online. If someone merely googles the word "Mormon", nearly all of the links under the official church website and familysearch.org is anti-LDS websites. Even on the side of the google page where ads are shows:

Cyberfaith - The pursuit of God and Religion online

2010-02-01T08:43:00.001-08:00

When you really think about it, religion is mostly tradition. Unless we are talking about Scientology, which claims to be the only new religion to have emerged in the 21st century, all the other major religions of the world have existed for well over a few hundred years. These religions have shown surprising valor in facing the tides of time by maintaining consistency in their religious though and practices, majority of which are the ancient remnants of a bygone era.

This is not to say that these religions are outdated. Religions serve the same purpose today as they did in those days of their infancy(saving of man's soul, attainment of nirvana, eternal progression etc. etc.). But there has been a gradual shift in the everyday expression of religion from traditional practices (like going to church on Sunday, mosque on Friday,eating kosher meals)to a more modern, easily accessible and more attractive means of "Cyberfaith."

"Cyberfaith" can best be described as the presence of religion in the form of specific religious institutions and forums on the internet, each of which cater to the needs of their own congregation, with an aim of attaining more followers. If we were to look at some statistics:

Over the past four years the percentage of churches with Web sites had grown from about 11% to around 45%. At this rate of growth, about 90% of all congregations will have Web sites in five years. All "Mega churches" - those with weekly attendance of more than 2,000 -- have Web sites and most of these take advantage of the dynamic features of the Web such as interactivity.(Hartford Institute for Religion Research)

According to Elena Larson, lead author of the "Wired Churches, Wired Temples- Taking Congregations and Missions into Cyberspace" a recent study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project,

25% of Internet users - about 28 million people - have gotten religious or spiritual information online, an increase from the 21% reported in 2000, and an indication of an increasing use of religious Internet resources.

67% of what Larson called "religion surfers" have accessed information on their own faith, while 50% have sought information on other faiths. 21% of these users have sought religious advice using email and 38 % have used email to send prayer requests.

15% of survey respondents said their use of the Internet has made them feel more committed to their faith, and 27% say it has improved their spiritual life to at least a modest degree.

In addition, 35% believe that the Internet has a "mostly positive" effect on the religious life of others, and 62% said that the availability of material on the Internet encourages religious tolerance. At the same time, 53% reported some fear that the Internet makes it easier for cults to promote themselves in ways that could be harmful.

The above stats suggest that this slow but gradual change, of moving away from traditional religious practices to finding an expression of ones faith in online discourse is becoming more and more mainstream.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?Are people innocent in their belief that religion on the internet is not a bad idea, or can this form of worship really work?

Enter church...online?

2010-01-30T19:33:00.000-08:00

Have you ever woken up and felt as though you had no energy to go to church? Be it not wanting to pick out the perfect tie, make the trek up a large campus hill or simply not wanting to deal with the (ahem) interesting people in the congregation, admit that you are tempted (on occassion) to skip out on Sunday services.

You're not alone. Congregations are dwindling worldwide and it's not all the result of religious apathy. Some people simply just don't have the energy or willpower it takes to get themselves inside of a church to worship.

Thus, the invention of virtual religious services, such as Church of Fools. Church of Fools is a UK Methodist-sponsored online religious service developed to give individuals an opportunity to worship in cyberspace.

How? Logon to the website (churchoffools.com), create a cartoon character of yourself and get ready to do all kinds of exciting things in the 3D world. Walk around, kneel, pray, shout hallelujah, play a hymn, and ring the church bells—all from the comfort of your own home. Take a look at an example of a Night Prayer service.

Church of Fools is an example of how religions are using the internet to reach a larger audience. Scarcely any religions are exempt from it, including our own.

When I first began preparing this post, I was going to ask the question, "Do you think someone can have as much of a religious experience online as they can attending the service in person?" I thought it was a no-brainer, until I started thinking about it.

Twice a year we watch/attend/listen to General Conference. Do we not all have a religious experience as we watch or listen--even if we're not at the Conference Center? I think we do. The Church of Fools thinks they do as well. The following quote explains their stance when asked, "Can you really have true, meaningful church online?"

We're more concerned that many of the people coming to Church of Fools are not getting "true, meaningful church" offline.

So I ask you...

Can one have a religious experience if the focus of their worship is online?

-Hannah Gibby

Don't say you listen to everything, I promise you, you don't

2010-01-26T10:34:00.000-08:00

Music is an art form, a type of expression for an artist. And in most art, artists strive to make one think, to question their beliefs, to ponder a new idea, to evoke some sort of emotion or feeling. Religion is a universally understood language because most people believe in something greater than themselves. Because of this, religion is a great topic of songwriting in all music genres.

We know that Christian Rock music or country music often talks about God. However, we see a great deal of religious references in all genres from pop to punk, rock to folk.

Often we find one or two songs in the album will talk about god or religion or some greater power while the rest of the album does not. Laughing With by Regina Spektor or Something’s Missing by John Meyer are both examples from two different genres.

Sometimes songs can be interpreted different ways because of their vague nature people can visualize or be moved because of their own personal background. You Are Loved, by Josh Groban is an example of this. Switchfoot is a Christian band who talks a lot about religion but is more mainstream unlike other Christian rock bands that would be found performing in churches on Sunday.

Artists want to create something that means something to them, to someone. There (hopefully) is a greater purpose in their creation. They are writing songs about things that have meaning to them. Things they love, things they hate, things they fear, things they learned. Religion and spirituality is a great subject for all artists because of its vast expanse. It is something they are passionate about and something that many listeners can relate to.

We all have different tastes and different interests but I think it is safe to say that everyone loves music. Whether musically inclined or not people appreciate music and how it speaks to them. Religion and spirituality cannot be without music. Some of this music are hymns used for worship, other music can be used to celebrate and uplift, and other, more mainstream music references religion and spirituality that can be equally uplifting and thought provoking.

My question for you is: While our society is striving for political correctness and we see so many people turning their back on religion, why is the mainstream music world so accepting of religious and spiritual references in all music genres?

- Rebecca Anderson

Losing My Relig†on

2010-01-24T18:16:00.000-08:00

Is the title of R.E.M’s smash 1991 hit in which lead singer Michael Stipe sings, “That's me in the corner, That's me in the spotlight, I'm, Losing my religion,” or is he? Rewind a little bit further to the late 80s with a semi-controversial songstress named Madonnna. With the release of the track and more importantly video for her ’89 hit ‘Like a Prayer’ religious groups and music moguls alike were taken aback by the amount of sacrilegious innuendo that is depicted [below] in the video. But in both of these songs, religion may or may not be the true lyrical focus, depending on how you listen. Without changing the meaning of both songs, neither is truly about religion, but rather love, in ALL forms (physical and not). Musicians and lyricists alike thrive on the notion that they can write whatever they want while still inputting some sort of subliminal message within the words.

VH1 TV Shows | Music Videos | Celebrity Photos | News & Gossip

Use of Religious terms and meaning has been an on going trend in popular music for as long as I can remember. As we previously saw in Joan Osborne’s “One of Us” she asks us to ponder the meaning of God and the many life forms he could possibly take, even questioning if he could possibly be a “slob like one of us.” Ziggy Marley took to claim that love was his religion in the title track “Love is my Religion.”

Love is my religion, Love is my religion, Love is my religion, I'll take you to the temple tonight. All my days I've been searching, to find out what this life is worth through the books and bibles of time, I've made up my mind I don't condemn, I don't convert, this is a calling have you heard, bring all the lovers to the fold, cause no one is gonna lose their soul

Just in the chorus and first bit of the verse, the use of religion is prominent in a popular Reggae track. Even the outlandish Lady GaGa puts a little faith in a track entitled ‘Teeth” where she states: ‘Got no salvation (no salvation) Got no salvation. Got no religion (no religion)  My religion is you.’

Now, in the wake of great tragedy in Haiti, we seek religion again. As was the case after 9/11, musicians, actors, politicians, etc. unite to create music and call upon old hits to keep the faith. Last Friday’s ‘Hope for Haiti’ telethon brought together musical acts to perform and raise money for Haitian relief, where Madonna sang the controversial “Like a Prayer,” Justin Timberlake covering Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah” and Jennifer Hudson singing “Let it Be” (I recommend purchasing this album, proceeds benefit Haiti relief and all tracks are great. Esp Jay-Z, Bono, Rihanna collabo).

The question I offer is: During the trend of religion in pop music, are these songs to be taken at surface level for your own interpretation (and salvation), or does the artist meaning beg to be explored?

Christian rock and Deseret Book

2010-01-23T16:59:00.000-08:00

So I've been thinking a lot about Christian rock, and both the chapter in the book and the last post talked about this, but hopefully I'll be able to put a slightly different spin on it.

I have a friend who I grew up with in the Church, but this year she married an evangelical Christian guy and has been going to his church. His church is different from most Christian churches I'm aware of: the women wear white cloths on their heads at church, when people commit major sins they confess it front of the entire congregation, they don't celebrate Halloween, and don't even like to include Santa in Christmas and instead of stockings they have "wise men baskets." These are just a few of the things I've picked up on in conversations with her. Over Christmas break I was visiting her at their apartment and her husband was listening to this heavy metal music--the kind where the majority of the singing is more like screaming. It seemed odd in this otherwise very conservative Christian household. Then when her husband left to go to the store, my friend told me he had been listening to a Christian band. Apparently they throw in messages about salvation through Jesus in between screams. My friend seemed embarrassed talking about it, as if she new what my reaction would be, and as if she kind of agreed. She had after all grown up Mormon, and Christian heavy metal was just as foreign to her as it was to me.

I think the general feeling among members of our church is that this industry that combines wordly music with gospel lyrics is not the way to go--an attempt to worship God and mammon as the book put it. We definitely aren't into including that sort of thing in our worship sessions, the church actually has a list of instruments not allowed to be played in sacrament meeting, among them the guitar and drums. For the most part, we stick to our set traditional hymns and rarely deviate.

But then as I was thinking about it more, I started to realize that maybe we aren't so separate from this phenomenon as we'd like to think. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir, like Amy Grant who the book talked about, sings plenty of non-gospel-related music and is huge (often number one) on the classical music charts. And what about EFY music? What about all the many artists sold at Deseret Book? Compare their Web site with a Christian bookstore. Don't most of these musicians make money because they are combing LDS themes and lyrics with more contemporary music? Sure, I haven't heard of a LDS heavy metal band as of yet, but is our LDS music industry really so different from the Christian rock one? Aren't we basically doing the same thing?

That was a lot of rhetorical questions in a row, sorry about that. The book talked about how worldly it was that they almost used religion as an excuse to get big in the music industry, but I just think if we don't consider our own contemporary music industry such a bad thing maybe we should think again about how we view the Christian rock world.

My question: What do you think is so attractive about combining comtemportary music with gospel themes that has made it so popular?

Exploring God through Music

2010-01-23T13:01:00.000-08:00

Music is a way through which people pray. I had not first thought of music as a form of prayer until I read about a professor who studies how people pray.

“Sacred music allows us to touch the face of God, through our perception of the world around us,” he said. “It's a direct way through which we try to make sense of life and the afterlife, to understand and gain favor with God. The emotion is the magic that happens at that point of contact.”

As I reflect on music that has moved me recently, I think of "Laughing With" by Regina Spektor. I'm mystified by her lyrics. She said in an interview that religion has been on her mind a lot lately so the lyrics stemmed from her thinking about God. I'm intrigued that she wrote this song as a way to explore God. The lyrics remind me how much I need God.

Regina is one of many recent artists who explore religion and God through their music. So many people do not know about God like we do and I think it's great that some people are trying to better understand God by creating lyrics and music. It's almost as if they are seeking inspiration through music.

I have noticed that songs with religious meaning provoke a positive and negative conversation among people. Regina's song had over 4,000 text comments on YouTube last time I checked. Among the posts, people wrote their personal interpretations about the song meaning and/or feelings.

One YouTuber said:

This is a gorgeous song that, in my own opinion, is trying to say that when people are in terrible situations, or trying ones, that they take God seriously for once in their life. Almost a sort of...."God is only funny when you're life is wonderful" sort of thing. That's just what I get from it.
When someone you love is dying, are you not tempted to pray?

According to this commenter, human crises cause people to humble themselves and cause them to see a need for God in their life. It makes me wonder whether music is what causes some people to think about religious topics more than other types of media.

Question: Does music cause people to seek answers about God more than other types of media?

Media & Religion

Facebookism

A "Modern" View of Religion

Saturday is a Special Day...Sports as Religion

World of Warcraft - The Religion?

The spread of Mormon beliefs through media

Mormons in the Media

Harry Potter and the Religious Zealots

"De-coding" the Power of Literature

Eat, Pray Love and finding yourself through self serving spiritual journey

Cullenism – Giving people religion they want

What do you think about quest religion and how is the internet helpful in quest religion?

Blog your prayers, Tweet your scriptures, and Google to church.

Online Confessions

I felt the Spurrit surrisly SO strong on facebook last night!

Paganism and Heavy Metal

Can sex speak to the soul?

Music and Lyrics

Religion=Music

Spreading the Gospel Message: One Way or Another

Religion and Film-The Feminine as Divine in the Arts-Literature, Media, Fiction, and Film-Moving the discussion from fiction to NON-FICTION?

Religion and Film.

Conditioned to Religion in Film

Are Screenwriters Religious?

Religion and Film

South Park and the Sacred

No Religion is Safe

Characterizing Religion

The Casualness of Televised Prayer

Other Gods

What Does "Religiously" Actually Mean Anyway?

Celebrities as religious leaders

Universal Religion?

Being Mormon Is Cool...

Mormon Radio - The Icing on the Cultivation Cake

Watered Down

Learning from the Learned

Once upon a time, when I was dead...

Finding Christ and Religion in Literature

The Da Vinci Code...

Harry Potter: Christian, Wiccan or Neither?

New medium for debate or yelling competition?

Google is...

Cyber Faith

The Internet Factor : Does it help or hinder?

Sponsored Links

Latter Day Saints Warning

Cyberfaith - The pursuit of God and Religion online

Enter church...online?

Don't say you listen to everything, I promise you, you don't

Losing My Relig†on

Christian rock and Deseret Book

Exploring God through Music