If you are LDS, will you go see "The Passion of the Christ"?

[Trout]

Many Mormons, who don't wear or display crosses, will also stay away.
Like other Christians, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus died to atone for humanity's sins, but they don't see it as a single event on the cross. They believe the atonement began in the Garden of Gethsamane, where the New Testament says Jesus' "sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground," continued with the Crucifixion and culminated with the empty tomb on Easter morning.
"Because the Protestant world focuses so much on the death of Jesus, we have a tendency to emphasize Christ's resurrection," says John Fowles, a New Testament teacher at Logan's LDS Institute of Religion.
In any event, many Mormons will not see "Passion" because it is R-rated and they believe the LDS Church forbids it.
"You can rationalize [the rating] away by saying it's because of the blood and gore," writes Bob Marcum, of Atlanta, on the LDS site, Meridianmagazine.com. "But if you are going to be obedient to a prophet's voice, the choice is easy to make."

Will the "R" rating of this film keep you from seeing it?

[Lilith]

You know trout13,
Noone has told us we are forbidden to see it. Many of my mormon friends want
to see it. I also have no qualms about seeing something with a different point
of view. That's what we call an open mind. I don't know where you got the
" forbidden to see " part but that is rather amusing how you can take things out of context. Really, it is our choice whether we want to see something or not. We aren't
Ostracized for watching a rated R movie. Many LDS have seen Saving Private Ryan,
Schindlers List, The Temptation of Christ, The Thin Red Line, etc. . .
We watch them for the history the story the art of it all and the point of view.

[Trout]

You know trout13,
Noone has told us we are forbidden to see it. Many of my mormon friends want
to see it. I also have no qualms about seeing something with a different point
of view. That's what we call an open mind. I don't know where you got the
" forbidden to see " part but that is rather amusing how you can take things out of context. Really, it is our choice whether we want to see something or not. We aren't
Ostracized for watching a rated R movie. Many LDS have seen Saving Private Ryan,
Schindlers List, The Temptation of Christ, The Thin Red Line, etc. . .
We watch them for the history the story the art of it all and the point of view.
I got the article from the Salt Lake Tribune, I also went to Meridian Magazine (www.meridianmagazine.com) and read quite a few viewpoints from other LDS people regarding "The Passion of the Christ".

As far as my being out of context, I merely quoted the article. I do however have many LDS friends who do not watch "R" rated movies, and have always assumed it was because of a directive issued by the church. Am I wrong?

[Lilith]

If the rated R movie is meaningless hedonistic idiocy than it isn't worth watching.
But if there is a message and a lesson to be learned than I say they should watch stuff like that. Don't rely on the Salt Lake Tribune for answers. The newspapers in SaltLake hate mormons. As far as your friends are conserned it's their choice if they
want to stay away, like I said we're not specifically told to avoid rated R movies. We're are told to make the right choices. People shouldn't shelter themselves from
things that exist in the world. If you do, how do you learn from it?

[Trout]

People shouldn't shelter themselves from
things that exist in the world. If you do, how do you learn from it?
I agree, we need to be "in the world not of the world."

Tell me Lilith, would there ever be a decision made at a Stake or Ward level involving a certain movie? Or are all decisions such as that left to the discretion of the members?

[Lilith]

no, people make their own decisions about what they should watch.The stake or ward will tell people to vote for a certain amendment or bill. Something against gay
marriages mostly but things like movies are an independant decision.

[Leroy]

Don't rely on the Salt Lake Tribune for answers. The newspapers in SaltLake hate mormons.

There are two newspapers in Salt lake, the Deseret News and the Tribune. both papers love the Mormons, the Deseret News is owned by the LDS church, and the Tribune, when it was owned by the McCarthy's put out some articles that inflamed the LDS church, like the Mountain Meadows Massacre exposé’ and others, but after Singleton's, The Media News Group took over late in 2001 they have pretty much stayed away from any articles that might be frowned upon by the LDS church.

Are those the papers you were referring to?

Leroy

[Lilith]

Thank you for correcting me leroy. I was actually referring to the City Life that comes out every week. They have many complaints against us.
Too many darn mormons.

[Leroy]

Thank you for correcting me leroy. I was actually referring to the City Life that comes out every week. They have many complaints against us.
Too many darn mormons.

The City Weekly is another rag that does a lot of trash talking, they have some informative articles but for the most part they are very liberal, one of the reasons they attack is because their ultra-liberal views are in direct opposition the LDS church & State government.

More to the point of this thread, I heard on the news the other day that President Hinckley said the Church has no official position in respect to limiting its members from going to "R" rated movies. It was just a quick blurb in connection with The Passion movie story they were running.

Leroy

[Otto]

You know trout13,
Noone has told us we are forbidden to see it. Many of my mormon friends want
to see it. I also have no qualms about seeing something with a different point
of view. That's what we call an open mind. I don't know where you got the
" forbidden to see " part but that is rather amusing how you can take things out of context. Really, it is our choice whether we want to see something or not.
of view.

So, are you going to see the movie?

[master_mormon]

Many Mormons, who don't wear or display crosses, will also stay away.
Like other Christians, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus died to atone for humanity's sins, but they don't see it as a single event on the cross. They believe the atonement began in the Garden of Gethsamane, where the New Testament says Jesus' "sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground," continued with the Crucifixion and culminated with the empty tomb on Easter morning.
"Because the Protestant world focuses so much on the death of Jesus, we have a tendency to emphasize Christ's resurrection," says John Fowles, a New Testament teacher at Logan's LDS Institute of Religion.
In any event, many Mormons will not see "Passion" because it is R-rated and they believe the LDS Church forbids it.
"You can rationalize [the rating] away by saying it's because of the blood and gore," writes Bob Marcum, of Atlanta, on the LDS site, Meridianmagazine.com. "But if you are going to be obedient to a prophet's voice, the choice is easy to make."

Will the "R" rating of this film keep you from seeing it?
This is my first post on theology web so I will keep this one rather short. I will simply give summaries to the issues above.

1. The reason LDS don't wear or display crosses is mainly because we focus on the resurrection of Christ. It is interesting to note that the early christians also follow the LDS pattern [which is something LDS might find important as we believe we are a restoration of the true gospel and christianity] also did not wear or display crosses in their worship. In fact, the symbol of the cross was not used by christians for hundreds of years after Christ and the apostles. It really only starts being used by christians after like the 5th century A.D. So bottom line here: The origins of christianity did not wear or display the cross so why do churches today do it if they claim to be "historic" christianity.

2. LDS believe the atonement began in the Garden of Gethsemane and was finished on the cross and the ressurrection. Non-LDS scholars also say this. One has to wonder why many Non-LDS christians make the garden events so trivial. So condemn the LDS for taking all the scriptures seriously if you chose.

3. Finally on the real topic at hand. The LDS church advises members not to see R rated movies but does not forbid it. Nobody is kicked out of the church for seeing them.

For me personally, I have seen many. I even have a few in my libary. I believe the movie rating system is horrible because its decided by a few people one what they think the content of the movie contains. Not all R rated movies are equal. For example I own the movie Judge Dredd. There are only about 5 moderate swear words in the movie yet it gets an R rating. I have seen PG-13 movies that had more objectional content and one could hardly compare Judge Dredd so other R rated movies that have much more violence, sex and profanity. I see movies based on the overall content and not just the rating.

I will not see the passion of the christ because it is an R. The reason I will not is 1) I have not real desire to see it 2) I know Christ suffered much for me but I don't have a need to see some hollywood protrayal of that violence. I simply will not learn anything that I don't already know. Seeing an actor playing Jesus and seeing him getting beaten simply does not offer me anything personally. 3) I think all of Christ's ministry is important. Simply focusing on the last 12 hours of his life does not really explain or describe Christ in total.

I know LDS who have seen the movie and they liked it. But for me, I have no desire.

[Trout]

This is my first post on theology web so I will keep this one rather short. I will simply give summaries to the issues above.

Nice to have you here master_mormon.


master_mormon:
1. The reason LDS don't wear or display crosses is mainly because we focus on the resurrection of Christ. It is interesting to note that the early christians also follow the LDS pattern [which is something LDS might find important as we believe we are a restoration of the true gospel and christianity] also did not wear or display crosses in their worship. In fact, the symbol of the cross was not used by christians for hundreds of years after Christ and the apostles. It really only starts being used by christians after like the 5th century A.D. So bottom line here: The origins of christianity did not wear or display the cross so why do churches today do it if they claim to be "historic" christianity.

Interesting, but the cross is a major New Testament theme, if I remember correctly the cross is mentioned 36 times. With that in mind, I think the cross was used in the first century.


master_mormon:
2. LDS believe the atonement began in the Garden of Gethsemane and was finished on the cross and the ressurrection. Non-LDS scholars also say this. One has to wonder why many Non-LDS christians make the garden events so trivial. So condemn the LDS for taking all the scriptures seriously if you chose.

I believe the Atonement started in Genesis 3, but Christ's sacrifice was completed on the cross, that's what I believe anyway.


master_mormon:
3. Finally on the real topic at hand. The LDS church advises members not to see R rated movies but does not forbid it. Nobody is kicked out of the church for seeing them.

For me personally, I have seen many. I even have a few in my libary. I believe the movie rating system is horrible because its decided by a few people one what they think the content of the movie contains. Not all R rated movies are equal. For example I own the movie Judge Dredd. There are only about 5 moderate swear words in the movie yet it gets an R rating. I have seen PG-13 movies that had more objectional content and one could hardly compare Judge Dredd so other R rated movies that have much more violence, sex and profanity. I see movies based on the overall content and not just the rating.

I will not see the passion of the christ because it is an R. The reason I will not is 1) I have not real desire to see it 2) I know Christ suffered much for me but I don't have a need to see some hollywood protrayal of that violence. I simply will not learn anything that I don't already know. Seeing an actor playing Jesus and seeing him getting beaten simply does not offer me anything personally. 3) I think all of Christ's ministry is important. Simply focusing on the last 12 hours of his life does not really explain or describe Christ in total.

I know LDS who have seen the movie and they liked it. But for me, I have no desire.

I know quite a few who opted out of it for very similar reasons, I went and saw it, twice in fact, I'm glad that I went, it left a lasting impact on me and changed a couple of my perceptions.

[stolio101]

I waited until it came out on DVD and rented it from Clean Flix. I understand for this particular movie they removed most gore and 1 swear word.

From the understanding of anyone who has seen Braveheart, or The Patriot, or any film involving Mel Gibson in production you will expect to see massive amounts of gore, but at the same time he is a very talented director and producer.

The movie was mostly oriented to Catholic audiences, although any secular Christian would also find it suited to their beliefs. I do not feel it was catered to LDS audiences for the following reasons.
1- As others have pointed out, with the entire story being based around the last 12 hours of his life, very few of his teachings were emphasized. Also, very little was given to fact this is the atonement of the entire world. Many of the direct quotes of Christ, especially involving those on the cross, are instantly recognizable but for some reason Mr. Gibson changed many of the verbatim phrases to an NIV context. Throughout the movie it seemed more of just some guy getting beat to death, than the suffering of the Savior of the World.
2-Because of Mr. Gibson's religious belief, many false doctrines appear contrary to LDS theology. For example, Mary Magdeline is portrayed as the prostitute caught in adultry, Elder James E. Talmage refutes this theory completely.
3-Without watching it on Clean Flix it is Rated R, and even then is only removing the actual violence, the blood and much gore is still very visable. and therefore without the Spirit. The Church made a half-hour movie called "The Lamb of God" which it distributes free on late night TV, also involving the last hours of Christ's ministry and is done completely according to LDS beliefs.

I hope this helps in ones decision of breaking the counsel of the prophets.

[master_mormon]

I waited until it came out on DVD and rented it from Clean Flix. I understand for this particular movie they removed most gore and 1 swear word.
Because of Mr. Gibson's religious belief, many false doctrines appear contrary to LDS theology. For example, Mary Magdeline is portrayed as the prostitute caught in adultry, Elder James E. Talmage refutes this theory completely.
.
Its interesting to note that not too long ago Time or Newsweek, can't remember which one, had an article on Mary M. and they stated that this view of her being a prostitute came hundreds of years after the New Testament texts where written. If I remember right it was under Justinian's rule that this view of Mary M. was made. Frankly I personally believe that Mary M. was Jesus's wife. I can't prove that conclusively but the evidence that I have seen leads me in that direction. Regardless, I think the Savior would be quite upset about people calling Mary M. (whom he clearly held in high regard) as a prostitute when she was not one. Slandering her name is hardly something that would please him

[master_mormon]

[QUOTE=troutk13]Interesting, but the cross is a major New Testament theme, if I remember correctly the cross is mentioned 36 times. With that in mind, I think the cross was used in the first century.
QUOTE]

Sounds good on the surface but I think the number of times the "cross" is mentioned is not really that important. I don't think one should attach meaning to the number of times a word is mentioned in the scriptures. In regards to the cross, other than the crucifixion narrative in the gospel, Paul is the only New Testament writer that refers to the cross and he does not use
it very much. Not only this but it the cross as a symbol was avoided by Christians for centuries.

Edward T. Jones article Mormonism 201 "The Atonement of Jesus Christ" which is now posted at http://www.fairlds.org/apol/morm201/m20110.html notes that Paul is the only New Testament writer outside the Gospels to refer to the cross and Paul does not use in in his letters to the Thessalonians nor does 2 Corinthians, Romans or 2 Timothy makes any reference to the cross. He cites catholic scholar Jerome Murphy-O’Connor who notes that the terms "cross" and "crucify" are Pauline terms and if it was not for Paul, the gospels probably would not mentioned how Christ died. So it appears that the New Testament writers were not overly concerned with the mannor of how Jesus died. Just that he did die. The main emphasis on the resurrection of Christ instead. Jones notes from Murphy O'Conner that:

“during the first Christian centuries, the cross was a thing accursed. No one professed allegiance to Christ by wearing a cross.” He indicates that it was only after Constantine lifted the ban against Christianity in general, and forbade crucifixion in particular, that a “new, more pleasant meaning for the cross was facilitated.” But, he concludes, “even after the cross had been widely accepted as a symbol, there was a consistent refusal to accept its reality. Only two crucifixion scenes survive from the fifth century…. The situation remains unchanged until the twelfth century.” (Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “‘Even death on a cross’: Crucifixion in the Pauline Letters,” in The Cross in Christian tradition: from Paul to Bonaventure, edited by Elizabeth A. Dreyer (Paulist Press 2000): p. 21-22)

Jeff Lindsay at "<A href="http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_practices.shtml"cites">http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_practices.shtml"cites the following:

"In the first three centuries A.D. the cross was not openly used as a Christian symbol, for the early believers looked beyond the Crucifixion to the Resurrection, and the emphasis was not on the cross of suffering and humiliation but on the Promise of Life with Christ here in the world and hereafter in the life beyond the grave" (H. Child and D. Colles, Christian Symbols: Ancient and Modern, Bell and Sons, London, 1971, p. 10).

Of course, even some modern Protestant writers make the same point. "The power of salvation, Paul says, is not in the cross, as fundamentalist evangelists have claimed, but in the resurrection" (L.J. Averill, Religious Right, Religious Wrong: A Critique of the Fundamentalist Phenomenon,, Pilgrim Books, New York, 1989, p. 88).

So the evidence suggests it was not being used in the first few centuries as a symbol for the same basic reasons LDS don't wear crosses or put them on buildings. Thus the LDS church shows a uniqe connection to what is called the "early Christian church" that most Christian churches today don't share.

Do I care that non-LDS christians wear or use the cross in their worship? Not really. But I does bug me that people make it an issue saying that we somehow have a different view of the Atonement of Christ or look down on the events at Calvary because we don't. We don't look down upon it any more than the early christians did.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

I went to see the movie. I am not at all sure I am glad I went to see it. I am not sure I would recommend anyone else to see it. I found it pretty hard to take. I left the theatre with all my misanthropic feelings of hate and fear of my fellow man reinforced. I am sure some would agree with me that it could be rated X for violence. Interesting touch of being all in Latin and Aramaic.
I am also reminded of the death, destruction, persecution, and horror perpetrated on the early LDS Church members (who were in many cases arguably "better people" than the surrounding population) by Good Americans. Good Christians.
P.S. Anyone have ANY IDEA how many "changes" have been made in the text of the Bible since the 1st edition of the King James Version in 1611? Hmm?
Mr. Mxyzptlk

[Trout]

I am also reminded of the death, destruction, persecution, and horror perpetrated on the early LDS Church members (who were in many cases arguably "better people" than the surrounding population) by Good Americans. Good Christians.

:no:

But it doesn't remind you of the Mountain Meadows massacre, or the Danites.


Mr. Mxyzptlk
P.S. Anyone have ANY IDEA how many "changes" have been made in the text of the Bible since the 1st edition of the King James Version in 1611? Hmm?
Mr. Mxyzptlk

None.

[just Johnna]

I went to see the movie. I am not at all sure I am glad I went to see it. I am not sure I would recommend anyone else to see it. I found it pretty hard to take. I left the theatre with all my misanthropic feelings of hate and fear of my fellow man reinforced. I am sure some would agree with me that it could be rated X for violence. Interesting touch of being all in Latin and Aramaic.I haven't seen it yet--I wish to see the sermon on the mount portions, but I hear I've seen all of them anyway in the promos. I'll probably eventually rent the dvd. Did you see The Passion a while ago, or recently rent it?
I am also reminded of the death, destruction, persecution, and horror perpetrated on the early LDS Church members (who were in many cases arguably "better people" than the surrounding population) by Good Americans. Good Christians.that seems quite a jump? True, Edward Patridge and Josiah Griggs were beaten and tarred. So were Joseph and Sidney (the year before?) Numerous times the Missouri saints were burned out of their houses, murdered, or driven out under threat of death. Later that was legalized by the Extermination Order, under cover of which the renegade Missourian Militia under Thomas Jennings led 240 men, who shot at and wounded 13 fleeing women and children, then methodically executed eighteen men, including two boys, at Haun's Mill. Then hundreds died from cold and starvation and disease as refugees.

That persecution was not greater, and the lives lost so few, we can thank God for placing the Restoration in a place and time of relative tolerance and possibility as America. Compare this to the religious wars between reformers and catholics in the sixteenth century, where thousands were slaughtered. Religious uniformity has been the local basis for social stability for most of human history, which is why matters of the individual soul have been the occasion of group violence.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

None,you say?! That really, really, really turns out... I mean... OK, you go on thinking that.
Mr. Mxyzptlk

[Trout]

None,you say?! That really, really, really turns out... I mean... OK, you go on thinking that.
Mr. Mxyzptlk

Do you think there have been changes?

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Although it may be going rather far afield for the original topic of this thread, yes. Yes I do. I ran a search on "changes in the Bible" or maybe it was "changes in the King James Bible" and found much right there. This was in response to a wild thought I had while studying complaints and attacks about changes in the Book of Mormon. The vast majority of them resulting from the printer recieving a manuscript that was esentially one long paragraph without punctuation. I found that Latter Day Saints need not have any worries on the topic. Any more than about the Bible. Actually, less than the Bible. (One of our doctrines, you know...).
Except at least for that version I saw once. Let it flop open. Story of Noah. And the text read "and he sent forth two clean flying creatures." I stopped right there and dropped it in the nearest dumpster so as to keep anyone from being afflicted with this, this, travesty.
Mr. Mxyzptlk

[Trout]

Although it may be going rather far afield for the original topic of this thread, yes. Yes I do. I ran a search on "changes in the Bible" or maybe it was "changes in the King James Bible" and found much right there. This was in response to a wild thought I had while studying complaints and attacks about changes in the Book of Mormon. The vast majority of them resulting from the printer recieving a manuscript that was esentially one long paragraph without punctuation. I found that Latter Day Saints need not have any worries on the topic. Any more than about the Bible. Actually, less than the Bible. (One of our doctrines, you know...).
Except at least for that version I saw once. Let it flop open. Story of Noah. And the text read "and he sent forth two clean flying creatures." I stopped right there and dropped it in the nearest dumpster so as to keep anyone from being afflicted with this, this, travesty.
Mr. Mxyzptlk

Would you like to discuss this topic in another thread? I'd like to see where we end up. I think you'd be surprised to find out just how the Bible hasn't changed.

What do you say?

[just Johnna]

None,you say?! That really, really, really turns out... I mean... OK, you go on thinking that.
Mr. MxyzptlkBoy, you sound like there's no one at home to talk to. Well, the light's always on here. Or, if you like to argue with fellow mormons, have you been to ZION?
http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html
http://www.smartgroups.com/group/group.cfm?GID=2629794

If you want to rebut a canned argument, you can find it here in the archives. When you respond, an old thread comes to the top of the page as the one with the most recent discussion.

If this is going to be a hobby, you might want to check out John-Charles Duffy's "Defending the Kingdom, Rethinking the Faith: How Apologetics is reshaping Mormon Orthodoxy." Sunstone May 2004.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Thanks for the invitation, troutk13, but I'll pass this time.
Mr. Mxyzptlk

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Boy, you sound like there's no one at home to talk to. Well, the light's always on here. Or, if you like to argue with fellow mormons, have you been to ZION?
http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html
http://www.smartgroups.com/group/group.cfm?GID=2629794

If you want to rebut a canned argument, you can find it here in the archives. When you respond, an old thread comes to the top of the page as the one with the most recent discussion.

If this is going to be a hobby, you might want to check out John-Charles Duffy's "Defending the Kingdom, Rethinking the Faith: How Apologetics is reshaping Mormon Orthodoxy." Sunstone May 2004.Thanks for the free insult, babe. Sure seems like there is a lot of that sort of thing around here. But my remark to troutk13 was not an artifact of power shortage, but a remark of sarcasm, which he apparently took as such. I think I'll just say kltpzyx ...naah.
Mr. Mxyzptlk

[Trout]

Thanks for the free insult, babe. Sure seems like there is a lot of that sort of thing around here. But my remark to troutk13 was not an artifact of power shortage, but a remark of sarcasm, which he apparently took as such. I think I'll just say kltpzyx ...naah.
Mr. Mxyzptlk

Glad to see the Saints getting along so well. :wink:

[just Johnna]

Thanks for the free insult, babe. Sure seems like there is a lot of that sort of thing around here. But my remark to troutk13 was not an artifact of power shortage, but a remark of sarcasm, which he apparently took as such. I think I'll just say kltpzyx ...naah.
gosh, you're touchy for a trickster. But I'm glad you haven't decided to back out to your own dimension.
Glad to see the Saints getting along so well. :wink:wouldn't it be spooky if we didn't? :wink:

[Lachoneus]

For me, whether to see the movie or not wasn't even a question; almost from the moment I heard about it and saw the first clip I KNEW I was to see it, just as surely as I know I'm typing these words now. In other words, my struggle was not AT ALL to decide to see an R-rated movie (would I have seen it had it been rated NC-17? I don't know; perhaps more on that later), but my struggle was: how to prepare to see the movie.

Heck, I'm a crybaby. I think I cried pretty unabashedly and emphatically four or five times during each of the Lord of the Rings movies. I am easily subject to emotion. Usually I can symbolically link good stories to the foundational tenets of the gospel: good v. evil, triumph over opposition with faith; repentance means abandoning former life; etc. But this story I was about to see was different; it wasn't as much a symbol of my most precious beliefs - it was to be a portrayal of a vital aspect of those beliefs. Hence, I wanted to prepare so that I could get as rich and powerful experience as possible. Sort of like why I took Hebrew (in order to better understand the scriptures).

I had heard that the movie's plot followed the "Stations of the Cross" - identifiable hallmarks between Gethsemane and Golgotha as delineated by the Catholic Church. Hence, I reviewed those stations so that wouldn't miss them. I also had heard that satan was portrayed in the film, and so I reviewed the last hours of the Savior's mortality and asked myself: was satan here? behind the scenes? mocking? I must admit I found satan in the Garden, taunting; I found satan at the Last Supper, whispering to Judas; I found satan with the Jewish leaders and the Romans as they taunted and tortured Jesus; and I found satan whispering to my own heart, threatening doubt at every step.

I had also heard that Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Mary, sister of Martha, Jesus' beloved friend (I believe she was his wife), Peter and John figure prominently in the story. I reviewed the Savior's last hours, trying to see those hours from their eyes. I wept with Peter & John as I was, as it were, awakened: Can you not watch even one hour with me? The irony hit me: I would get to see something in the film - a depiction of part of the most important event in human history - they two of Jesus' beloved disciples and companions MISSED -- because they fell asleep. How dare I? I thought of Mary, who obviously was somewhere nearby, according to the scriptures - here she had been given the awesome assignment to raise the Son of God, and now, not long after he had started His ministry - the very work for which she protected and raised him - he was to be killed. I thought of Martha - who had recently witnessed her own brother arise from the tomb at Jesus' command - as she was aware of the grotesque torture her King would endure.

I did not want to see the film on the first day, and, conflictingly, I DID want to see it on the first day. I did not want to see it because I wanted to see how the masses reacted; the only ones who had seen it ahead of time were invited guests, many with an agenda. The news reports amazed me: without exception there were tears of deep emotion, statements like "there is no anti-Jewish moment in the movie" and the like. Yes, there were also a few protestors - ironically, Jews (in a couple of news broadcasts I saw) - almost reinforcing the scriptural account: No, not this!! symbolically, once again, rejecting the Savior. Oh, I know they didn't see it that way, but as I mentioned earlier, I translate much of what I see into symbolic connection with things that matter most to me.

I did want to see it on the first day, I think, mostly out of pride: by now I've seen so many movies on the first day, I'm often the one who gets to brag to everyone about such things before they see them for themselves. Not that such bragging is my motive - but I think there is a bit of pride or something in seeing movies first - maybe even social status (I saw Star Wars TWICE on the FIRST DAY, etc.).

I saw The Passion of the Christ on the fifth day - Monday night. I did not worry about reviewing Hebrew, Latin or Greek; I figured I'd just hear the words for myself and see if I could pick out what I could; I know the story so well I figured it didn't matter to me if the words I heard were Chinese and Hindi - I'd still be able to follow.

Another way I prepared - sort of accidentally, really: I spent an hour at a book store looking at art depicting the Passion. I studied Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" and sought other artists' portrayals of the Garden, carrying the Cross, the crucifixion, etc. I stumbled across a book that depicted, of all things, nothing but the crucifixion - picture after picture, from the most ancient to the most modern. Most of the oldest depictions got it right - the "cross" was actually a "T" - Jesus (and others crucified) carried the cross-beam for the top (the typical cross that we usually see depicted was also used, but was usually permanently in the ground and much too large to carry).

One picture from the middle ages startled me. It had the usual format: Jesus in the middle of two others also crucified, but there were two differences: the crosses only got those crucified barely off the ground - they were almost at eye-level with the crowd; and they were totally naked. Both of those aspects impressed me - perhaps that picture was closer to the truth than most of the others I'd seen. One more detail it shared with most of the older depictions: Jesus was quite bloody. The art was good practice for me: seeing images of things I've often seen Mormons depict (or typical non-Mormon depictions used in the Church) and "translating" the images into the contexts I could connect with.

My last preparation was to review King Benjamin's speech in the Book of Mormon, where he asks question after question, all forms of: what think ye of Christ? Have ye taken upon yourselves His countenance? and the like.

At last, I felt ready. My wife couldn't go with me - wasn't yet sure if she wanted to - so I chose a dear friend, and strategically invited someone I know with a struggling testimony. I couldn't resist the experiment: how would such a powerful movie impact my friend?

From the opening music and scenes to the closing glorious resurrection and music I was stunned and moved. I do not know how to share it. I will never again be the same, and many of the simple things that over the years I've taken for granted - especially taking the bread and water for the sacrament - will forever be more powerful and real to me and, hopefully, not as taken for granted. I will share just a couple of the scenes with my notations:

-- In the Garden of Gethsemane, satan appears; he is not ugly, is almost appealing, then a worm crawls out of his mouth. Later, as Jesus in anguish prays a snake slithers from satan to Jesus. Abruptly, Jesus stomps on the snake's head, crushing it. Reminiscent of:

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

In Hebrew the verse is more powerful, more similar to the way Joseph rendered it; "bruise" is better translated "crush", for example.

-- As Judas in anguish tries to run from his guilt and sorrow he at last finds himself next to a tree outside the walls of the city. Next to the tree is a dead animal - not sure if it was a sheep or a goat - rotting, filled with maggots and bugs, a rope around it's neck. Judas was a lost sheep - or a goat (as in "sheep & goats"). Judas took the rope/leash from the dead animal's neck (having rejected the guidance of the Master, just as the animal had somehow wandered from the guidance of its master) and hung himself. Very poignant.

- Before Pilate Christ, the Son of God - the Son of the Father - stands; Pilate finds no fault in the man, and offers to set him free. Another prisoner is brought forth for the crowd to choose if they reject Jesus. The other man, a murderer, is called bar-abbas (son of the father - son of the father of this world - son of satan). So the choice is clear: the crowd can choose the Son of the Father of the son of the father - the Son of God or the son of satan. The crowd, of course, chooses the murderer. This play on words is excellently reemphasized by Gibson in his portrayal. After Jesus is condemned by the crowd and is scourged, satan is in the crowd holding a boychild in his arms - his son is safe here.

-- As Jesus is nailed to the cross the music is violent and the drums pound in repetitions of three strikes, reminiscent of pounding the stakes into the Savior's flesh. Then the music sweetens and the scene switches to the Last Supper, and you hear the words "Take, eat, this is my body which I give for you." The music remains sweet - even intensifies in beauty - as the scene returns to the Cross; for me this reemphasizes the symbolic meaning - ties the brutality with the bread of the sacrament - and reminds me of Isaiah's words: Behold, I have engraven you upon the palms of My hands; your walls are continually before Me. (Isaiah 49:16). Perhaps just as we think of Him during the ordinance, so too did He think of us during the ordeal.

The movie is very evocative; though difficult to watch it reemphasized so many of the truths of the gospel and Plan of Salvation. Again, in the words of Isaiah:

He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed (Isa. 53:3-5).

That scripture was the first image of the movie on the screen and is an apt summary. But there is another message subtly yet powerfully portrayed:

He was wounded for MY transgressions - in fact, I WOUNDED HIM. Mel Gibson's cameo is as one of the Romans holding a stake to be driven into the flesh of Our Lord. Perhaps he, too, wanted to prepare himself for this story he was telling by personally symbolically participating in the most heart wrenching part.

I'm not sure how to discuss these feelings with others. Again, maybe like the temple experience (which also will be forever impacted by me seeing the film), my experience is mostly personal. I hope, though, that I have shared at least an inkling of what I experienced and why, and that you can believe that I am not a child of hell (to use Moroni's words) because I saw it (as one brother in my ward indicated about anyone who thought they could possibly have a spiritual experience watching an R-rated movie). Rather, I believe I now much more personally understand the urgency with which I ought to repent of my sins. I think of His hands pierce and bleeding to pay the debt... My debt.

[Trout]

Wow, thanks for that great review, Lachoneus. Very well spoken.

And welcome to Tweb. :greetings:

[mnn727]

Didn't need to see the movie - I read the book :lol:

Seriously, its amazing how close in its basic design The Passion was to the Lamb of God video the Church put out 4-5 years earlier.

[Trout]

mnn727,

Welcome to Tweb :hi:

I didn't see the Lamb of God video, where can I find a copy?

[mnn727]

mnn727,

Welcome to Tweb :hi:

I didn't see the Lamb of God video, where can I find a copy?

Any missionary can get you one free of charge, they are probably in every wards library. You could also call your local LDS bookstore and see if they have a copy.

I just checked deseretbook.com and find that it is no longer "in print"

[Trout]

Thanks mnn727, I'll ask the missionaries next time I see them.

Believe it or not, where I live there are no LDS bookstores, the only LDS material I can find is being sold at Wal Mart.