from what i’ve read over at sunstone, its another mormon movie, albeit a rated r mormon movie. is that an oxymoron? rated-r mormon movie?

didn’t he leave the mormon church? i like your line of though DavidB.

Maybe he’s not quitting because of his past movies but because of his future movies. It’s hard to portray the dark side of Mormonism while still a member. Doesn’t even have to focus on the dark side either – just a balanced portrayal of the real LDS struggle would be a step forward.

Subjects could include homosexuality, disowning of apostates or just an authentic lifelong struggle to believe. Could be real Shakespearean in scope if you didn’t have to end (as Dutcher did in God’s Army) with a crippled boy being healed by missionaries. Maybe he can now come clean and tell us that scene was made under pressure from the church.

I also think the converse question isn’t really all that interesting or relevant i.e. can faithful LDS be great Mormon artists.

After reading his public statement and other posts he has written on various blogs I truly believe that his decision to move onto new plateaus has more to do with his personal prayers and spiritual journey than his movie making.

I am not Dutcher so I can’t elaborate on what experiences have led him to his current feelings about the Church, but I believe we are too quick to point the finger at film-making as the cause.

I think it’s easy and perhaps strengthens our faith if we tell ourselves that Dutcher left the Church because he tampered with the “dark side” of film-making. This enables us not to actually consider that someone could naturally come to the decision that the Church isn’t right for them. It prevents us from having to examine our faith and testimony.

To me, that is exactly what Merrill did in his first response. He attempted to convince everyone that Dutcher’s motivation for leaving is anger, jealousy, and pride. That way we could LDS artist led astray by the “ways of the world.”

There are many in the Church that find their spiritual journey taking them away from the Church from natural cirumstances and not sin or falling into the worldy trap. It just so happens that this time it involves a public figure who has made LDS themed films.

I’ve just posted a reply to some of the speculation that has surrounded my article in The Daily Herald. It’s at bycommonconsent.com It’s comment #77 under the Vehicle of God’s Grace essay.

Please have a look and pass it on to AML list, etc.

Thanks,
Richard Dutcher

My personal opinion is that there are flaws in the approach both brother Dutcher and brother Merrill have taken to this issue, but the greater issue is that there is an argument at all. I never thought I’d see the day where I quoted Al Sharpton, but once something is defined, it’s confined. It would seem that in regards to Mormon cinema, the only thing everyone can agree on is that it somehow involves Mormons. I don’t know that it needs to be more defined than that. I don’t see why Mormon cinema can’t have its comedies and its Legacies; its milk and its meat; its hits and its misses. The moment we decide what Mormon cinema should and should not be, it’s no longer art. It becomes a movement. And the common denominator in all movements is that they end.

If there’s room in our church for all people, and room in our beliefs for all truth, why would there not be room in our cinema for all stories? Perhaps it is because, just as we like some people more than others and obey certain truths over others, we take our artistic opinions to be expert. I don’t believe Mormon cinema needs a definition. I believe it needs humility. But admittedly, that’s just my opinion.