[update: I’ll probably soon post feedback I’ve had on this.]

The Deseret News published an article by Sharon Haddock which either outright invented or seriously twisted words by Richard Dutcher, then proceeded to use them in a screed against LDS film comedies, expressly against Dutcher’s own discouragement that anyone do so.

For reference, here is the article.

I attended Dutcher’s presentation at the Scera during the LDS film festival, which this article references to build its screed. I do not recall Dutcher ever saying, as this article asserts, that many of the films that have come out since God’s Army “..call for Mormons to laugh at the Latter-day Saint religion and its culture.”

On the contrary, at this event Dutcher listed some LDS films that he likes, among them The Singles Ward, and he has said elsewhere that Halestorm’s Mobsters and Mormons is by far the best LDS comedy to date.

Moreover, Desert News contradicts itself:

“..What’s better to show the world? The idiotic and silly? Or the culture as it is, with all its warts, full of good-hearted people to strive who [sic] follow the Christian teachings of their religion. [again sic, no question mark].”

“Idiotic and silly” is synonymous with the earlier “goofy” the article connects with LDS comedies (Dutcher did use the word “goofy” in his presentation) - so this is clearly referring to LDS comedies. But then after that, in a contrast referring to Dutcher’s work, Haddock refers to “warts”. Aren’t warts and idiocy both flaws? This is self-contradicting! Her premise is to not support films that show flaws (idiotic mormons) but to also support films that show flaws (warts - mormons with warts or character flaws). The remainder of the article cuts back to Home Teachers as “disgusting” (never mind that Hale has disowned the film by his own word) and then back to Dutcher’s work but omitting the concept of “warts” or any other negative, pulling all that out and focusing only on “important things” and “good” in connection with Dutcher’s films. So now Dutcher’s work is suddenly changed from portraying flawed mormons to not portraying them - just mormons who are good and perfect. But Dutcher’s new film States of Grace (which is in re-release and may leave the theater unless *you* go see it *tomorrow*!) portrays mormons and converts who have flaws - and overcome them. The same is true for characters portrayed in LDS comedies.

Where this gets really interesting is in a question Dutcher asked the audience in his presentation. He asked: “What is it about Latter-day Saints that makes us want to take neither cinema nor Mormonism very seriously?”

When Dutcher asked this, the audience was stumped and silent. I was amused that he asked the audience - we thought he was the expert. After he took a few questions from the audience and offered some of his own unrelated comments, some thoughts clicked for me and I raised my hand and tried to answer Dutcher’s question, and hold on with me for a bit, because I’m going to tie this into Deseret News:

“I think there’s a misconception that runs very strong among mormons that to have perfect films, you have to have perfect characters in those films. But if you remove sin, you remove conflict, and if you remove conflict, you remove drama, and if you remove drama, you can forget everything.”

Dutcher responded to this by relating a story of coming out of a screening of The Passion of the Christ (which would make him a heretic among many mormons - read this) and seeing the poster for The Passion next to a poster of The Best Two Years and realizing that every frame of The Passion was about Christ, but where was Christ in The Best Two Years? There was something about Joseph Smith, but not the Christ. “No wonder people think we aren’t Christian!” he said. ” - “We put characters in our films who don’t need Christ!”

I promise this will tie back to Deseret News, just not quite yet -

Remember that drama is conflict and conflict comes because of sin. Ergo, both comedy and drama require sin - and both Dutcher’s films and the LDS comedies portray people who are sinners in need of penance. So not only should LDS comedies portray people who are idiots, they are not alone in it - Dutcher’s films have characters who are also flawed fools for Christs sake! - and they are the better for it, along with LDS comedies, in showing people overcoming their flaws!

The unspoken rule among less tolerant mormons that LDS films must show perfect mormons is a cultural error and there is nothing religious or doctrinal about it. Indeed Lehi in the Book of Mormon points out that all things must have opposites and be a compound in one. A film without flawed characters is not a compound in one, it is a compound in zero. I recall a quote of Brigham Young, that theatre allows us to experience the consequences of sin without sinning. This says that sin needs to be portrayed in theater - not encouraged, but acknowledged and it’s consequences shown. Otherwise, and I think Lehi’s expression of doctrine supports this, we don’t have a very useful theatre. And so long as mormon audiences frown on films that portray mormons as having any sins, we will not be advancing useful LDS films. It is very largely the mormon audience’s fault that LDS films suffer.

Now this is where it gets really interesting. During his presentation Dutcher bemoaned the literature and art coming out of Deseret Book. I now find that somewhat ironic considering the novel for his film God’s Army is sold there. But never mind that, I think he’s speaking in general terms. Dutcher asked: “What is it about Mormonism that produces what you see on the shelf at Deseret Book?”

Still waiting and I’ll connect this back to Deseret News, I promise -

At the end of his presentation Dutcher announced a thought which he said had just come to him. It was my impression that a great truth suddenly dawned on him. He said that we’re all too quick to blame the goofy LDS films for the genre’s struggles, and that he would enjoy those films a lot more if there were more of the serious films he likes. It cast my thoughts to some future time when we look back on the comedies as just fine in light of the whole history of the genre - assuming that in the next many decades very many more dramas (and more good comedies) surface. I think that is a very, very important and forward-looking observation - one that actually flatters goofy LDS films, completely antithetical to the whole tone of the Deseret News article, and a point the article totally overlooked, I’d add.

Now we get to Deseret News - by way of Deseret Book. I’ll pull a comment someone made at the Association for Mormon Letters:

> [Deseret Book] has a problem that, given its institutional ownership,
> things it publishes have a certain authority. As a result, it can’t
> simply shrug its shoulders and say, “That’s the author’s choice,” no
> matter how many Publisher’s Prefaces it issues.

This was from here. And for a reference on these facts, see this.

Major problemo! This answers a question I’ve had. I think that approach actually hinders Deseret Book - and mormon thought along with it - by playing into the illusion that everything sold in that store is doctrinal. That illusion does more to damn the process of people thinking for themselves and coming to their own conclusions based on faith than anything in all of mormon letters. Faith requires a person to think something through and judge a matter for themselves, and then, if it is a critical enough matter, to bring it to God for personal revelation as to the truth or fallacy of it. Doctrine and Covenants expressly supports this. For Deseret Book to pretend that everything coming off of their bookshelves is perfectly doctrinally sound and beyond all question or controversy is an over extension of authority - an over extension of authority of the church holding company that oversees them, and maybe of Deseret Book itself. I say that the Church is true, and Deseret Book is, but this over extension of representative authority from Deseret Book is most untrue to the foundation of mormonism. Deseret Book is not a source of doctrinal authority. Study of the words of prophets, prayer, and revelation is a source of doctrinal authority. Deseret Book would do very well to shrug it’s shoulders and say “That’s the author’s choice” far more often than it does, and let all the thoughtless brainwashing heretics who try to make doctrines of the philosophies of men write their little screeds to Deseret Book. The freed up debates would work wonders of encouraging faith, by the emergence of that most lacking aspect of mormon life: information that causes people to question, think, and quest for truth. I do not say “Let Deseret Book flood itself with apostate anti-mormon books.” I say let them let people think more freely in their attempts to ascertain and live by gospel truths, in the light of revelation that leads to Christ and following the prophets - not Deseret Book.

Note that I do not here make the philosophies of men scripture, as Deseret Book ironically does by pretending everything they sell has the mantle of truth. Rather, I site that the scriptural encouragement to let men think and judge matters for themselves is greatly lacking in the philosophy of Deseret Book. We should remember the process Joseph Smith went through before his own conversion experience. Latter Day Saints have one church - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. There is no footnote extending all authority of the written word to any bookstore. Then all is well. I have discovered for myself that Deseret Book is not true.

The connection? Deseret News is owned by the same holding company that oversees Deseret Book. Dutcher bemoaned one brother (rightly I think) and the other attacked. Stranger still, the attack did specifically what Dutcher discouraged anyone to do - not make a scapegoat of goofy LDS films. But to do so, they had to misrepresent Dutcher. So really Deseret News attacked both Dutcher and Halestorm - and why not? Both Dutcher and Halestorm do just what Deseret News and Book can’t: publish things that allow audiences to think much more for themselves then the shallow weirdness of Deseret News or ~Book.

There’s also a philosophical connection that plays into the answers Dutcher sought from his audience. The biography of Spencer W. Kimball entitled “lengthen your stride”, published by Deseret Book this year, represents, according to one reviewer, a major break in the approach of Deseret Book to biographies of prophets.

The change of approach in this book is that it portrays more of the flaws of Kimball than any previous biography they have published on other prophets. The author wanted to portray all that he knew of all of Kimball’s virtues and vices, and this was done in the book, *but to a very limited extent*. Interestingly, the book was published with a CD containing the full text the author wished to publish, and which Deseret Book would not. How does this connect? Deseret Books’ philosophical approach to biographies, to narratives, to fiction, to everything - is to portray characters without sins, characters who do not need Jesus Christ.

That is a severely damaging philosophy.

Where did it come from? The church has a history of being persecuted for our different-ness, for our peculiarity, even for the sins in our history. In that light perhaps our long time cultural response may be to wish to present ourselves only in the very best light. We no longer need to do that. As Hinkley keeps pointing out, we have come out of obscurity. We are now a major force in religion - and in moving works of charity through the world. The world can no longer deny that the fruits of our labors are good - though as Hinkley recently pointed out, some deny the tree, the revalator - the Prophet Joseph Smith and his message of the Living Christ and His Restored Church. We no longer need to hide so much. It’s okay. We can tell stories that present us as overcoming sins. Because that’s what we try to do. I suggest Deseret Book adjusts its approach to publishing. Also, I think they owe LDS film a full-blown correction publication, not just a little “this was an error.”