I’m new to this series having picked up on it from Salon.com a couple of days ago. The problem I have with this episode is that it’s not clear that Jeremiah wasn’t being instructed to kill by demons rather than God. Sweet music doesn’t mean the voice is God’s and since God says ‘Thou Shalt not Kill’ when I’m told that someone has killed a helpless man because a voice told him to I generally assume that the voice is Satanic. Perhaps this point has already been made. I scanned all of the other comments but didn’t read them in detail. Hopefully as I continue on with the other episodes it will become more clear that it was God and not a demon speaking to him as well as how Jeremiah was able to be so sure about the voice that he would break one of God’s commandments to do what the voice said to do.

The way I understand it from the students I know is that the intent to involve spiritual things came first and then came the plot. The idea to create a web series that would involve religious content overtly but not fall in the cheesy singles ward category where we simply poke fun at ourselves.

I agree that some of religion is too fantastic to be involved in entertainment. Not many shows depict the Lord speaking to people overtly, but they hint at it or people say God spoke to them, but we don’t usually hear the voices. So maybe if the Jer3miah writers took it in that direction, involving spiritual things, but at a little less obvious level. Maybe if the audience had known from the beginning that this was going to be a story about a boy who is very much in touch with God, we would have accepted that and been prepared to move forward with them. Personally, I think they did themselves a disservice by having the dad in episode one tease Jeremiah about his promptings and throwing in so many “singles ward” like missionary jokes and references. Most of us dont drop silly Mormon references every 20 seconds like that…so immediately it took away our ability to revere Jeremiah for being the spiritually in touch person he is.

I wish more entertainment would involve religion since it is a huge part of our culture and guides our morals. The question is how to properly do that and I think Jeremiah is a great experiment to test the waters.

To answer Aaron:
I guess after what I just said I like the themes that are being presented in Jer3miah. .. I’m not going to say whether I think they are right or wrong because I’m not the one to judge that and everyone has their own opinion. But whether they are wrong or whether they are right I like them. .. . . Is that bad? Did that answer your question?

It seems that many of us, myself included, have stepped back and evaluated our own faith and determination to live it and our shyness/boldness of it, based off of these episodes, particularly this one. Do we simply believe what we’re told because someone told it to us? What voices are we choosing to listen to and follow? Do we actually know the Person who is whispering to us and can recognize His voice? And if we did know the Person, and we did recognize what we were instructed to do, would we actually have the faith to do it no matter the level of difficulty? Maybe we wouldn’t be asked to actually kill someone, but maybe we’d be asked to sell everything we own, pack up our family in some small wagons and walk over a thousand of miles to some place we’ve never seen before. Maybe it’s easier for us to listen and say, “Okay, I’m not going to smoke and drink,” but harder for us to say, “You know, it’s just too hard for me to forgive that person.” It’s likely that none of us would be in the particular situation that Jeremiah found himself in, but we certainly can learn from this experience.

I’m also a believer in the “Dante’s Inferno” theory, meaning that we can actually have cathartic experiences and learn from other peoples experiences, whether real life or fiction. In Dante’s Inferno, it was clearly seeing the horrible things that people were doing, literally going to hell and back. Could it be possible that Jer3miah was not created for the sole purpose of entertaining (as many shows these days are), but for us to experience something that we otherwise couldn’t (or wouldn’t) experience? Maybe our experience is a look at how nonmembers must feel when we talk about our “feelings” or our beliefs or some crazy story of a guy that lived a couple hundred years ago who was “inspired” to find some golden Bible and actually translate it into English. I for one am for Jer3miah. I think it’s something unique that doesn’t fit in with “The Testaments” genre or “The Singles Ward” genre, but is trying to do something different that hasn’t been done before, and I think that these discussions we’ve been having are evidence that it’s working to some degree.

I think Aea’s question is a great one to consider. I’m going to go with yes on this one and try to elaborate on what Aaron said.

Think about all of those movies that have had significant, and important, influences on your life. .. This is why we love film (well. . that’s why I love it. I can’t speak for everyone). It’s the passion and power it can have in people’s lives. There are countless movies that were made just for that purpose. It’s art. “Doctors help you to live, but the arts give you a reason to live.”
Now think about The Testaments. We can never know the impact it will have on individuals and families that have viewed it and I’m sure future generations. I think this movie was created with “a worthy reason” and that’s why it was so successful. Same with The Passion of the Christ, I personally only know of one family it has impacted, I’m sure there are many others. But this impact and power in peoples lives is what would be at stake if the recreation of spiritual or sacred events was taken away.
I think Aaron is right. If there is “a strong message with a [worthy] reason” than it is deemed successful. (Along with thorough research of course

I hope that was “thoughful” enough.

Part of the discomfort is seeing something so sacred being used for, essentially, entertainment. Don’t get me wrong, it was very well-meaning entertainment, but the point of this show is to figure out the crazy mystery-not have a 5-minute spiritual experience every week (though I certainly don’t mind the use of spiritual things in it, because that’s real life too. ) However, to suddenly throw something in that is an incredibly important, painful, and intimate experience from the Book of Mormon seemed really heavy-handed and over the top. If we look at the circumstances it parallels, that box had better be the means of bringing salvation to millions and millions of people in this life and the next, because murder is serious business people.

I think what it boiled down to is that I feel like it’s really presumptuous to say that this fictional circumstance is just as dramatically important as preserving the Book of Mormon and the restoration of the Church-especially since in this episode the writers literally wrote in the voice of God.

***SIDE NOTE: I have to agree that the whole whispering thing was really weird. For a piece that is trying to be bold in expressing difficult spiritual experiences and choices, it tried to smooth the whole thing over with the soothing music and peaceful tone from the voice of the Lord. I don’t think this represent Nephi’s experience at all. It was not a transcendental experience to kill, and the music seemed to imply that it should be. I believe the Lord speaks in a different tone with us dependent on the circumstance. The way God spoke in this episode sounded like a seminary video-except that it was gently telling him to kill someone. It came off as really creepy. Why are we afraid to make God speak firmly to our protagonists?***

Anyway, I’m not totally opposed in general to sacred experiences being paralleled, but I guess I feel like someone’s got to REALLY research it and make sure they aren’t being used as just a plot device or because they seem cool. Otherwise it can turn into the latest Superman movie-lots of Father and Son references, but no substance or even real meaning behind them. That to me was a presumptuous use of the sacred for entertainment ,so someone could feel intelligent for using a scriptural reference(I am NOT accusing the writers of this show of that-I just think some of it wasn’t thought through enough. Brian Singer however, knew what he was doing with that.)

I worry we run the risk of cheapening some of the sacred experiences in the scriptures if we start using them for entertainment-even if it’s not offensive…actually especially if it’s not offensive. However, like “aea” said-does that mean we stop making anything religious because it might cross this line? It’s not fair to expect that everyone will have my same definition of what is using and what is honoring something sacred, but I do think it’s important to at least try and be aware of it as artists. Are we adding a spiritual parallel to shed light on something true and sacred, or are we using it as a plot device, or because it’s entertaining or we feel smart for thinking of it?

@ [everyone]. So what’s the answer? Should we not endeavor to fictionalize faith? Is it too risky?

Under those terms, the only thing that’s presumably safe is to not create anything (music, film, art) about religion. Fictionalization is implicit in ANY artistic interpretation (even if we, the creator, believe we are translating it perfectly, in its ultimate similitude.) As creators, we’re still taking something intangible and translating it to a more tangible medium. There’s always fictionalization in that, on some level (content, aesthetic, whatever). It’s a representation. A fabrication in a sense, whether or not certain creators intentionally push that boundary toward more extreme levels.

This is why we [I] then cringe when we see Joseph Smith being extra nice, like patronizingly nice, to the black people in the newish Joseph Smith movie (was this or was this not a directorial choice? Do we have it on record if he was actually condescending?)

Or when we see the perfect looking blue-eyed glowy Christ and think “c’mon, he was NOT that pretty, nor was he a Dane.”

Or when we [maybe only I] see a depiction of Christ, um, “knowing” Mary in The Last Temptation of Christ and think, whoa. (This caused its own imbroglio within the Catholic Church, but I for one, think its intent is in the right place and it proves its point, even if it is a gross fabrication. The greater message gets across).

We run the risk, every time we create faith-based art, of creating these confusions or misrepresentations. Do we not? Especially when we’re creating art about something so personal, so passionate.

The ever-parabolic Jesus Christ ran this risk. And we all know he was misinterpreted at times. (I STILL don’t totally get that new wine into old bottles one.) Same with a certain story-obsessed prophet I know. Story isn’t perfect. It’s a vehicle, hopefully a vehicle for telling the truth.

So in conclusion, I don’t think adding fictional elements it itself the root of the problem. You could paint me a picture of Christ hanging out in Washington Heights teaching the gospel in sign language and the fictionalization wouldn’t bother me. So what’s the difference? Intent? The “moral?” What’s the answer? How SHOULD we grapple with task of translating scripture or doctrine into art?

I don’t think anyone is claiming to having their “faith shaken about some boy named Jeremiah.” Seems like the discussion (especially aaron’s reasoning about some of his qualms with the show) is rational and honest.

I must be honest with you. I don’t understand how you think the show isn’t trying to be serious. To me, it is clearly a serious endeavor for the creators.

Obviously we understand that it is, as you declare, “FICTIONAL.”

Some people think the Book of Mormon is fiction. I don’t. I believe in it and love it. The show is fictionalizing elements of a book that lots of people claim to be false in the first place. Then the show adds elements of our religion that are difficult to portray (e.g. the “spirit” may be interpreted as a voice of good or evil depending on the viewer) in a way that is confusing.

The “good” elements are obviously meant to be good (i.e. the spirit, killing the evil dude). But when the good can also be seen as bad, for some people, like myself, alarms go off. I think it’s great that it doesn’t bother you, and I wish it didn’t bother me either.

I’m not saying it is wrong to not be bothered by the show. I am saying, however, that most people it has bothered have responded in a thoughtful way. Your response seems a little pointed for me to take seriously.

And just as a side note- I’d love to agree with seanslobodan in that the artistic elements, in this episode particularly, are fantastic. I LOVED the contrast of the song with Jeremiah’s turmoil, the aesthetic value of the box, and especially the tree carved into the stone.

But yes, like others here, this episode made me a bit uncomfortable. I too, at first, wasn’t sure from whom the promptings were coming (are these good voices or evil voices, or Jeremiah’s schizophrenic voices?). I was conflicted and intrigued.

So I wanted to self-analyze a bit to figure out just WHY it made me feel so conflicted. Is it because there are parts of my religion that I can’t totally reconcile? Is it because there are parts of my religion for which I feel apologetic? Am I embarrassed of things? Do I not have the scope to see the “big picture” in the way that the Lord does? It could be a combination of these things.

But then again, if everything in my religion made perfect, logical sense, then what of faith?

So then, per aaron’s comment, I see what you mean. But where I see things a bit differently is that frankly, “logic” doesn’t really have much to do with it. Is it epistemologically sound for a human being to kill another human being? Is it logical to hear ANY voice (from any source) and then be subservient to it? Rational minds would say no. Modern science would say no. But the thing is, faith is not exactly grounded in human logic. (Which is something I’ve struggled with because I’ve run myself in never-ending philosophical circles trying to reconcile the two.)

So I came to see this as a test of faith in Jeremiah’s case, and in the case of Al Qaeda, of people being deceived by a cheap imitation of a heavenly prompting. Satan is a tricky imitator. I can’t be sure, but I’m guessing what happened to Jer3miah was the real deal (but who am I, in my limited human knowledge able to say for sure? Who are any of us to say for sure? We can’t scientifically “know” and maybe that is OUR test of faith).

Nephi had established a pretty clear way of communicating with God before he killed Laban. He clearly understood promptings and had some experience with the results of following the promptings too. Nephi was proactive- very volitional. He is almost annoyingly good. But even with how good he is, we still have to look at the Laban-killing incident and analyze it and discuss it and wonder whether or not it is okay.

As church members, we have learned the reasoning for why Nephi did the right thing in this situation. But for people who don’t know, it is difficult to understand. I had the same investigator as college adam (hi dyal 長老　トーマス姉妹です！！！） and this is one of the reasons why he wouldn’t get baptized. I know other Asia-serving missionaries had similar stories. I think showing this to those kind of investigators would probably be very confusing for them.

For me, the “spirit” in jer3miah sounds whispery and evil. When jer3miah is instructed to kill the guy, it seems as though he is being inducted into some evil mystic rite or order.

Mixing religion and fantasy is potentially very dangerous. I was stunned when I watched this episode.

i agree that the show portrayed the difficulty of such a scenario very well. i don’t think they just threw these events out there aimlessly, but it seems that the way the entire episode played out was very deliberate, and showed exactly what the creators wanted… and likely started the conversations they wanted as well. bravo.