"The Angel" and the Future of LDS Cinema

[Doctor Scratch]

I agree with Smoot's take on the film and think that he makes a good point about how horror, as a genre, can be "profoundly spiritual." It's the genre, more than any other, that deals with ghosts and "spirits," after all. Lots of great horror films have spiritual or religious elements--everything from The Exorcist and The Wicker Man, to Midsommar (arguably the most "Mormon" film ever made) and The Shining, which, when you think about it, is really just a re-telling of the Abraham and Isaac story. If Kierkegaard was still alive, I bet that The Shining would be his favorite movie.

I think part of the difficulty with Mormon art is that it faces a dual challenge in the sense that it gets "policed" both from within and without. Outsiders are going to be naturally biased against Mormon art simply because the religion itself is so unbelievable and "goofy." This is part of the reason why you can get successful, non-LDS productions like The Book of Mormon musical, which makes fun of Mormonism, or Big Love, which fixates on polygamy. A lot of the things that make Mormonism interesting as an aesthetic subject *are* genuinely strange and scary. But these things also have traditionally been "policed" by the Brethren and other Church authorities. A lot of the more interesting Mormon-related storytelling has come from "apostates"--so, again, Evenson's The Open Curtain, or some of Judith Freeman's work, or Brady Udall's The Lonely Polygamist--and Big Love, featuring the involvement of Dustin Lance Black, would also fall into this category. So even if there *are* praiseworthy aspects of these works, they are going to get dismissed as "anti" by the Mopologetic establishment, the Brethren, etc.

Far too much of the Church-sanctioned "art" has essentially been propagandistic, faith-promoting crap. Becoming Brigham and the Interpreter productions certainly fall into this category, as do virtually all of the material that was produced for the purposes of Family Home Evening, or D-list entertainment options like The RM or whatever else--stuff that is so watered-down and anodyne that it barely manages to appeal to the lowest TBM common denominator.

But The Angel is genuinely challenging. Here we've got [spoilers coming!] these sister wives plotting with this "angel" and ultimately killing their priesthood holder husband. Does anyone honestly think that Spencer Kimball would have been okay with this? You can read this as the women rebelling against the LDS patriarchy which, of course, tries to control them by manipulating and defining them through their procreative powers. So it should come as absolutely zero surprise the the film hasn't been praised or mentioned in fora such as "SeN," since its ambiguities are no doubt threatening to the beliefs that are at the core of the Mopologetic enterprise.

It is a good film, though, and the fact that it has been garnering praise from both sides of the divide is a good sign, in my book. I hope the filmmakers are just getting started and I, for one, am interested to see what they do next.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.

If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.
If it be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear
Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man made perfect to deceive.

But if it be a spirit from the devil he will offer his hand and you will not feel anything.

It’s fun that we never know whether or not the apparition is in fact a spirit, good or bad, or a resurrected man since the handshake was interrupted.

Since the Mormon god is a gnostic demiurge, as is the Jewish and Christian gods, it’s an obvious choice between good and bad whenever a blood sacrifice is asked and given.

[Gadianton]

But The Angel is genuinely challenging.

It's made me completely rethink what I thought I knew about angelology in Mormonism. Absolutely brilliant. And yeah, like you said about some of these other productions, the "state sanctioned" films just don't do much but tell you what leadership's talking points are. People generally don't care.

It’s fun that we never know whether or not the apparition is in fact a spirit, good or bad, or a resurrected man since the handshake was interrupted.

Can you elaborate on that? At what point was it interrupted. That's a serious question as I don't recall an attempt.

[Doctor Scratch]

Can you elaborate on that? At what point was it interrupted. That's a serious question as I don't recall an attempt.

The pregnant sister wife attempts to shake the “angel”’s hand, but the brunette sister wife grabs her wrist and prevents the handshake.

[Gadianton]

Right, I just watched it again and saw that. I totally missed it the first time, but they really went out of their way to make that clear.

Here's a hypothetical question, and it's a very serious one, I'm not just trying to be jocular. Suppose an angel were to visit the Afore. The angel tells him that he's under condemnation for sharing his onion rings. He tells him he must go back to that restaurant on Red Brick's dime, order the chicken fried steak and onion rings, and this time, not share them with anybody.

Does the Afore offer his hand and request the angel to shake?

[Tom]

Offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.

If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.
If it be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear
Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man made perfect to deceive.

But if it be a spirit from the devil he will offer his hand and you will not feel anything.

It’s fun that we never know whether or not the apparition is in fact a spirit, good or bad, or a resurrected man since the handshake was interrupted.

Since the Mormon god is a gnostic demiurge, as is the Jewish and Christian gods, it’s an obvious choice between good and bad whenever a blood sacrifice is asked and given.

I wonder whether Joseph Smith used the handshake test when an angel with a drawn/flaming sword visited to command him to practice polygyny. I don’t recall that Brian Hales addressed that cutting-edge/burning question in his article on angel-sword accounts.

[Tom]

I agree with Smoot's take on the film and think that he makes a good point about how horror, as a genre, can be "profoundly spiritual." It's the genre, more than any other, that deals with ghosts and "spirits," after all. Lots of great horror films have spiritual or religious elements--everything from The Exorcist and The Wicker Man, to Midsommar (arguably the most "Mormon" film ever made) and The Shining, which, when you think about it, is really just a re-telling of the Abraham and Isaac story. If Kierkegaard was still alive, I bet that The Shining would be his favorite movie.

I think part of the difficulty with Mormon art is that it faces a dual challenge in the sense that it gets "policed" both from within and without. Outsiders are going to be naturally biased against Mormon art simply because the religion itself is so unbelievable and "goofy." This is part of the reason why you can get successful, non-LDS productions like The Book of Mormon musical, which makes fun of Mormonism, or Big Love, which fixates on polygamy. A lot of the things that make Mormonism interesting as an aesthetic subject *are* genuinely strange and scary. But these things also have traditionally been "policed" by the Brethren and other Church authorities. A lot of the more interesting Mormon-related storytelling has come from "apostates"--so, again, Evenson's The Open Curtain, or some of Judith Freeman's work, or Brady Udall's The Lonely Polygamist--and Big Love, featuring the involvement of Dustin Lance Black, would also fall into this category. So even if there *are* praiseworthy aspects of these works, they are going to get dismissed as "anti" by the Mopologetic establishment, the Brethren, etc.

Far too much of the Church-sanctioned "art" has essentially been propagandistic, faith-promoting crap. Becoming Brigham and the Interpreter productions certainly fall into this category, as do virtually all of the material that was produced for the purposes of Family Home Evening, or D-list entertainment options like The RM or whatever else--stuff that is so watered-down and anodyne that it barely manages to appeal to the lowest TBM common denominator.

But The Angel is genuinely challenging. Here we've got [spoilers coming!] these sister wives plotting with this "angel" and ultimately killing their priesthood holder husband. Does anyone honestly think that Spencer Kimball would have been okay with this? You can read this as the women rebelling against the LDS patriarchy which, of course, tries to control them by manipulating and defining them through their procreative powers. So it should come as absolutely zero surprise the the film hasn't been praised or mentioned in fora such as "SeN," since its ambiguities are no doubt threatening to the beliefs that are at the core of the Mopologetic enterprise.

It is a good film, though, and the fact that it has been garnering praise from both sides of the divide is a good sign, in my book. I hope the filmmakers are just getting started and I, for one, am interested to see what they do next.

Thank you, Doctor Scratch, for your additional insights. I’ve read stories about William Hooper Young’s murder, but I hadn’t heard about Evenson’s novel. I will take a look.

By the way, have you seen the short missionary horror film titled The Handbook? I cited it on this board a few years ago. Content warning: the film contains violence, extreme gore, torture, and disturbing missionary rule breaking.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I’d also recommend noting the shadow as the sacrifice was happening. Carl Jung described The Shadow as the hidden or rejected parts of ourselves. It’s our impulses, fears, desires, traits, or emotions we don’t want to consciously identify with, so we push them out of awareness. The Shadow turns toward the wife, who wishes to be free from the polygamous arrangement. In other words, she’s now acting in line with her inner self, her desire to be free. In Jungian psychology you’re supposed be in line with your shadow, not at odds with it. So, it’s another indicator the wife didn’t feel comfortable being in a polygamous union.

Or, as my wife puts it, it’s not a horror movie, but rather a tale of personal growth,

[yellowstone123]

I’d also recommend noting the shadow as the sacrifice was happening. Carl Jung described The Shadow as the hidden or rejected parts of ourselves. It’s our impulses, fears, desires, traits, or emotions we don’t want to consciously identify with, so we push them out of awareness. The Shadow turns toward the wife, who wishes to be free from the polygamous arrangement. In other words, she’s now acting in line with her inner self, her desire to be free. In Jungian psychology you’re supposed be in line with your shadow, not at odds with it. So, it’s another indicator the wife didn’t feel comfortable being in a polygamous union.

Or, as my wife puts it, it’s not a horror movie, but rather a tale of personal growth,

Thank you for this information.

I've tried to read many different thoughts about about this subject. Someone I was lucky to talk with frequently explained parts to me and actually how they are your friend. He introduced me to IFS from Dr. Schwartz. It's actually liberating at times to see parts as protectors that appeared when very bad things happened. Professor Snape in the Harry Potter films is seen for so long as a dark figure, but in the long run he's a good guy.

Thanks again, Doc.

and now back to comments on the film.

[Gadianton]

It’s our impulses, fears, desires, traits, or emotions we don’t want to consciously identify with, so we push them out of awareness. The Shadow turns toward the wife, who wishes to be free from the polygamous arrangement

Until this film I'd never appreciated the potential depth of the "handshake" revelation. I'm sure I'm not the only one who even as a TBM thought the revelation was ridiculous.

I'm completely blown away by the fact that, until I saw the film, it never occurred to me that I'm not aware of a single instance from the standard corpus of TBM mythology nor the stories from my home wards and family, where somebody had a manifestation and ever tried to validate the messenger, including Joseph Smith, as Tom points out! Now, if somebody would have asked me the day before I watched this film why nobody uses the grand keys, I would have said it's because the grand keys are ridiculous, no evil spirit could be so stupid as to think they are tricking anybody by returning a handshake when they know they can't interact with the physical world. As the angel leans in for the shake -- "Ah crap, not again, you got me Joe!" It would be like that Key and Peele sketch with the tie.

But now, it's obvious that nobody uses the grand keys because people see what they want to see. If the person is hallucinating, then they already know the role the being plays in the narrative they're fantasizing about. If the the visitation is real, then the person visited is going to assume the being is good or bad depending on how advantageous the message is for them personally. If the message is mixed, the typical, "Will you press the button?" Twilight Zone scenario would lead the person visited to avoid the test because they wish to maintain deniability. I think that would be the case with the New York wife. She mutters something at the end that seems to reveal an arrangement.

I missed the handshake attempt the first time around, but the other thing I was looking for when I went back to watch the angel scene, is what was said while he was hovering above the water? I was thinking that this angel being more game-theory savvy than his peers might have used the water barrier to sneak his message in before the women had a chance to use the test. The question then would be if that's "cheating" according to eternity protocol. But he doesn't, he only announces himself and offers preliminaries before the women are in range to shake. At that point, it seems to be fair game to proceed with whatever he wants to say.

So perhaps the handshake test isn't so ridiculous after all, and once again something profound comes out of Chapel Mormonism whereas Internet Mormonism fails to get on the board. For the typical biased thinker, there is a huge risk in using the test before hearing what the messenger has to say. But once you hear the message, the psychological fortitude required to use the test has only increased, as no doubt, the angel will exploit your weaknesses. How many Utah Mormons upon attempting to shake hands with a sitting president and if they should feel nothing, would ever change their mind?

It may be that the handshake test is valid, and reveals something very deep about reality, but yet, no Mormon has ever had the mental fortitude to use it. It would make sense. A person with better sense wouldn't be the target of angels in the first place. Perhaps from the Angel's perspective, the test works equally well as an indicator as to whether their mark is trustworthy to carry out their plans contrary to facts.