Controversy over "The Chosen" line Supposedly Taken from the Book of Mormon

[Hamilton Porter]

"The Chosen" creator Dallas Jenkins was already suspect because a few LDS helped him make the movie, and he shot part of it in Utah, I believe.

Five months ago, he got into hot water when the Twitterverse erupted over the "I am the law of Moses" line from The Chosen supposedly having been taken from 3 Nephi 15:9, which Jenkins denied.

Quote

9 Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life.

Kinda cool seeing the Book of Mormon get air time like that.

This morning I woke up and saw this:

 

I'm curious to see the relationship between the author's thesis and our church's beliefs. Based on the summary, it appears he meant it more literally than the Book of Mormon does.

Quote

The Anointed One is greater than and supreme over all the religious institutions once associated with the Jerusalem tabernacle and temple.

The context for the Book of Mormon passage is in verse 5:

Quote

5 Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end.

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

"The Chosen" creator Dallas Jenkins was already suspect because a few LDS helped him make the movie, and he shot part of it in Utah, I believe.

Five months ago, he got into hot water when the Twitterverse erupted over the "I am the law of Moses" line from The Chosen supposedly having been taken from 3 Nephi 15:9, which Jenkins denied.

Kinda cool seeing the Book of Mormon get air time like that.

This morning I woke up and saw this:

 

I'm curious to see the relationship between the author's thesis and our church's beliefs. Based on the summary, it appears he meant it more literally than the Book of Mormon does.

The context for the Book of Mormon passage is in verse 5:

 

Maybe the line should have been,  "I am greater than and supreme over the law of Moses." j/k... He said similar things in the New Testament, but I think the line as delivered conveys more tension, which modern audiences like.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

This morning I woke up and saw this:

 

I'm curious to see the relationship between the author's thesis and our church's beliefs. Based on the summary, it appears he meant it more literally than the Book of Mormon does.

Well, OBVIOUSLY Dan Lioy (the author of that book) must have read the Book of Mormon too, or has some connection with Mormonism.  [Sarcasm mode off].

The accusation that The Chosen must have gotten the "I am the law of Moses" line from 3 Nephi 15:9 is crazy to me.  I could see that some Protestant perspectives might be offended by the line given that some of them see Jesus as freeing us from the need to keep any commandment, and maybe that got them to try to link it to the Book of Mormon.  But you don't have to be "Mormon" to read the New Testament and come to that same understanding, as can be seen from the topic of that book.

[Saint Bonaventure]

Quote

 

For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified. 

The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version; Second Catholic Edition. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006), Ro 10:4.

 

Quote

 

10:4 the end: The Greek can mean “termination” or “goal”. The latter sense is more probable, for Jesus came to fulfill the Law rather than to abolish it (Mt 5:17) (CCC 1953). • Christ is the end that completes, not the end that destroys, for the details of the Law were shadows that prefigured his coming (St. Augustine, Against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets 2, 26–27).

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), 271.

 

 

[Hamilton Porter]

57 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

 

I saw a Catholic say in response that the Ark of the Covenant typifies Mary and the Torah typifies Jesus.

[Hamilton Porter]

Boy this book is a disappointment. Good thing the kindle only cost $3.99.

He does little to establish Jesus as the Torah, just narrates Jesus' life and calls him the Torah while doing so.

He goes outside John A LOT. Terrible exegesis.

If anyone knows of a better book on the subject, please share.

[CV75]

I think they should create a spinoff series where a character, a descendant of Lehi's cousin who almost tagged along, surmises from stories handed down in his family, who the lost sheep are and has a series of adventures trying to locate them. His nemesis is a descendant of Laban. 

[Saint Bonaventure]

13 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I saw a Catholic say in response that the Ark of the Covenant typifies Mary and the Torah typifies Jesus.

I believe I understand where this person is coming from, but I want to revise and clarify those ideas.

First, Catholic teaching would see a typological relationship between the Ark of the Covenant and Mary, which is more than saying that the Ark typifies Mary. The relationship between the Ark and Mary is more than representational and symbolic; it's that the Ark in a fragmentary, Old Testament way anticipates, gestures to, and foreshadows Mary. The Ark carried the Old Covenant and Mary carried the New Covenant, so to speak.

I find the "Torah typifies Jesus" too watered down for similar reasons. In Catholic teaching, Jesus is the Word made flesh and, from a mortal perspective, He was accomplishing our redemption from the very moment of His Incarnation. It's much more than what was written about Him, even in Sacred Scripture. What He did and did not do, His silences, His Pilgrimages, His movement, and His stillness--everything about Him is redemptive because He is redemption. There's too much sola scriptura in the "Torah typifies Jesus" because the Incarnation goes beyond language, let alone the written or spoken word, as valuable as those are.  What I'm describing is central to what Catholics and Orthodox are getting at when they reject sola scriptura and talk about Sacred Tradition alongside Sacred Scripture. 

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Saint Bonaventure

[InCognitus]

8 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Boy this book is a disappointment. Good thing the kindle only cost $3.99.

He does little to establish Jesus as the Torah, just narrates Jesus' life and calls him the Torah while doing so.

He goes outside John A LOT. Terrible exegesis.

If anyone knows of a better book on the subject, please share.

This isn't quite the same and I haven't read this yet so I have no idea what it's like, but it looks interesting.

 

[mfbukowski]

The Didache, especially the "two ways" is a first century statement of a Pragmatic point of view applied to religion; see also Paulsen "God of Abraham Issac and William James"

Righteous living = The Plan of Happiness 

Unrighteousness living = a life of misery 

Edited April 21, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Hamilton Porter]

12 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I believe I understand where this person is coming from, but I want to revise and clarify those ideas.

First, Catholic teaching would see a typological relationship between the Ark of the Covenant and Mary, which is more than saying that the Ark typifies Mary. The relationship between the Ark and Mary is more than representational and symbolic; it's that the Ark in a fragmentary, Old Testament way anticipates, gestures to, and foreshadows Mary. The Ark carried the Old Covenant and Mary carried the New Covenant, so to speak.

I find the "Torah typifies Jesus" too watered down for similar reasons. In Catholic teaching, Jesus is the Word made flesh and, from a mortal perspective, He was accomplishing our redemption from the very moment of His Incarnation. It's much more than what was written about Him, even in Sacred Scripture. What He did and did not do, His silences, His Pilgrimages, His movement, and His stillness--everything about Him is redemptive because He is redemption. There's too much sola scriptura in the "Torah typifies Jesus" because the Incarnation goes beyond language, let alone the written or spoken word, as valuable as those are.  What I'm describing is central to what Catholics and Orthodox are getting at when they reject sola scriptura and talk about Sacred Tradition alongside Sacred Scripture. 

 

I knew I butchered it.

[Smiley McGee]

On 4/19/2023 at 7:34 AM, Hamilton Porter said:

"The Chosen" creator Dallas Jenkins was already suspect because a few LDS helped him make the movie, and he shot part of it in Utah, I believe.

Five months ago, he got into hot water when the Twitterverse erupted over the "I am the law of Moses" line from The Chosen supposedly having been taken from 3 Nephi 15:9, which Jenkins denied.

Kinda cool seeing the Book of Mormon get air time like that.

This morning I woke up and saw this:

 

I'm curious to see the relationship between the author's thesis and our church's beliefs. Based on the summary, it appears he meant it more literally than the Book of Mormon does.

The context for the Book of Mormon passage is in verse 5:

 

I’ve seen a few reaction videos to this line in the show. Pretty cringey. Leave it to evangelicals to fail to enjoy probably one of the best Christian productions because “It’S nOt BiBliCaL!!!!” Word for word gospel films are a snooze fest.

[Navidad]

On 4/19/2023 at 9:13 AM, InCognitus said:

I could see that some Protestant perspectives might be offended by the line given that some of them see Jesus as freeing us from the need to keep any commandment

Huh? Which Protestants might those be?

[Navidad]

54 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Leave it to evangelicals to fail to enjoy

Huh? Which Evangelicals might that be? Methinks the winds of normalization and generalization are blowing strong on the forum this morning!

[InCognitus]

59 minutes ago, Navidad said:

On 4/19/2023 at 10:13 AM, InCognitus said:

I could see that some Protestant perspectives might be offended by the line given that some of them see Jesus as freeing us from the need to keep any commandment

Huh? Which Protestants might those be?

I don't mean you, of course.  My Anabaptist friend and I see eye to eye on pretty much all the early Christian doctrines and practices.  

But I have talked to some Christians that teach that in Christ there is no law whatsoever.   In hind sight I wish I had asked more questions about what leader was teaching these things, or what was the name of their church so I could give you something more solid to go on than just my experience with them.  I might be able to come up with some specifics if I dig through some files on my computer.  I know of one person now who believes these things.  I'll see if I can talk to him and ask those questions.

[Navidad]

26 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I don't mean you, of course.  My Anabaptist friend and I see eye to eye on pretty much all the early Christian doctrines and practices.  

But I have talked to some Christians that teach that in Christ there is no law whatsoever.   In hind sight I wish I had asked more questions about what leader was teaching these things, or what was the name of their church so I could give you something more solid to go on than just my experience with them.  I might be able to come up with some specifics if I dig through some files on my computer.  I know of one person now who believes these things.  I'll see if I can talk to him and ask those questions.

No need to do that. My question was more rhetorical in nature. I don't think what you heard was a Protestant perspective. It was an individual's or a group's perspective who also may identify themselves as Protestants. I often talk with members of the LeBaron community. They express ideas that are not characteristic of Mormons, but identify as Mormons - maybe even more truly Mormon than the LDS (in their minds). I work hard not to characterize their beliefs as that of either Mormons or LDS Christians. They are the fringe. A fringe is never representative of "the group." I own being sensitive when I read or hear this or that being characteristic of non-LDS Christians, Protestants, or Evangelicals when I know if represents a fringe, but is presented as a norm. I have one foot in two communities. Both need to learn to be better peacemakers with the other . . . . as do I! Best wishes.

[InCognitus]

18 minutes ago, Navidad said:

No need to do that. My question was more rhetorical in nature. I don't think what you heard was a Protestant perspective. It was an individual's or a group's perspective who also may identify themselves as Protestants. I often talk with members of the LeBaron community. They express ideas that are not characteristic of Mormons, but identify as Mormons - maybe even more truly Mormon than the LDS (in their minds). I work hard not to characterize their beliefs as that of either Mormons or LDS Christians. They are the fringe. A fringe is never representative of "the group." I own being sensitive when I read or hear this or that being characteristic of non-LDS Christians, Protestants, or Evangelicals when I know if represents a fringe, but is presented as a norm. I have one foot in two communities. Both need to learn to be better peacemakers with the other . . . . as do I! Best wishes.

Yes, good point.  I tend to lump every non-Catholic, non-Orthodox (with a capital "O") Christian group (other than Latter-day Saints) into the label "Protestantism", when that's probably not accurate.  I haven't really viewed the "Protestant" label as something that people try to take ownership over, and by no means was I trying to say that these Christians that I encountered represent the "norm" of Protestantism. 

But what exactly is "a Protestant perspective"?  (Honest question).  I have seen a wide range of doctrines and practices among Protestant churches (some of them very contradictory).  Is there really a "Protestant perspective" that designates a group as truly Protestant?   Is it just that they disagree with the Catholic church and follow whatever they see as the principles of the Reformation?   Or is there a set of principles that must be followed to be considered truly "Protestant"?

Perhaps there are some common ways that the labels "Mormon" and "Protestant" are defined.  In your example above with the label "Mormon", you break it down into sub-categories like the LeBaron community or Latter-day Saints (which I take to mean members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).  Those sub-categories are more accurate designations of the different perspectives (which is also why I was trying to come up with the specific name of the group or groups that I mentioned first in my post).  But there can be home grown churches and so called "non-denominational" churches, as well as those that have a more organized governing body or a specific leader.  It gets more fuzzy as people break off into different smaller groups.

[Saint Bonaventure]

15 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Yes, good point.  I tend to lump every non-Catholic, non-Orthodox (with a capital "O") Christian group (other than Latter-day Saints) into the label "Protestantism", when that's probably not accurate.  I haven't really viewed the "Protestant" label as something that people try to take ownership over, and by no means was I trying to say that these Christians that I encountered represent the "norm" of Protestantism. 

But what exactly is "a Protestant perspective"?  (Honest question).  I have seen a wide range of doctrines and practices among Protestant churches (some of them very contradictory).  Is there really a "Protestant perspective" that designates a group as truly Protestant?   Is it just that they disagree with the Catholic church and follow whatever they see as the principles of the Reformation?   Or is there a set of principles that must be followed to be considered truly "Protestant"?

Perhaps there are some common ways that the labels "Mormon" and "Protestant" are defined.  In your example above with the label "Mormon", you break it down into sub-categories like the LeBaron community or Latter-day Saints (which I take to mean members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).  Those sub-categories are more accurate designations of the different perspectives (which is also why I was trying to come up with the specific name of the group or groups that I mentioned first in my post).  But there can be home grown churches and so called "non-denominational" churches, as well as those that have a more organized governing body or a specific leader.  It gets more fuzzy as people break off into different smaller groups.

Protestants share the 'five solas.'

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Protestants share the 'five solas.'

Thats interesting. I went to three Protestant seminaries, one Protestant graduate school, after graduating from an undergraduate Protestant college. I was licensed and ordained in a Protestant denomination. I then taught the integration of psychology and theology at two Protestant colleges. I could not, without cheating and going to Google, tell you what the five "solas" are. Let me think: 1. Sola infighting and disagreeing; 2. Sola ice cream after evening service; 3. Sola my opinion is the right one; 4. Sola pop has to be Dr. Pepper (oops, I guess that is Soda pop); 5. Sola my group will be in heaven. Did I get them right? Seriously, I have no idea about your five solas. I don't think Protestants agree on five anythings! Ha!

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Yes, good point.  I tend to lump every non-Catholic, non-Orthodox (with a capital "O") Christian group (other than Latter-day Saints) into the label "Protestantism", when that's probably not accurate.  I haven't really viewed the "Protestant" label as something that people try to take ownership over, and by no means was I trying to say that these Christians that I encountered represent the "norm" of Protestantism. 

But what exactly is "a Protestant perspective"?  (Honest question).  I have seen a wide range of doctrines and practices among Protestant churches (some of them very contradictory).  Is there really a "Protestant perspective" that designates a group as truly Protestant?   Is it just that they disagree with the Catholic church and follow whatever they see as the principles of the Reformation?   Or is there a set of principles that must be followed to be considered truly "Protestant"?

Perhaps there are some common ways that the labels "Mormon" and "Protestant" are defined.  In your example above with the label "Mormon", you break it down into sub-categories like the LeBaron community or Latter-day Saints (which I take to mean members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).  Those sub-categories are more accurate designations of the different perspectives (which is also why I was trying to come up with the specific name of the group or groups that I mentioned first in my post).  But there can be home grown churches and so called "non-denominational" churches, as well as those that have a more organized governing body or a specific leader.  It gets more fuzzy as people break off into different smaller groups.

There are a number of non-Catholic and non-Orthodox (with a capital "O"), non-LDS groups who don't claim or even like the Protestant label. This is especially true among the Pentecostals and groups like the Anabaptists. One of the fastest growing Pentecostal groups in northern Mexico and the borderlands is the Oneness Pentecostal group. Not only are they not Protestant, but they are definitely non-trinitarian. They believe Christ is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. So they only baptize in the name of Christ. What would all Protestants agree on today? I guess that they are not Catholic. There are groups that identify with being Orthodox (capital O), and with being Jewish. There are Evangelicals within the Catholic church, the Orthodox church, the Protestant groups, and the non-Protestants. I would think all would agree on the primacy of the atonement and that Christ will be the final judge. The permanency of salvation - nope! I guess all would agree, much to the surprise of my LDS friends that personal revelation is not only possible, but something to be desired. Can't think of much more. Of my three spiritual identities, none are of being Protestant. I don't think it is a very useful moniker these days, 500 years later. I am first and foremost a Christian, second an Evangelical, and third a Mennonite. None of those three require being a Protestant. Take care.

Edited April 22, 2023 by Navidad

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Thats interesting. I went to three Protestant seminaries, one Protestant graduate school, after graduating from an undergraduate Protestant college. I was licensed and ordained in a Protestant denomination. I then taught the integration of psychology and theology at two Protestant colleges. I could not, without cheating and going to Google, tell you what the five "solas" are. Let me think: 1. Sola infighting and disagreeing; 2. Sola ice cream after evening service; 3. Sola my opinion is the right one; 4. Sola pop has to be Dr. Pepper (oops, I guess that is Soda pop); 5. Sola my group will be in heaven. Did I get them right? Seriously, I have no idea about your five solas. I don't think Protestants agree on five anythings! Ha!

I'm glad you said this first, because that's pretty much what I was thinking about the "five solas".   And even for those who say they believe the "five solas", they interpret them quite differently.

Edited April 22, 2023 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I don't think Protestants agree on five anythings!

Indecently, this man's experience with Protestantism (like you describe above) and their lack of authority on anything (i.e. he explains why "sola scriptura" simply does not work) had a lot to do with his recent conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

[Calm]

5 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I tend to lump every non-Catholic, non-Orthodox (with a capital "O") Christian group (other than Latter-day Saints) into the label "Protestantism", when that's probably not accurate. 

There is, at minimum, also the Restorationist category.

I think Navidad has a good point, 500 years after the Reformation there are plenty of Christian denominations that have no need to frame their doctrine as a protest of Catholicism, but also do not fall into one of the other categories. There has been a habit to lump all non major groups into Protestantism, in my youth Saints were included as Protestants in most things. 

[Smiley McGee]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

Huh? Which Evangelicals might that be? Methinks the winds of normalization and generalization are blowing strong on the forum this morning!

I’m referring to that group of people that would hand out anti-Mormon pamphlets at my stake center each Sunday, would ridicule my beliefs openly in class in high school and say my religion was “the devil’s workshop”, would cry telling me and my Mormon friends we were going straight to hell, would antagonize my parents during my baseball games, classmates who would flip my church off as they drove by, protested the building of our temple, would show up at our institute to “debate”, told me I was serving the devil on my mission…. Now they’re losing it because a single line in a lengthy production may have some relation to the Book of Mormon. Search “The Chosen Mormon” on YouTube and see for yourself. 

[Navidad]

25 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

I’m referring to that group of people that would hand out anti-Mormon pamphlets at my stake center each Sunday, would ridicule my beliefs openly in class in high school and say my religion was “the devil’s workshop”, would cry telling me and my Mormon friends we were going straight to hell, would antagonize my parents during my baseball games, classmates who would flip my church off as they drove by, protested the building of our temple, would show up at our institute to “debate”, told me I was serving the devil on my mission…. Now they’re losing it because a single line in a lengthy production may have some relation to the Book of Mormon. Search “The Chosen Mormon” on YouTube and see for yourself. 

Fine, now what makes you think "that group of people" are Evangelicals?They sound like fringe Fundamentalists to me. If it helps, they don't like Evangelicals either. They would seriously question my salvation and commitment to the faith as well. Have you asked them where they go to church? If they "flip off" your church, they may not be Christians at all.

The equivalent to what you are doing is if I equated a Mexican Mormon Fundamentalist group with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and simply said . . . "they are all Mormons . . . they are all the same . . . they all practice polygamy!" Wouldn't that be a huge error on my part? It might upset you too, huh? BTW, I would never do that. I know the difference and would not generalize all the various Mormon sects that are out there. The non-LDS Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelicals split apart in the late 1940s. Over the senty-five years since then they have gotten further and further apart. These days they have very little to do with each other. Take care.