Some very funny Utah-based filmmakers have created a mockumentary called “Stalking Santa,” in which a man sets out to prove the existence of Santa Claus. It’s in the style of “Best in Show,” “Waiting for Guffman,” and so forth, and it’s smart, clever, and Christmasy.

It’s played at a few film festivals so far (and gotten rave reactions), but it doesn’t have a firm theatrical release date yet. (I marked it Nov. 1 because our database requires that SOME date be entered, and I’m guessing that’s about when it will be.) I’m reviewing it now because I think it’s good and I want to add my small voice of support.

Also, as mentioned in the review, a lot of the people in the film are friends of mine. I tried to remove myself from that as much as possible when I watched it, and the review reflects what I honestly think. If I didn’t really feel the movie was good, I wouldn’t have reviewed it at all. My friends have certainly done a lot of projects in the past that I never mentioned here, for exactly that reason….

The film’s official site is here.

Meanwhile, “The Work and the Glory: A House Divided,” part 3 in the series of films based on Gerald N. Lund’s historical fiction series about the early days of the LDS Church, opened in Utah last November. I believe it’s actually still playing on a few screens there. It didn’t expand northward until last month, when it played for a couple weeks at a Portland theater, where I was finally able to see it. My review is here.

The Daily Universe, student newspaper at good ol’ Brigham Young University, ran a letter to the editor on Feb. 9 that read as follows:

Bad moon pricing

Recently, there was an article about a man selling an acre on the moon for $20. I must say, I am opposed to buying a plot of land on the moon for such a price. Don’t get me wrong, I love the moon, but I just don’t think $20 for land is viable for a college student these days. The main reason: opportunity cost.

With $20, you could supply yourself with food for an entire week, unless you’re a freshman with dining plus, in which case it is only two days. You may say, “but the moon is made out of cheese, and that’s way more food.”

However, I’ve learned through some secret sources, that it is primarily made out of oxygen, silicon and iron, which have nothing to do with cheese.

With $20, you can support a homeless child for months. As advertised on TV, it costs only 39 cents per day to help Pablo have shoes on his feet and corn in his mouth. You could help him for 51 days.

Finally with $20, you can find out whether someone likes you. Simply hand them $20 and ask “Do you like me?” If they say yes, you win. If they say no, you’ll actually save money by avoiding the costs of taking them out on dates. Combine that with all the time you’ll save, and you’ll notice $20 is too much to give up.

Jon Harmon
Portland, Ore.

A few readers brought this letter to my attention because of the remarkable similarity between the final paragraph and the closing paragraphs of this old “Snide Remarks” column.

Obviously Jon Harmon was familiar with the column and appropriated it for use in his I’m-trying-to-be-funny letter. I was flattered, bemused, and a little annoyed, but not much. And before I could decide what kind of response, if any, I should give, someone else wrote to The Daily Universe complaining about Jon’s letter, only for different reasons. It was published on Feb. 12:

Narrow-minded moon

In the recent letter, “Bad moon pricing,” (Feb. 9) the author steps outside the bounds of humor and into the realm of offensiveness. He turned the ads that run on TV asking for our help in fighting poverty by providing needy people with the basic necessities of life into a joke by stereotypically giving the name Pablo to all who suffer in such a way and minimizing the relief such organizations bring. In an effort to be comical, he has offended countless readers who don’t think it’s funny to make fun of the terrible living conditions of some of our less fortunate brothers and sisters.

It’s just inherently wrong to take the pleas for help that bring sorrow to our hearts and turn them into a quick laugh. Stereotyping is one of the great ills that plague our society, and it shames me to see that it is still very much alive.

What is one to think after seeing such an outrageous letter in the readers’ forum? I might begin to wonder if BYU really is the kind of place where I would want my children to study, after seeing the way that some people make such discriminating jokes at the expense of others’ suffering. As we “Enter to Learn” I certainly hope this mentality does not reflect the manner in which we will “Go Forth to Serve.” The author owes us all an apology, and I’ll be waiting for it.

Hyrum Hemingway
Menomonie, Wis.

Now, I didn’t think Jon Harmon’s letter was funny, either (though not for lack of good material to steal from!), but Hyrum Hemingway’s response was so … well, typical. Read any day’s letters in The Daily Universe and you’ll see at least one like that.

So at last I wrote a response and submitted it as a letter to the editor. Alas, several issues of the paper have been published since then, and my letter has not seen the light of day, so I am forced to conclude they won’t be printing it. So here it is for you:

Two recent letters in The Daily Universe caused me great alarm. First, “Narrow-minded moon” (Feb. 12) criticized a previous letter-writer (“Bad moon pricing,” Feb. 9) for making light of a serious situation: He had joked about the TV ads in which viewers are encouraged to donate money to help starving children.

Now, the writer of “Narrow-minded moon” makes a good point, and he doesn’t seem at all sanctimonious or humorless, nor does he make me roll my eyes. But he missed the REALLY offensive thing about the “Bad moon pricing” letter: The part about giving a potential date $20 to find out in advance whether she likes you was blatantly ripped off from an old “Snide Remarks” column published ON THESE VERY PAGES in November 1997!

What’s that, writer of “Bad moon pricing”? You figured there was no one left at BYU who remembered “Snide Remarks,” or who bought the “Snide Remarks” book in which that column was reprinted, or who had browsed at www.ericdsnider.com/snide/how-to-do-stuff-better and read that column? Figure again, my friend! You’re busted. I might begin to wonder if BYU really is the kind of place where I would want my children to study, after seeing the way that some people at BYU steal other people’s jokes. For shame, sir. FOR SHAME.

Eric D. Snider
Portland, Ore.

The fact that Jon Harmon is from Portland and I now live in Portland is probably a coincidence. Jon Harmon, are you reading this? (I assume Hyrum Hemingway isn’t.)

Looks like I stepped in it just a little bit in my last blog entry. On the subject of gays vs. straights, I said this:

Religious people, meanwhile, often want the gay community to understand that they (they religious people) have every right to consider gay conduct sinful. And they do have that right. But when those beliefs are being used to champion secular laws restricting gays’ rights, then a line has been crossed. Preach what you want in your churches, but leave the laws out of it. [Emphasis added.]

This led some people, knowing my LDS background, to wonder: Am I saying I think the LDS Church is wrong when it urges its members to vote against legislation that would legalize gay marriage?

My thoughts can be summed up thus: Doh!

The line originally read, “But when those beliefs are being used to champion secular laws restricting gays’ rights, then maybe a line has been crossed.” Note the word “maybe.” I was covering both sides of the argument in that post, and this paragraph was addressing the gay community’s point of view. I didn’t necessarily mean for it to be a statement of my own feelings, but simply a summary of one argument: that maybe, in some people’s view, a line has been crossed.

Late in the writing process, I took out the “maybe.” It’s an old journalism-school habit, where weasel words like “maybe” and “I think” and “in my opinion” should be used sparingly, and only when necessary. I removed this “maybe” carelessly, though, without stopping to consider how it changed the tone of the sentence.

My own opinions on this topic are evolving, not to mention irrelevant to what this Web site is all about. It’s a complicated, thorny issue. Even if one opposes gay marriage, should one campaign for legislation against it? Even if one supports the church leadership generally, must one agree with every single point? If one believes gay marriage should be banned, does that mean one is anti-homosexual or bigoted? Where is the line, discussed in that Larry Miller blog entry, between “understanding” and “tolerance”?

Finally: Gay marriage is a controversial subject, with good arguments on both sides. Unfortunately, the same good arguments (as well as the stupid ones) keep getting repeated back and forth, to where you could make a template of what Every Gay-Marriage Discussion sounds like. It’s always rancorous and headache-inducing, and I don’t like it. And thus, since this is my blog and I can do whatever I want, I’m not going to allow this or any other thread to turn into a debate on the pros and cons of gay marriage. Any comments submitted that do address the pros or cons of the issue will be deleted. Trust me, this is a necessary preemptive measure. If I let it, these threads would become overloaded with posts debating gay marriage, and it would make me irritable.

In lieu of that, please read these previous message board discussions. Whatever your feeling is, I can almost guarantee someone expressed it in one of these threads, and hence there is no need to reiterate it here. If you’re reading along, and you think of a great rebuttal, keep reading: I promise, somebody else made the same rebuttal.

About the LDS Church’s official statement on gay marriage (SPOILER ALERT: They were against it)
About the LDS Church’s subsequent, more specific statement, about gay marriage legislation
About a BYU professor being fired for speaking out against the LDS Church’s position
About the Larry Miller/”Brokeback” thing

Many readers, especially in Utah, will remember the uproar when local businessman Larry Miller pulled “Brokeback Mountain” from one of his movie theaters in January 2006. The problem wasn’t that he wouldn’t show the movie (it’s his theater; he can do whatever he wants), but that he pulled it at the last minute because of its content, yet failed to pull movies like “Hostel” and “Grandma’s Boy” that were much, much more vulgar, violent, and sexual.

Last week, Miller did a very big thing: He publicly admitted that canceling “Brokeback Mountain” was a mistake.

“Not because I got beaten up over it, but because it was a knee-jerk reaction,” he said in last Thursday’s Salt Lake Tribune. “You have to choose your spots to draw your lines and I didn’t choose a very good one.”

The reason the subject came up now is that Miller owns the Utah Jazz, and a former Jazz player, John Amaechi, has recently come out of the closet, making him the first NBA player, active or retired, to publicly acknowledge being gay. Miller was being interviewed to get his reaction to Amaechi’s announcement, and naturally the “Brokeback Mountain” controversy was addressed.

I think this is remarkable. The incident is a year old and could be considered a moot point now, yet Miller takes the opportunity in the Amaechi interview to admit that he made a mistake. That shows real class and character, I think.

Miller is a devout Mormon and was praised by some in the LDS community for rejecting “Brokeback Mountain,” but I don’t think anyone sensible would turn against him now for admitting his error. He does an excellent job in the Salt Lake Tribune interview at maintaining his religious convictions while expressing understanding:

“It was good for me in a couple of ways,” he said [in regards to a meeting he had last April with a gay and lesbian group at the University of Utah]. “I learned a lot about them with some open and honest dialogue. It didn’t change my way of thinking or theirs, but we all realized after talking with each other we have a better understanding of each other.

“I’m still outspoken on issues, but I know I have to look at people’s feelings and lives. I’d like to say I’m more understanding now. To say I’m tolerant would be less accurate, but I am more understanding.”

The fight between the gay community and religion is ongoing, and I think Miller’s sentiments are the closest anyone’s going to get to a truce.

The gay community wants religious people to be “tolerant,” but to them “tolerant” often means “not considering homosexual conduct sinful.” And most religious people simply aren’t going to reach that level of “tolerance” (if that’s even a legitimate definition of that word).

The gay community often sees this as a slap in the face: Anything short of embracing, encouraging, and welcoming homosexuality is considered “intolerant.” But it’s arrogant to try to tell any religion what they ought to believe, especially if you’re not even a member of that religion. (And if you ARE a member, wouldn’t you rather your church’s leadership base its core doctrines on what they believe is God’s will, not on member voting? If my church suddenly started changing policies based solely on what I wanted, I’d have to conclude that that church was not divinely inspired, and leave it.)

Religious people, meanwhile, often want the gay community to understand that they (they religious people) have every right to consider gay conduct sinful. And they do have that right. But when those beliefs are being used to champion secular laws restricting gays’ rights, then a line has been crossed. Preach what you want in your churches, but leave the laws out of it.

So I think Miller’s statement is excellent, and it’s what religious people should strive for. “Tolerant”? Not in the sense of having changed his mind about homosexuality, no. He still believes homosexual conduct is sinful. But “understanding”? Yes. Understanding someone means you can relate to him in some ways, you have common ground, you can see his point of view — whether you agree with it or not. You can be understanding of someone’s circumstances, proclivities, and personal affairs without having to believe that what that person does is right in the sight of God.

And NO, believing that someone is sinning is NOT the same thing as judging him, or believing yourself to be better than him, or looking down at him. Some people act that way, but they shouldn’t: Haughtiness and judgmentalism are sins, too. True Christians remain humbled by the fact that they, too, have sinned, and realize that rather than scorning or condemning homosexuals, they should be grateful that they haven’t had to face a struggle like that. If Miller’s statements accurately reflect his beliefs, then he strikes me as a good man and a true Christian.

Little did I know when The Daily Herald fired me in August 2003 that I would continue to be one of their readers’ favorite writers and that I would keep winning their reader surveys every year, beating out people who actually write for them. It’s sort of like how Elvis Presley continues to be one of the top-selling recording artists every year even though he hasn’t released anything new. It’s embarrassing, really. Stop, people of Provo! Stop telling me I’m better than the people who actually live and work there!

In case you forgot, last year I was voted Best Local Print Journalist by readers of The Daily Herald. This year, the results of the Herald’s 2005 Reader’s Choice Awards are in, and we have these results:

Best Local Print Journalist
1. Becky Beaton
2. Chance Cook
3. Eric Snider

Most Controversial Print Journalist
1. Eric Snider
2. Gordon Monson
3. Robert Kirby

Gordon Monson is a sports columnist and Robert Kirby is a humor columnist, both for the Salt Lake Tribune. I had never heard of Becky Beaton or Chance Cook, so I did some googling. Cook is mostly known as a TV news reporter, though apparently he has written some outdoor/sports articles for various Utah publications. He doesn’t seem to be a staff writer at the Herald, the Tribune or the Deseret Morning News, as far as I can tell.

I couldn’t find Becky Beaton anywhere at first, and then I stumbled across her name on the Daily Herald’s Web site. She’s a sports reporter for them — but her name is actually spelled BEKY, not Becky. That’s right, folks: The Herald misspelled their own reporter’s name when they honored her in the “Best of Utah County” special section. (They did the same thing to me when I worked there. The special sections are mostly overseen by the advertising department, who are hired based on skills other than spelling and fact-checking. And, to be fair, Beky kinda threw them off by misspelling her own name in the first place.)

Anyway, I’m a little disappointed to have only placed third in the Best Local Print Journalist category, coming in behind two people who actually ARE local print journalists, and one of them only sort of. I mean, what’s up with that?

But first place in Most Controversial Print Journalist! That’s like a Pulitzer. So what if I haven’t written for a Utah County publication in 2 1/2 years, haven’t lived in Utah County for 1 1/2 years, and haven’t lived in Utah at all for almost a year? The fact that the voters remember me — or that the voters haven’t actually picked up a Daily Herald since 2003, whichever — makes me tingly inside.

If you should walk outside between now and Feb. 25 and find yourself in Provo, Utah, do two things: First, fire your travel agent; then, go see “Much Ado About Nothing” at Provo Theatre Company.

Yes, the director and some of the cast are friends of mine. But irregardlessly, this is one of the most enjoyable Shakespeare productions I’ve seen, inventive and funny and clever from beginning to end.

Christopher Clark, the director, knows his Shakespeare, believe me. Many is the time I have been edified and/or bored by Chris’ elucidations. He even lived in England for a year so he could study the art of directing Shakespeare — a good thing to learn, but such a sacrifice to learn it. (Have you ever tried to find a good restaurant in England? Forget about it.)

The cast includes such noted comedic actors as Brett Merritt, Hailey Smith and Jake Suazo. They make me laugh every time I look at them. The mark of a good Shakespeare production is whether it’s easy for a modern audience to follow the tricky language, which in turn depends on whether the actors understand their lines and deliver them in a way that conveys meaning. This entire cast speaks Bill’s dialogue as though it were their native tongue, and so the audience has no trouble following it.

I assure you, the show is hilarious. If you don’t agree, I’ll refund your money, provided you can find me, and provided I have enough cash on me, which I never do. But still, trust me, it’s funny.

Shows are at 7:30 p.m. Mondays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays through Feb. 25. Tickets are $15, or $12.50 for students and seniors. Call (801) 379-0600 or visit the Web site for more info.

I am delighted by the comedy of errors surrounding “Brokeback Mountain” and the Jordan Commons theater in Sandy, Utah.

As locals know, Jordan Commons is owned by Larry Miller, a car-dealership tycoon who also owns the Utah Jazz. A devoted Mormon, he has also financed production of some LDS-themed films such as “The Work and the Glory” and “States of Grace.”

Well, “Brokeback Mountain” was scheduled to open at Jordan Commons this past Friday. It was already playing to record-setting crowds at the Broadway Centre in downtown Salt Lake City (Sandy is a suburb 20 minutes south), and was set to open in two other area theaters on Friday, too.

On Thursday, Miller was being interviewed by KCPW-FM reporter Jonathan Brown, who brought up the imminent showing of “Brokeback Mountain.” I haven’t heard the interview, which aired on the NPR affiliate Friday, but I gather from Miller’s quoted response that Brown was expressing surprise that Jordan Commons, which has occasionally shied away from controversial movies, was showing it.

Miller said, “It’s something that I have to let the market speak to some degree…. I don’t think I’m qualified to be the community censor.”

But here’s the thing: Turns out Miller didn’t actually know what “Brokeback Mountain” was about until Brown told him.

Two hours after the interview was conducted, Jordan Commons told the local papers to pull “Brokeback Mountain” from its Friday ads, because they weren’t going to show it after all.

Now, if Jordan Commons doesn’t want to show “Brokeback Mountain,” that’s fine. Theaters are entitled to show or not show whatever films they want, and they’re not beholden to anyone to explain or justify their actions. We went through this two years ago, when nobody in Salt Lake wanted to show the gay missionary drama “Latter Days.” (The Broadway Centre eventually did show it.) Whatever your reasons — political, social, moral, financial — if you own the theater, you can drop a film.

Of course, you should probably do the dropping sometime BEFORE it’s too late, not after. In Miller’s case, it was too late to change the ads in Friday’s paper, and patrons showed up at Jordan Commons on Friday expecting to see the movie.

But here’s the funny part: Larry Miller, who owns not just Jordan Commons but the Gateway Megaplex downtown, DIDN’T KNOW what “Brokeback Mountain” was about?! What kind of bubble do you live in to not have heard AT LEAST the basic two-word summary that everyone uses to describe the film? (It’s the “gay cowboy” movie.) Even your everyday citizens have surely heard about the film, but this guy — who OWNS MOVIE THEATERS — hasn’t? I think that’s hilarious.

Naturally, Utah’s Eagle Forum was quick to applaud the decision. The Eagle Forum is run locally by Gayle Ruzicka, an ultra-conservative activist who wields enormous influence over Utah politicians despite holding no elected office. She speaks quickly and harshly against anything that cannot be squeezed into her very narrow, very black-and-white, very religious worldview. (Being religious is not a problem, of course. But expecting everyone around you to follow the same rules is.) She’s so conservative — and so outspoken about it — that even some of the conservative Mormons around her say, “Dang, she’s really conservative.”

One of the better examples of her hyperbole and fear-mongering was during the 2002 Winter Olympics, when she spoke out against the Salt Lake Organizing Committee’s having condoms available to athletes, free for the asking, at the Olympic Village health center. “Where are the athletes … getting their sex partners?” she asked. “Are they bringing their own with them … or are they going out on the streets of Salt Lake City looking for our sons and daughters? Are we giving them permission to do this with the distribution of condoms?!?!?!?!??!?!??!?!” [extra hysterical punctuation added; see this column for more background])

Anyway, here’s what Gayle said about the decision not to show “Brokeback Mountain” at Jordan Commons:

“I think it sets an example for all the people in Utah and, like I said before, he’s my new hero…. It’s such a terrible show, and it is such a horrible message. I just think (pulling it) tells the young people especially that maybe there is something wrong with this show.”

Some points:

POINT NO. 1: It’s not a “show,” Gayle, it’s a movie. Shows are on TV or in live theatrical or concert venues. If it’s been filmed and is now being projected on a screen, it’s a movie.

POINT NO. 2: How do you know it’s such a terrible movie, Gayle? Have you seen it? I would bet money that you have not. I suspect you’re relying on your legions of flying monkeys to report back to you on its content — “It has men in love with each other!” — and that’s as far as you went. You can dislike a film’s message, as gleaned from outside sources, but don’t call a movie “terrible” unless you’ve actually seen it.

POINT NO. 3: If you HAVE seen it, shame on you. It’s rated R.

POINT NO. 4: Gayle, you hypocritical gargoyle, do you know what movies DID open at Jordan Commons on Friday? “Grandma’s Boy” and “Hostel.” If we’re talking just about content, and not dealing with matters of artistic or entertainment merit, both films are far more graphic and potentially damaging to the community than “Brokeback Mountain.” Unlike “Brokeback Mountain,” which has one brief, fully clothed sex scene between two men and a few brief scenes of heterosexual married sex later on, “Grandma’s Boy” and “Hostel” feature wall-to-wall profanity, sexual vulgarity, nudity, very graphic illicit sexual activity, and rampant drug use. On top of that, “Hostel” also has gruesome, horrific violence and gore.

And that’s just the onscreen content! If we get into the ideas or “themes” of the films, it’s much more disturbing. We have premarital sex being encouraged, promiscuous young people being lionized, drug use being championed, and sadistic torturers of human beings being granted a free pass.

But don’t worry, Gayle! “Grandma’s Boy” and “Hostel” may be depraved, degrading and salacious — but at least don’t have any implications of adult men being in love with each other! So they’re totally fine, and Larry Miller can still be your new hero even though he’s showing them. I wonder, though. If pulling “Brokeback Mountain” tells young people that there’s something wrong with the movie, does NOT pulling “Hostel” or “Grandma’s Boy” tell young people that there’s NOT something wrong with them? If one move is a condemnation, then the other, logically, has to be an endorsement.

(By the way, last weekend the Broadway Centre’s box office for “Brokeback Mountain” was 12th-highest among the 300-plus theaters that were showing it. I’m sure the folks at the Broadway are happy to have Jordan Commons cancel it, because it means more audiences for them.)

Sources:
The Salt Lake Tribune
Deseret Morning News

I thought I had spent my last New Year’s Eve in Provo, Utah, but somehow I was there again this year. And by “somehow” I mean “they paid me.”

Provo is one of many cities to hold a big celebration on New Year’s Eve called First Night. (Why “First Night” when it’s actually the last night of the year? Shouldn’t it be called “First Morning”?) The intersection of Center Street and University Avenue — the exact center of town — is closed off, and so are the streets one block in each direction. A fair-like atmosphere is created, with booths, food, games, and live entertainment. The businesses in that sector offer discounts to First Night revelers.

I was honored to be invited as one of five performers on the mainstage. Before and after me were your customary rock, pop and swing bands — and then there was me, playing the piano and singing funny songs.

The weather was cold and rainy, as you’d expect it to be on New Year’s Eve in Utah, but still there were many families out and about. I was given a very warm reception by the large-ish group of First Nighters who stood in front of the stage to watch me, and it was all around an enjoyable (not to mention lucrative) experience.

Only one thing marred the event for me. Every day that week, Provo’s newspaper, The Daily Herald — where I was a writer from 1996-2003 — ran a full-page ad listing the performers scheduled for First Night. Here is the ad:

You will notice, as I did, that my name is misspelled. In big letters. In a full-page ad. That ran every day for a week. In a newspaper I worked at for seven years.

Here’s to you, Daily Herald! Keep stupiding your way to the top!

I recently began a thread on my message board (aka “The Online Village of Nerds”) desiring to know people’s opinions about the recent vote in Cedar Hills, Utah. An initiative had been proposed that, if passed, would require all businesses within the city to be closed on Sundays, and would ban the sale of beer completely, seven days a week.

Though a vast majority of the town’s residents are Mormon and don’t personally buy beer or shop on Sundays, there was some question over whether such personal choices should be turned into laws. Others countered that the laws would be better for the community, and that since nearly everyone in town followed those principles anyway, a law wouldn’t be disrupting anyone’s life.

In the end, the initiative was voted down, 60 percent to 40 percent.

But I was curious what others thought of it, so I posed a brief description of it, and then we enjoyed a (mostly) civil discussion weighing the pros and cons of it. Most of the people who spoke up said they would not have favored such an initiative, but several regular members of the message board community voiced opinions supporting it, too.

Then someone joined the board (you have to register a user name first) JUST to tell us how wrong we were. His user name was JonBird. He was heavily in favor of the initiative. He posted four messages in rapid succession replying to, disagreeing with, and piously mocking those who had said they were against it.

He said: “Surprised to see how many LDS in this nerd villiage got this issue wrong.”

When someone said, “The fact that you think there is a ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ here indicates you are either naive or ignorant. Feel free to disagree with me if you want to but don’t tell me I’m wrong. I won’t tell you you’re wrong either,” he responded: “I guess you are not person of faith because religious faith is all about what is right and wrong and proclaiming as such.”

When someone said, “Is there no room for different opinions in the LDS Church, even when the doctrine isn’t completely clear-cut?,” he responded: “There is room when the doctrine is not clear. But this is as clear as it gets. Are you unfamiliar with the Word of Wisdom or Sabbath day teachings?”

People would counter his arguments with questions, or point out logical fallacies, and he would respond to some while ignoring others (presumably the ones he couldn’t think of answers for).

Feel free to browse the thread to read more. (He shows up on page 3.)

The issue, of course, was not that he was in favor of an initiative that many others had spoken out against. Disagreeing is perfectly acceptable. There’s no right or wrong answer on an issue like this. It was the smarmy, self-righteous way he talked about it that was off-putting.

The surprising thing, and the point of this blog entry, was this: When someone asked who he was and why he had suddenly appeared on the message board, he said:

I’m a really long time fan of Eric’s from his Daily Universe days when we were both students. Long time reader of the boards. Usually i think the LDS on this board play it safe and error on the side of righteousness, but not today.

How can someone as self-righteous as this guy be a fan of mine since all the way back in the BYU days? Didn’t I used to make fun of self-righteous people, like, every week? Did he not realize I meant him, too?

“The Work and the Glory: American Zion,” the latest Mormon film to hit theaters, opened to a pretty impressive box office last weekend. It grossed $524,698, which is more than many LDS films make in their entire run.

It opened on 204 screens, making it the widest LDS opening yet. (“The Other Side of Heaven” eventually expanded to 306 screens, but not until well into its run.)

The average take was $2,572 per screen — approximately the same as “Wallace & Gromit,” “The Fog,” “North Country” and “Elizabethtown,” to name a few. Those movies all made a lot more money total, of course, because they played on more screens. But the point is, the average “American Zion” theater was about as full as the average “North Country” theater last weekend.

(I saw “American Zion” Friday afternoon in Portland, and I was one of maybe 15 people in the theater. So I’m guessing packed houses in Utah bumped up the average.)

The question is, can it turn a profit? It is a sequel, of course, to last year’s “The Work and the Glory,” which cost $7.5 million to make and grossed only $3.3 million. Video and DVD sales recouped some of the loss, but not enough to actually become profitable.

The good news for Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller, who ponied up the money this time as well as last, is that “American Zion” was filmed back-to-back with Part 3 in the series, to be released next year. Shooting the films as part of one extra-long project instead of two separate ones brought the costs down considerably. At a press conference earlier this year, the filmmakers said Parts 2 and 3 combined would cost about what Part 1 cost on its own.

With an opening weekend of $500,000, it’s possible “American Zion” will eventually gross $3.75 million. And by playing in so many theaters in so many parts of the country, more Mormons (and heck, non-Mormons too, if they’re interested) can actually see it without having to wait for the DVD.