“The Mormons” Running Commentary (Pt. 1)
Sitting here in my favorite t-shirt with a pint of Phish Food and my MacBook waiting for the PBS/Frontline documentary “The Mormons” to start. Thought I’d take a stab at keeping a running commentary…
9:00 First five images: Salt Lake Temple, missionaires, newlyweds, Harry Reid, Mitt Romney…
9:04 Introduction ends. Great intro… certainly whetted my appetite.
9:07 Great quote by Kathleen Flake, “Superficially, one thinks of revealed relgion as providing answers… and Smith provides as many questions as he does answers. Nobody is exempt from struggling with who he is, whether you’re and insider or an outsider. Thinking about Smith causes you to struggle. And that struggle brings as much of you into the question as it does Smith himself. He’s a bit of a religious Rorschach Test.”
9:10 Love all of the artwork… the images of Joseph Smith… the black and white images representing Sharon, Vermont and upstate New York– all of them beautiful in a stark, mournful kind of way.
9:12 We have our first Daniel Peterson sighting. Followed closely by Jeffrey R. Holland and Marlin K. Jensen. Terryl Givens. Greg Prince. Wasn’t Richard Bushman interviewed? Or Jan Shipps, she who coined the term “The Prophet Puzzle”? Michael Quinn?
9:17 Boy, they really glossed over the peepstones/treasure digging period of Smith’s pre-Moroni years. So far this hasn’t been particularly hard hitting; Apologist Mormons have got to be pleased.
9:20 Glad to see Peterson debunk the Urim & Thummim myth in favor of the more accurate peepstone-in-hat translation method. How many more years before this version of the translation story becomes the commonly accepted method?
9:22 Interesting Hill Cumorah Pageant footage… never seen that before. Would love to see it live for myself someday.
9:23 My wife has already fallen asleep. The Vegas “over/under” was 9:41 p.m. I took the “under,” she took the “over,” proving, once again, that I am smarter than her.
9:24 First Gordon B. Hinckley sighting. Really dislike the “either/or” position Pres Hinckley continues to trumpet: either the Church is a fraud, or it contains the most important message in the world.
9:26 Harold Bloom. Check out Bloom’s latest thoughts on Joseph Smith in the current edition of Sunstone!! Go buy a copy right now!!
9:29 So far no “talking head” has received more face time than Terryl Givens.
9:31 Interesting early image of a twentysomething Brigham Young. Never seen that before.
9:34 Wow. First Will Bagley sighting and it had nothing to do with Mountain Meadows Massacre. He describes the Kirtland Temple “pentecost” as a sort of “mass hallucination.” Gotta love Will.
9:36 Richard Bushman makes his first appearence. Eloquent as always.
9:37 Jeffrey R. Holland: “Our people knew hate… they knew what it was like to have their prophet murdered in cold blood… their blood was then spread across six states… we are a church that has had an extermination order issued against us– that is unprecedented in the history of this God-fearing nation…”
9:45 End of Missouri chapter. Again, nothing too hard-hitting. Some critics would probably argue that we (Mormons) got off easy. In other words, this documentary is closer to Richard Bushman than Fawn Brodie.
9:47 How horrifying would it have been to have Sidney Rigdon as Vice President in the White House, one heartbeat away from the Presidency?
9:49 Already talking about the Nauvoo Expositer. Wow. So far there has been very little mention of Joseph’s polygamy. No Fannie Alger. No Sarah Pratt. No mention of Emma’s feelings. No mention even of how many wives Joseph had. No mention of polyandry. I’m really surprised. No Todd Compton.
9:51 Will Bagley channeling the thoughts of Brigham Young: “How can I become a prophet like Joseph Smith? Because, unlike Joseph, God doesn’t speak to me.” I’m actually glad Bagley is here. His is one of the few skeptical voices in this documentary.
9:59 Really enjoying the various quotes from Sarah Barringer Gordon. I’m not very familiar with her. Here is her bio at Penn Law School. Is she LDS?
10:01 Enjoyed Terryl Givens’s thoughts on the physical relationship between Mormonism and dancing, singing, etc. Very eloquent.
10:09 Mountain Meadows Massacre. The documentary is pulling less punches here. “The very land itself infused people with a sense of doom that the end was nigh.” Very poetic, but not sure you can take the premise further than that.
10:13 Who is Ken Verdoia? He had now taken over Givens’s distinction as the documentary’s talkingest head.
10:18 Still going strong with MMM. This is by far the longest “chapter” in the documentary. Wonder what percentage of Mormons watching this are learning something new?
10:20 Bagley convinced Brigham Young ordered MMM. Glen Leonard convinced BY neither ordered nor condoned MMM. They certainly personify the yin and yang of the issue. “Over 150 years later people are still arguing over the ghosts of MMM.” And are there any doubts people will still be arguing over the ghosts of MMM 150 years from now, in 2157?
10:23 Dallin H. Oaks: “I have no doubt Mormons participated in the killing… I pray that the Lord will comfort those that are still bereaved by it, and I pray that he can find a way to forgive those who took such a terrible action against their fellow beings.”
10:24 All told, almost 1/4 of the first two hours devoted to MMM.
10:28 Gordon B. Hinckley (1998): “I wish to state categorically that this church has nothing to do with those that practice polygamy…”
10:28 Oops. I spoke too soon on the absence of Joseph Smith and polygamy. Fanny Alger = “an affair or marriage.” “Joseph had has many as 30 wives.” Kathleen Flake discusses its impact on Emma Smith. Ken Clark: “His sexual desire drove the practice.” Margaret Toscano: “He was struggling to bring together spirituality and sexuality…” Kathleen Flake not convinced Joseph’s polygamy can be reduced to Joseph’s sex drive– “it’s too simplistic.”
10:32 “20-30% of the Saints were polygamists.” President Hinckley recently stated it was 2%.
10:33 Well, this second hour (MMM and Polygamy) will no doubt be much tougher on the feelings or sensibilities of faithful Mormons than the first hour.
10:41 Woodruff’s manifesto not a revelation. Post-manifesto polygamy discussed. Kathleen Flake’s take makes sense.
10:45 Gordon B. Hinckley: “There is no such thing as a Mormon Fundamentalist. It is a contradiction to use those two terms together.”
10:46 All of this polygamy talk reminds me once again of the truthfulness of the maxim: “Variety is the spice of life.” So tomorrow night I’m thinking I’ll bed down with a pint of Wavy Gravy instead of Phish Food. I hope Phish Food doesn’t get jealous. Make a mental note to muffle any moans of pleasure.
10:47 The Mormon Fundamentalists seem to be coming off pretty well. I’d imagine they are pleased. This Timpson family could easily be the family on HBO’s Big Love.
Well, overall I am impressed and pleased with the documentary. Based on the preview, tomorrow’s episode might even be more interesting.
What did you all think???
April 30th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Same old same old. Where are the 3 witnesses and chiasmus? I thought she would take a look at some things that would make the world wonder HOW DID THEY DO THAT?! The only subject for which they did that was MMM. Boo! No time to elaborate — more later perhaps. Thanks for the commentary.
Love, Anon
April 30th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Yeah, anon, they missed some things.
On the controversial side: No discussion of the various version of the First Vision. No discussion of the Pearl of Great Price papyrus. No discussion of Masonry. No discussion of the Danites or Council of Fifty. Blood Atonement.
On the faithful side: No witnesses. No chiasmus. Any discussion about D&C? Relief Socity? Restoration of the Priesthood?
But they can’t cover it all. All said, I think Whitney did a pretty good job.
April 30th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
I didn’t think I’d learn anything new. But I have never before heard that BY struggled as the successor to JS, wondering why God didn’t speak to him. What evidence do we have for this?
I was surprised when they mentioned JS falling out of the window at Carthage “calling to his God” that they mentioned nothing of Masonry.
I thought it was a huge oversight that they spoke of Mormons “baptizing their dead relatives” without the teeniest mention that it was done Vicariously!!
I liked the Evangelical who said that while he didn’t believe JS’s claims, he believed that Joseph was sincere, therefore “I live with a mystery.”
I hate when members like Kathleen Flake call the prophet “Smith.”
I’m looking forward to hearing what Margaret Toscano has to say tomorrow. I think she will probably address some of the issues that concern me in the Church.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:41 am
I left a long post on fmh….now that i’ve calmed down a bit, i’m thinking- Jesus Christ will make everything alright when he returns, and someday we will know what we need to know. no more mysteries,no more controversies, no more anti-this, anti-that.
i’m taking some deep breaths….i’m going to pray tonight that the Lord will comfort me and i’ll not fear the unknown and realize that we are all human and we make mistakes, even leaders of the Church.
i just want to say that i feel a bit out of place blogging…i’m not very highly educated(some college), and i struggle with a mental illness. don’t know alot of big words, just what’s in my heart, so that’s what i say. its simplistic i guess, but that’s how i’m made.thanks for listening.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:25 am
Overall the documentary was very good. In fact sometime today I will be ordering my own copy. It seems like the kind of thing that someone like me might want to have in their collection of DVDs. My parents who are not as familiar with things like Mountain Meadows were surprised, but over left unphased. I read Rough Stone Rolling and am working on Leonard Arrington’s book about Brigham Young. I am a bit like the late Davis Bitton who said that knew the Church was true not because of its’ history. I feel same the way. But I suspect that after watching previews for tonights episode that this final installment might be a bit more troubling to conservative members. But I am looking forward to it.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:58 am
Nita,
I read your comment on fmh, but your comment here seems a bit more settled. Hang in there, you’ll be fine, and I hope you found the comfort you were seeking last night.
As to feeling out of place blogging, I think most of us feel the same way.
Don’t worry about coming across as simplistic or be concerned about who has what degree, your contributions are valued.
Regards,
Rory
May 1st, 2007 at 7:44 am
I thought the documentary was very well done, and very balanced–perhaps on the kind side. I was irritated though, when the unidentified speaker claimed Joseph was “calling upon God” as he leapt from the window at Carthage Jail. Nobody ever came up with that nonsense until B. H. Roberts, who apparently couldn’t handle the fact that Joseph Smith was a Freemason, and was giving the masonic cry of distress. John Taylor and other contemporaries had no question about what Joseph was doing.
I just hope the Timpson family isn’t the next target of some state’s attorney general. I thought they were incredibly impressive.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:47 am
Re: Matt (#2)
No discussion of the various version of the First Vision
I thought they touched on this very briefly. They mentioned that each account became more fantastic, as I recall.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:10 am
Matt,
Sally Gordon is definitely not LDS. She’s quite well-educated on the church, though, and is not at all hostile. Her book “The Mormon Question” about the legal effects of polygamy on American law is quite good.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:53 am
Nita (#4), you articulate a pain many have experienced. Rather than getting upset about it, look at it as an opportunity for growth. I’ve noticed some at FMH have rushed in to comfort you that “the Church is still true,” and I’m sure others will opine that your pain is the first step in your eventual realization that the Church is somehow false or fraudulent. Neither opinion comes close to scratching the surface of the complex, messy, and beautiful reality of life. Just remember that there are innumerable valid opinions between those two extremes.
I wonder how many LDS felt like Nita after watching last night’s doc? Anyone have a friend or family member who felt like Nita? Reminds me once again that if the Church doesn’t educate its members, the world will. Has this not been proven time and time again since 1830?
I thought all the same things, Bored in Vernal (#3).
May 1st, 2007 at 9:25 am
I left a longer post over at T&S, but let me just say that I was chagrined to realize that one of my adult children had not heard of the MMM before, and my youngest, 19, learned about it from the History Channel. I am not so much unhappy about the church not teaching it as I am at myself for not doing a better job in my own family.
Overall, I thought it was well balanced, considering trying to cover some 75 years of church history, including it’s most important events and doctrines, in just two hours. Looking forward to tonight’s conclusion.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:44 am
Agree, Kevinf (#11)… as I said at BCC (somewhat expanding on what I said in #10 above) in response to Kevin Barney’s thoughts on the benefits of “innoculation.” I agreed with Barney’s innoculation premise, but wondered why it had to come from a source outside the Mormon family. I said:
This proves once again that if the Church doesn’t educate its members, the world eventually will. Not that that is a good thing. This “strategy” (or lack thereof) reminds me of the parents who are too scared, embarrassed, or nervous to have the Birds-and-Bees discussion with their kids, leaving the responsibility to the world (friends, television, internet, etc.). In this case, a parent can only be so lucky that their child happens to learn of the Birds and Bees from such an understanding “friend” (Helen Whitney).
May 1st, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Thanks everyone for accepting me as i am. i am feeling much better today. i have left 3 posts on FMH, if anyone cares to read those(my wrists are hurting!!)
i DO know the Church is true. i have had so many wonderful confirmations thru the Spirit to deny the truth of the Savior’s perfect Gospel. Especially in the Temple, where i knew my ancestors were there, accepting their baptisms. i did not imagine those beautiful feelings and emotions.
i know my Heavenly Father and Savior live and that they love me and someday, we will all know the mysteries and all will be ok.
so today, i am going to do my shift at the Family History Center with a renewed feeling of faith in my Lord.
Prayer is a beautiful way to be calmed and know that i am loved.
Blessings to you all and have a wonderful day!
Nita
May 1st, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Maybe I’m weird, but I just didn’t feel any pressing need to watch this documentary. I mean, I’ve been a Mormon all my life, I’ve read all kinds of books on all different aspects of it, I’ve attended all kinds of classes, I preached it for two years. What on earth could these people tell me that I don’t already know?
Maybe I’m just easily bored.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Overall I was VERY pleased with the documentary.
Someone above said that they didn’t address the different versions of the First Vision.In fact, they did. After presenting the “official LDS version,” several talking heads made reference to the earlier versions, and how with each version, the vision became more grand and Joseph’s prophetic role became more central.
Thought they did a great job with polygamy–going from Joseph “affair/marriage” to Fanny Alger in Kirtland to current day polygamists. From 1979 until 1989, while a student at BYU I became involved with Mormon Fundamentalists–not the FLDS Church or any group,but individual Mormon familes in Provo and Salt Lake. Most looked like the polygamist family interviewed here. In fact, at that time most of the polygamist wives whom I knew defined themselves as feminists and were pro-ERA(and upset that the LDS Church was against the ERA.)
I’m really looking forward to tonight’s episode–dealing the modern issues like historical scholarship, Mormon gays, Mormon feminists, etc.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I, on the other hand, was really sucked in by the show and am looking forward to tonight’s.
I’ve been impressed with its evenhandedness. If I had a friend interested in Mormonism, I’d have them watch this documentary instead of taking the missionary discussions.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:22 pm
But then I’m not as smart as Stephen…..so maybe it just takes less gerbils to spin my wheels.
: )
May 1st, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I meant “fewer gerbils”
See what I mean?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Sally Gordon’s book THE MORMON QUESTION is, in my opinion, the best study so far wriiten on 19th century Mormon polygamy and constitutional law.
One of the things I like about the book is that in the final chapter she points out how the LDS Church’s currernt position on same-sex marriage contradicts the basic principles that the 19th century Church held regarding consensual adults relationships and the law; that the currernt LDS Church has basically adopted the exact same principles as the Church’s 19th century enemies.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Someone above asked who Ken Verdoia is.
Ken Verdoia directed several Utah PBS documentaries in the 90’s on Mormonism—including one on Brigham Young that is actually very good, and the excellent four part series UTAH: THE STRUGGLE FOR STATEHOOD. If you haven’t seen either of these, I highly recommend them.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:49 pm
On Gordon B. Hinkley’s quote that only 2% percent of LDS Church members were polygamists:
When I joined the Church , that was the figure being cited in missionary tracts and on Temple Square tours (IF anyone aksed about polygamy.) From everything I’ve read over the years, 30% is closer to the actual number. After all, people kept journals, there’s the LDS geneology library, and census reports. It’s not as if one doesn’t have actual records to turn to for the real numbers.
But then Gordon B. stated “There is no such thing as a Mormon Fundamentalist.” (Just as there’s no such thing as a “homosexual” person.)
Someone really needs to let the 30,000 to 60,000 polygamists living in the western US know that they don’t exist.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Thanks for the tips in #19 and #20, Rob.
Stephen, I kind of see where you are coming from. My interest was less in the content (i.e. learning something new) than in the phenomenon (i.e. seeing what the esteemed PBS had to say about the Mormons). While watching the doc I found myself more focused on the political subtext than the informational text, if that makes sense.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I learned something new.
No undergarments for Moroni? Complete nakedness under the robe when he appeared to Joseph?
It did make me raise an eyebrow.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I watched last night’s documentary with my teenage daughter. My daughter has never understood why I am a heretic when it comes to the church, and I have never felt comfortable explaining it to her in much detail. I want her to have a good experience with the church like I did growing up, but at the same time I want her to understand where I’m coming from. It is a difficult balancing act. It was difficult for her to see some of the warts on church history. She got very upset at a couple of points during the program and had many questions. She had never heard of the MMM and had only vague ideas about polygamy. She did not realize JS was a practicing polygamist or that he kept this information from his wife Emma or that Emma had refused to follow BY because of this issue. In short, there are many holes in her church history education that probably need to be filled. I am tempted to rush in and answer all her questions and make everything better, but I think it is best to let her stew about it on her own for a while. She is at an age (early high school) where she needs to learn to cope with difficult issues. I hope she comes away with a more mature perspective about her faith. I hope it doesn’t destroy her faith the way it did mine when I first came across these issues. Last, I hope she comes away with a better understanding of her old dad.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:54 pm
On the whole I thought it was fairer and more evenhanded than most programs on controversial subjects (Mormons or otherwise).
They devoted more time to MMM than it deserved — while terribly tragic, the massacre isn’t a huge part of Mormonism. And they quoted Bagley as being sure BY ordered the murders because “he knew everything that was going on in Utah Territory.” I guess Bagley thinks BY had a cellphone; he didn’t offer any other explanation as to how he could have known what was going on at MM. The other commentator made it seem that BY ordered the Indians to kill the people in the Fancher train, when the quote he used actually was referring to “cattle” (not people) and the it involved an entirely different place (the northerrn Utah route to Carson City). Balanced against these misstatements we had just the single statement by Glen Leonard that he hadn’t found any evidence that BY ordered the massacre or knew about it at the time.
Although the program posed the question of why the Mormons were so hated, it didn’t really provide a satisfactory answer. I think the biggest factor was the Mormons’ attempts to control the political and economic process. Most people can tolerate minorities, no matter how wierd, if they don’t get too uppity and interefere with the majority’s interests. This wasn’t explained.
Regarding the Nauvoo Expositor, one of the talking heads made it seem that Joseph Smith just lost his temper and went down and destroyed the press. What actually happened is that they had a lengthy, day-long meeting of the Nauvoo City Council, where the problem was discussed and lawyers and law books were consulted. The Council determined that the Expositor could be destroyed on the ground that it was a public nuisance. We might quarrel with this conclusion, but it wasn’t entirely unfounded legally. And it makes two important points — Joseph wasn’t just reacting in an unthinking rage, and the mob was more incensed by the fact that the Mormons were a law unto themselves than they were by the fact that the newspaper had been destroyed (or that the Mormons practiced polygamy).
Minor point: I liked the image of the single horseman riding as they told the story of Joseph leaving Kirtland, but actually he left with Sidney Rigdon and both their families.
The real story of the Mormons once they got to Utah was given short shrift. That story is not Mountain Meadows. It is the organizational genius of Brigham Young in building up a political and economic kingdom stretching from San Bernardino to Las Vegas to Carson CIty to Idaho to Canada to Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico and even Old Mexico. These godforsaken areas (with apologies to San Berdu) would never have been settled so soon or so widely without the central planning of BY.
And where did the people come from to make Nauvoo one of the two biggest cities in Illinois and to create a multi-cultural kingdom in the mountain west? Nary a mention of the incredible early missionary efforts that began in England and spread throughout the British Isles, Scandinavia, Germany, Italy, France, Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific islands. I assume they’re going to talk about the present day missionary effort in Part 2, but the historic effort certainly could have taken some of the time from the MMM, had they wanted to accurately portray the Mormon phenomenom.
Finally, is there anything about our doctrine that is important other than the fact that we believed in polygamy? But I can’t be too critical here because they were trying to make an “interesting” program and a lot of doctrinal stuff wouldn’t have been that interesting.
Anyway, I’m not criticizing them for being biased or unfair, but perhaps of focusing a little too much on the “sexy” and controversial aspects of the religion (polygamy and MMM) and neglecting what really makes the Church unique. Let’s hope some of that will be covered in Part 2.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Nice critique, Dad. I think you make some good points about choice of topics covered and the proportion of time devoted to each topic. Of course, the entire “Missouri Period” of Mormonism was covered in only 4-5 minutes last night and Haun’s Mill represented at least half of that allotted time, maybe more. You could argue that other topics deserved mention and that the Haun’s Mill episode received too much time (in proportion to the rest of the Missouri events). But the filmmakers obviously chose the sensational, headline-grabbing part of the Missouri period over the many other important events that happened during that time.
Most documentaries no doubt follow the same M.O. For example, a documentary on Henry VIII will probably devote a larger amount of time to his six wives than balance or proportion requires, but that is the part of his life that fascinates us. Were I a non-LDS observer, I think I would have felt cheated if MMM and polygamy were given short shrift.
And compared to the amount of time we devote to topics of MMM and Polygamy in Church — no time at all — (an imbalance in the other direction), this kind of makes up for it, at least from my LDS perspective. I’m kind of glad my fellow Mormons got a 25-minute taste of each topic. For many, it was probably their first, or at least deepest, exposure to the scandalous side of Mormon History.
AVO, enjoyed your comment too. I like your approach; you sound like a good father.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Todd,
If you read Joseph Smith’s history in THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE, he goes into great detail on how Moroni was barefoot and naked beneath his robe. These details always tsruck me as odd, interesting…
May 1st, 2007 at 10:17 pm
I’ve been looking forward to watching this documentary for several weeks. I barely made it home in time to watch it tonight and I was disappointed when I thought I might miss the first few minutes. Thanks for getting this discussion started, Matt.
I love the way they’ve presented a mix of academic, spritual, historical, cultural, anecdotal, inside, and outside aspects of the church. I also really like the way they’ve left the audience wondering about a few of the people speaking on the show - are they members? Are they not? Personally, I’ve been able to listen more objectively and with less bias because I have been wondering about whether Sally Gordon or others are loyal active members or just bystanding observers.
One of the most drawing features for me was that several family members have made it blatently clear they want me and my husband watching this. It kind of increased my interest. I found myself hoping that the presentation would be objective, and I’ve been pleased with the outcome - they’ve talked about the bad and they’ve talked about the good.
Ok, I’m watching the part about women now so I’ve got to stop typing and start paying attention.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Hmmm….my comment got lost……if any Sunstone computer people find it, let me know.
So rather than re-creating it now I will just say I really enjoyed these two nights of The Mormons. A few family members quite directly expressed interest in my husband and I watching it, and it piqued our interests to say the least. I’ve been really impressed with the objective presentation and the way they’ve presented the bad and the good.
I like the way they didn’t tell you exactly who it was speaking - I was able to listen with a lot less bias because I didn’t know whether, Sally Gordon for example, was a loyal active member or an observing bystander.
I’ve enjoyed the academic/spiritual, insider/outsider, evidence/anecdotal, doctrinal/cultural combinations. I also thought yesterdays’ historical focus and today’s modern focus was a nice contrast.
Has anyone seen other films by Helen Whitney? I’d like to see more of her work.
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:35 am
[...] Blog “The Mormons” Running Commentary (Pt. 1) “The Mormons” Running Commentary (Pt. [...]
May 4th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
I consider myself an objective and analytical person. I was disappointed in the quality of journalism displayed in “The Mormons” documentary. It really made me question the objectivity in other programs backed by Frontline and American Experience. I do not think the filmmakers were actively trying to push an agenda but I do feel they fell into the same pitfalls and stereotypical biased reporting of the Church on the most controversial topics. I write this post not to cry evil and argue that the documentary was ‘completely biased’ or ‘wrong’ or anything to that effect. I believe in questioning and thinking deeply on imformation presented to me and just wanted to point out some failings that I saw that should make us think. Evidence of perpetuating stereotypes and poor journalism:
Perpetuating Stereotypes:
Mormons worship Joseph Smith: The narrator, who should be most objective, says Joseph Smith is the “Alpha and Omega” of the Latter-day Saints. No Latter-day Saint would agree with such a statement. Taking Biblical language used for Christ and applying it to Joseph Smith has clear connotations of old, false notions that Mormons worship Joseph Smith or are not Biblical Christians.
Mormons practice polygamy: Even after showing a clip of the leader of the Mormon church saying categorically that Mormons do not practice polygamy the filmmakers proceed to show a long segment on the lifestyles of “fundamentalist” Mormons. I believe that modern day practicing polygamists are newsworthy and interesting but not clearly separating such practitioners from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only perpetuates the stereotypes.
Mormonism contains witchcraft:
The translation of Book of Mormon is portrayed as mystical with a strong focus on use of a seer stone with repeated ‘looming’ images. They do not mention elements of the translation that are perhaps most remarkable: the speed in which a 500 page book was produced, accounts of witnesses of the translation process, or showing of the original manuscripts showing no editing, no breakage in dictation yet remarkable internal consistency and external consistency to things not known in Joseph’s day about Near Eastern or Mesoamerican culture and language.
Missionaries are annoying: showing outward stereotype of missionaries ‘harassing people on the streets and not showing the “inside” view that missionaries do not like street contacting, are taught it is the least effective way of finding people to teach, nor do they show missionaries inside a person’s home who actually enjoy and welcomed them.
The Amount of Airtime given to topics:
Airtime given to ex-mormons or historical critics vs. practicing believers. Why do journalists covering the Mormons continually go to ex-mormons or historical critics for the final say in Mormon doctrine and Mormon living. Why would you ask a Quaker to define Islam? Or a Catholic priest to be the expert on Buddhist philosophy?
The amount of airtime given to widespread systematized persecution, murder, and rape of the Mormons vs. the amount given to a one-time incident of a isolated small group of Mormons.
Airtime given to the sexual overtones of polygamy with added commentary vs. brief statement by narrator that many (if not most) plural marriages were not sexual at all.
Not allowing believing LDS commentaries on the most controversial topics:
No LDS commentary allowed after claim of “no archaeological evidence” of the Book of Mormon
No LDS commentary allowed after claim that the Book of Mormon has no ancient elements, a “nineteenth century creation”.
No LDS commentary about Joseph Smith and ‘golddigging’ claims only that of an ex-mormon.
No LDS commentary in regards to a strong statement of a scholar saying Joseph was “faking it” in relation to the creation of the Book of Mormon.
No LDS commentary allowed on the issue of the blacks and the priesthood. Why not interview someone like Jessie Embry who is well known researcher on the topic.
No examples of believing LDS intellectuals. How about a Truman Madsen, Havard trained philosopher yet believing Mormon?
No active LDS perspective on the excommunication process. No story from the perspective of someone who had a positive experience and eventually returned to the church. All of this coupled with a completely false image of a lone chair in front of a wall of judges.
No active LDS commentary allowed to an ex-mormon’s strong claim that “his (Joseph’s) sexual desire drove his practice (of polygamy)”
No active LDS commentary allowed to claims that Joseph had an “affair” with a nineteen year old girl.
No LDS opinion allowed in regards to the decision to end polygamy.
It’s right and proper to allow differing opinions but to not give voice, particularly, to the accused is poor documentation.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:16 am
Hello, this is my first post on anything like this, but I suppose this is as good of a place as any to ask my questions:
- From my perspective, it seems that the foundations of the Church are, for the most part, demonstrably false. The organization appears to have been built upon the teachings of J. Smith. Doesn’t it necessarily follow that the religion he customized is false as well? (See President Hinckley’s comment that it is either the greatest work or a fraud?)
-And it seems when you take away all the specific teachings of J. Smith and other leaders that were “new” or “restored” then you just go back to the “old” or ‘historical” Christianity, so the question becomes why would you not then become a “historical Christian,” especially knowing that; Jesus tells us to be willing to forsake house and home for truth, Paul and Moses’ repeated warnings addressing false prophets, Jesus’ teaching that parallels with the Church calling some people “white washed tombs, bright and shiny white on the outside but dead and full of dry bones on the inside,” and the evils of syncretism?
- If you approach it from this point of view, I cannot understand what motivates a person to remain, save it be for the reason of unity in family or a comfort zone. Granted, there are many things that the LDS church offers that are good, and those things would motivate me to be LDS in a second, but the truth as I see it is that my eternal life is on the line.
I thank you for understanding that in no way am heckling or just wanting to share my opinion, but this is genuine question out of curiosity and confusion. Thank you.
Jason
P.S. In regards to the show, I’m curious how has it affected lay members of the church? Does any one know of any one who said “What? I cant believe this, I’m out!” Or anything like that?
May 11th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Jason — I knew 95% of the stuff going into the documentary. Was it Harlod Bloom who said, “If you can believe (insert various religion), then you can believe Mormonism.” ? Anyway, I agree with that idea. It isn’t hard to believe. It is even very logical at times (not always).
Much smarter people and better people than me “buy it” from top to bottom, warts and all. I aspire to be more like that, smarter, better and more convinced of the truth.
This is probably the wrong forum for discussing all of your questions. I am quite certain that I don’t speak for many on this discussion board. But count me as one who would stake my life on the proposition that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is Jesus Christ’s church restored here on the earth.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Jason,
I’m not sure what kind of criteria you used to come to the conclusion that Mormonism was “demonstrably false,” but it seems to me that the same criteria could also be used to debunk what you call “historical Christianity.” While we cannot compare the amount of information we have from the mid-1800s to the times of Moses, Christ, or Paul, the truth claims of the latter are no more realistic (or preposterous) than the truth claims of the former (Smith/Mormonism). It would be silly to hold the lack of information from the times of Moses, Christ, or Paul as proof or evidence that their claims are somehow more “true” than the claims of Joseph Smith. A cursory study of the compilation and translation of the Bible alone should give a fact-checker like you serious pause.
At the very least, you should know that you cannot prove that “historical Christianity” (let alone practically any religious claim) is “demonstrably” true.
In truth, you seem to be no different than many believing Mormons in the sense that you are schizophrenic in your approach to competing world views. To one worldview (ostensibly “historical Christianity”) you appear to employ the forgiving lens of “faith”; to another (Mormonism) you employ the critical lens of your favorite carving knife (i.e. science, linguistics, philosophy, genetics, etc.).
For the record, I have no problem with approaching religion with a critical eye. The opinion/conclusion that Mormonism is “demonstrably false” is perfectly valid. But you can’t prove it. (And even if you could, I think you’d be missing the point.) More important, however, your argument and opinion just don’t hold water if you selectively use the tools of historical/scientific/philosophical/etc criticism and faith.
Answering your third bullet point… Most Mormons “remain” because they have faith in its truth claims. Those that don’t believe its literal truth claims remain because they recognize that “religious truth” is ineffable, impossible to know/prove, and yet not without merit, and possibly indispensible.
May 11th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
anon,
“It isn’t hard to believe. It is even very logical at times (not always).”
this is why i am confused. maybe im just assuming and seeing things to black and white. let me break down and you can tell me;
1. i am (jason estopinal) and i am a prophet.
2. it has been proven that some of my prophicies have been false as well as the fact that i have lied many times.
3. so doenst it follow that i am, by definition, a false prophet and i am “not to be feared”?
thank you kindly for your thoughtful responses.
May 14th, 2007 at 9:00 am
David Stoker, there are several inaccuracies in your catalog of inaccuracies, but the most notable is the idea that no believing Mormon intellectuals were interviewed–Terryl Givens is active (recently a bishop, I think), Richard Bushman is Harvard-trained and a patriarch, and Kathleen Flake is a professor at Vanderbilt and the Gospel Doctrine teacher in my brother’s ward. I think Terryl and Richard, in particular, had as much airtime as anyone.
You might want to read some of the interview transcripts posted at pbs.org…
May 15th, 2007 at 3:01 am
I enjoy the PBS show on the Mormons viewed here in Australia via the Internet.While no longer a Mormon i was feeling sympathetic towards the LDS. I would have liked to have seen some discussion of the Book of Abraham., perhaps an interview with Compton over polygamy. I also wish they have interviewed both Bushman more as well included Dan Vogel.
IIf they had produced a doc on the SDAs i would have been happy for them to tallk about the health and food program they have, their college and school system, however i would liked them to also interview the guy who wrote “The White Lie” as well as SDA scholars who stay in the church. No media satisfies both believer and nonbeliever no matter how hard they try to be balanced. The same happens with political reporting.
May 15th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
David wrote: “Mormons worship Joseph Smith: The narrator, who should be most objective, says Joseph Smith is the “Alpha and Omega” of the Latter-day Saints. No Latter-day Saint would agree with such a statement.
I am a devout and believing Mormon, and I TOTALLY agree with this statement about joseph Smith.
Without Joseph Smith, there would be no Mormonism as we know it.
No where in the series did anyone state that we worship Joseph Smith (though if they had explored the place that Josepj held on 19th century LDS theology, they may have discovered that Brigham Young, John Taylor and other early LDS presidents taught that Joseph Smith–not Jesus Christ–would judge everyone who lived in his dispensation on the day of judgement. And the LDS hym “Praise to the Man’–which is STILL in the LDs hymnal, states that Jospeh Smith is now numbered among “the Gods.”)
HISTORICALLY speaking, one cannot underdstand Mormonism without first and last understanding Joseph Smith. While Jesus Christ is now central to currernt LDS theology (what scholars call “Neo-Mormonism. Orthodoxy”) and while the LDS Church subtitled the Book of Mormon “Another testamtent of Christ” in tnhe 1980’s, Joseph Smith himself brought forth the book. To believe in the Book of Mormon as history, to believe that the LDS Church has Priesthood authority direct from God, one must FIRST accept Joseph Smith’s claims to the miraculous as real.
Any OBJECTIVE historican would have to begin his investigation of Mormonism with Joseph Smith himself. To start with Jesus Christ would imply that the historian took at face value the supenrtaural claims of Joseph Smith or the historicity of the Book of Mormon–and this would make the investigation SUBJECTIVE.
I continue to be amazed at how many seemingly intelligent and educated LDS challenge the “aplha and omega” statement that was made IN THE OCNTEXT OF understanding Mormon history and cultural. Taken in context it clearly was NOT a theological declaration.
Context, people…..Context is everything.
May 15th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
David logged the following complaints about the PBS series “The Mormons”:
The translation of Book of Mormon is portrayed as mystical with a strong focus on use of a seer stone with repeated ‘looming’ images. They do not mention elements of the translation that are perhaps most remarkable: the speed in which a 500 page book was produced, accounts of witnesses of the translation process, or showing of the original manuscripts showing no editing, no breakage in dictation yet remarkable internal consistency and external consistency to things not known in Joseph’s day about Near Eastern or Mesoamerican culture and language.
David,
You need to do a bit more reading into the history regarding the writing and publishing of THE BOOK OF MORMON.
The handwritten manuscripts exist, portions have been puboished, and throughout the entire manuscript on nearly every page words and sentences were scratched through DURING THE DICTATION, and then rephrased because the original distctaion was unclear, made no sense or changed the conext of the idea being expressed. In short the original BOOK OF MORMON manuscript looks no different than ANYunpublished manuscript.
The dictation was not all that speedy. Remember Joseph dictated over 110 pages, lost them, then called of the writing for months. Then he began again, and there were stops and starts trhoughout the process. I highlyrecommend Dan Vogel’s book JOSEPH SMITH: THE MAKING OF A PROPHET. Vogel goes through the Book of Mormon, event by event and sermon by sermon, noting the dates on which those sections were dictated by Joseph, and what Joseph, his family and friends recorded what was happening in Joseph’s life during those weeks. It is very interesting, informative and eye-opening.
As for referenecs top Meso-America, there aren’t any in the Book of Mormon. Adabvces in Meso-American history anmd archeology inrecent decades have revealed a wealth of info on those cultures.
The LDS Church did not begin earnestly linking Mseo-American civilizations with the peoples decribed in THE BOOK OF MORMON until the 20th century. The ruins of tha Mayan weren’t commonly known about by Joseph SMith and the early Mormon until the Nauvoo, Illinois period.
At the time THE BOOK OF MORMON was being dictated, published and irest distributed by early Mormon missionaries, the claim of Joseph Smith was that it addressed the hsitory of the Mound Builders of the eastern and mid-western United States–NOT Meso-America. The Hill Cumorah in Palmyra WAS declared to be THE hill described in the BOOK. (The two theory of two Hill Cumorahs is a 1960’s theory.) During Zion’s March in the mid 1830’s, Joseph declared that a stretch of land in Ohio was the site of the BOOK OF MORMON city of Manti. Also the cities described in the BOOK are not made out wood–NOT stone. Clearly to anyone who knew anything about the mysterious Mound Builders of the eastern US (the Mississipian cultures), THE BOOK OF MORMON was dealing with those civilization–NOT those of Meso-America.
May 15th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Because I wrote the above quickly and without the aid of my peep stone it is filled with mis-spellings, typos. etc. Please forgive and try to over look these things, for they are the result of my own fallen nature and the weaknesses of the flesh.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Now this shakes my testimony —
David wrote: “Mormons worship Joseph Smith: The narrator, who should be most objective, says Joseph Smith is the “Alpha and Omega” of the Latter-day Saints. No Latter-day Saint would agree with such a statement.
I am a devout and believing Mormon, and I TOTALLY agree with this statement about joseph Smith.
Not my testimony of the gospel, but rather, my testimony of Rob Lauer. Prior to this comment I could testify that he was a highly-informed and well-reasoned seeker of truth. Okay. He is still all of those things. But shouldn’t we at least find an agreeable definition of “worship”?
May 16th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Let me clarify. First, no hard feelings towards Rob. Second, I disagree with the “alpha and omega” statement because the Lord is the real alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. Every viewer, with perhaps one exception, would make that same association. The implication was clearly that we worship Joseph. I could actually buy into that if we define worship to include “to revere greatly” or “to anticipate some form of judgment from” or “to consider exalted” or “to wish to receive counsel from” (as in the case of Brigham’s dream of Joseph). But to call him the Alpha and Omega — in my perceived view of how viewers take it, is to equate him with Jesus Christ. Joseph didn’t die for my sins, as did the real Alpha and Omega. Forgive me and the rest of America for not having an understanding of Rob’s context.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Anon,
I, of course, over the above in the spirit of friendly debate and discussion.
Best wishes, and thanks for continuing to post your thoughts here. I really do enjoy reading them.