73 Comment(s)

1. I actually think Toscano did okay in this, and I didn’t like her before this. Usally she comes across as nuts to me, and this made her sound not nuts.

   It would have been nice to have Givens or Bushman say “I’m an intellectual and a happy member of the church.” or something along those lines.

   And I am pretty sure Prince called McKay a “white knight” and not a “white night.”

   Comment # 1 by Matt W. | May 1, 2007 | Reply

2. I heard Lavina and I saw images of her several times, at least once with Christian, but there were no images of her talking, I think.

   Marlin Jensen comes across as a nice, nice guy. He was used at least twice as much as any other Church spokesman would be my guess.

   I thought I saw one take on President Hinckley that seemed like an interview—the rest were all of him in conference? Did he do an interview with them?

   Didn’t Elder Oaks accept the role of Church members at MMM? Express empathy for the victims, pray for the ones responsible? Has that happened before?

   Elder Packer on his famous speech: Did he almost indicate he didn’t remember it, but oh, if it is in print then I guess I said it??????? It was his only appearance….and not one that would be a proud moment for him to watch, I think.

   Elder Oaks on criticism. The smile was so big, it seemed like maybe it wasn’t his idea but he had to go along with it? Anyone else want to read anything into that BIG smile.

   Comment # 2 by Ron Schow | May 2, 2007 | Reply

3. Elder Oaks….Maybe I’m thinking it was almost a sheepish smile, befitting someone who had been on the editorial board for Dialogue????

   Comment # 3 by Ron Schow | May 2, 2007 | Reply

4. Interesting that you mention Tal Bachman. I googled him yesterday after his little interview and I found out he is an ex-Mormon, popular Canadian pop-singer. I also found a post he made to an ex-Mormon website in which he describes Mormonism as a death cult. He says he wished on his mission that he would get to sacrifice his life for the church. I’m not making this up! It also helps explain his strange and troubling comment about being a suicide bomber had he been asked to. I wonder if the folks at PBS know about his anti-Mormon stuff.

   My general feeling with part 2 last night is that former Mormons and skeptical non-Mormon scholars and journalists got the slight majority of airtime. Anyone agree with that? I think their aim last night was to really bring out some of the challenges the church faces and some of the less-talked-about things. I can appreciate that. There was, however, a moment in the second hour where I started to feel a little uneasy and thought that it was getting a bit one-sided. But it finished pretty strong in portraying real Mormon families, the good with the bad. It was powerful.

   I am not active in the church right now. I recently started attending a Unitarian Universalist congregation. i am much happier now. For me, the documentary brought out a lot of powerful feelings. Pride, nostalgia, embarrassment, concern, frustration, to name a few. Mormonism is a mixed bag. It’s a strong medicine and its not for everybody. I really believe that. I think a challenge that will always face the church is what to do with those that don’t quite fit in to the mold - gays, agnostic or atheist-leaning members, intellectuals, people with different cultures, and others. For those that fit in nicely and can do everything that’s asked, it likely brings great happiness and joy. For those that cannot, it brings pain and confusion.

   I appreciated the documentary.

   Comment # 4 by Guido | May 2, 2007 | Reply

5. Where was the discussion on Freemasonry? That seemed conspicuously absent from the Nauvoo section in Part 1 and the temples section in Part 2.

   Comment # 5 by Steve M | May 2, 2007 | Reply

6. I was quite taken aback by Harold Bloom’s closing comment, re “the original Mormonism of the prophet, seer and revelator, Joseph Smith.” Anyone who knows me well, knows that I see a huge gulf between Mormonism and what I’d call LDS-ism, but I was surprised to hear the comment made as directly as it was.

   I think it’s interesting to see bloggers say that dissidents and ex-mos had the majority of airtime. That might be techincally true, I suppose (though I swear Terryl Givens got at least an hour of blather, and I found him kind of annoying). Still, it seemed to me that for every “negative” point brought out, Helen Whitney juxtaposed a viewpoint and/or imagery which most active, faithul LDS would be very happy with. I thought she did a masterful job of saying “Yes, here are people who have a negative viewpoint, but just LOOK at what those who are content with the LDS church see!”

   Comment # 6 by Nick Literski | May 2, 2007 | Reply

7. Matt W., Thanks for the heads up on night/knight thing. Turns out it is harder to type, edit, and watch TV at the same time than I thought, especially that late at night.

   Ron, I didn’t see Lavina, but I probably spent 10-15% of the time looking at my computer screen and not at the TV so I probably missed her. I heard her say something about losing her sealing to her husband and family thirteen years ago when she was excommunicated.

   I wondered the same thing about Pres. Hinckley. Was he interviewed for this program or was that a clip from some other interview? And I also had the same thought re the remarks from Oaks on intellectuals and Packer on his infamous talk (”Did I really say that?”) For what its worth, none of the GA’s came off as defensive, but mostly understanding and gracious.

   Guido, that Tal Bachman quote was just silly. If he actually thought that (”I’d blow myself up like a suicide bomber”) it says more about him than it does the Church or his Mission President. Too bad Whitney picked him as one of the apostate talking heads. There are many articulate, level-headed apostates out there who would have made a good interview subject. BTW, many of you know Bachman from his writing around the Internet. For those that don’t know him, he is the son of Randy Bachman of Bachman-Turner Overdrive (”Takin’ Care of Business”) and a musician in his own right.

   Nick, you should read Bloom’s two-page article in the current Sunstone. He talks a lot about the gulf between modern-day Mormonism and early Mormonism and puts Gordon B. Hinckley in an unfavorable light in comparison to Joseph Smith. Can someone provide a quote or two from the article? I don’t have it in front of me.

   Comment # 7 by Matt Thurston | May 2, 2007 | Reply

8. WOW, Matt. Thank you for pointing me to that article. As a “gentile,” Bloom says what could land an active LDS in a disciplinary council—and I applaud Dan for seeing that an article like this was published. My own disaffection from LDS-ism was never about how Joseph may have played fast and loose with the facts. It was all about how the modern leadership have engaged in a rather clear campaign to rid the LDS church of those things that made Joseph’s Mormonism unique. When I’m in snarkier moods, I call it identity theft, because they continue to present themselves as the religion Joseph established, when they simply are not.

   I always bristled at the desperation of LDS to be defined as “christians.” I identified with early Mormons, who rejected christianity as a false and fallen religion. As a former LDS, I am rather emphatic in not being a christian (something that produces interesting reactions in our society, by the way). To my surprise, I feel quite at home in a moer pagan worldview, and it’s because of the things I’ve carried with me from Joseph.

   Comment # 8 by Nick Literski | May 2, 2007 | Reply

9. Yeah, in Bloom’s estimation, Joseph is an absolute genius and Pres Hinckley doesn’t deserve to be known by the same “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator” distinction.

   Yes Nick, I remember well your many rants at Mormon Library when you were still a Mormon-In-Good-Standing about the need to get back to the Joseph-era, old time religion. I’m of the opposite mindset, but I understand the appeal to those who think like you do.

   Comment # 9 by Matt Thurston | May 2, 2007 | Reply

10. Great feedback! And it’s only beginning! But, will it amount to a cultural earthquake with lots of smaller after shocks? Or just a singular tsunami? I think think the former, but at what magnitude?

    In any case, I hope the documentary and these blogs will motivate my own extremely diverse family [far left to far right] to become better acquainted with each other and respectful of our own heroic pioneer ancestry, the subsequent after shocks of polygamy (legal and illegal) and present gayness (closet and open). My Swedish evangelical wife thought the documentary was “respectful and well done”, but wonders why I was really interested. “What’s the point?” she asked.

    Well, I hope the point is: can we share our real (and imaginary?) stories with each other in an attitude of Scott Peck’s true community–like what happened at SLC Sunstone 2006?

    Matt, I’m confident you will keep this thread going for at least the next several weeks.

    Comment # 10 by Eugene Kovalenko | May 2, 2007 | Reply

11. Forgot to add:

    In Part 1, what was new for me was:

    1. Kirtland (183?): Sydney Rigdon + 100 joined Joseph Smith’s 75 to double the church’s membership.

    2. Nauvoo (1844): Sydney Rigdon ran for US Vice President on the ticket with Joseph

    3. Winter Quarters (1846?): Brigham Young’s defining moment when he dreamed of Joseph Smith answering his prayer.

    4. MMM: (1853?):Dallin Oaks sorrowfully acknowledges that Mormons were involved (2007)

    5. Dallin Oaks: considers criticism of Mormon leaders wrong even when the facts of the criticism are right (2007) Shades of the Soviet experience!!

    In Part 2, I noted especially Dallin Oaks’ comment about how he sees himself as one of the divinely appointed “Watchmen”.

    I, too, wondered why Jan Shipps wasn’t interviewed. Or COC’s Susan Skoor.

    Comment # 11 by Eugene Kovalenko | May 2, 2007 | Reply

12. I think Kathleen Flake’s book THE POLITICS OF AMERICAN RELIGIOUS IDENTITY is a must for anyone trying to fully understand not only “the great accommodation,” but the roots of LDS Mormonism’s move toward mainstream evangelical Christianity.

    President Joseph F. Smith had to testify before congress during the Smoot hearings, and his answers to the pointed questions asked to him regarding revelation were deeply disturbing to Utah Mormons. Under oath, Smith more or less admitted that he had never received a revelation and that the “inspirtaion” he received was no different than that which any protestant minister might receive. The Reed Smoot hearings were actually destroying LDS Mormonism from within.

    To counter all of this, following the Smoot hearngs, Smith instituted a program of the Church buying up historical sites in the eastern US (Joseph Smith’s birth place, the Smith farm in Palmyra, the Hill Cumorah) and then remaking the image of the early Mormon from religious radicals and social non-conformists into the more acceptable image of American pilgrims, in search of religious freedom. At this time, Pres. Smith also made the last version of the “First Vision” story the foundation of the LDS missionary message. Up unti that time (circa 1907), the First Vision story was not central to LDS Mormon identity. Under Pres. Smith, The First Vision story and the Church’s roots in upstate New York and New England took the place of polygamy, the doctrine of “The gathering,” and the political Kingdom of God on earth.

    It’s a fascinating, important–and little explored–chapter in LDS Mormon history.

    Below is information of Flake’s book:

    Kathleen Flake. The Politics of American Religious Identity: The Seating of Senator Reed Smoot, Mormon Apostle. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 2004. Pp. xiii, 238. Cloth $49.95, paper $18.95.

    From what I’ve read, Reed Smoot AND Joseph F. Smith actually WERE the faces of Mormonism for most Americans in the first 6 to 8 years of the 20th century.

    Who is the face of Mormonism now in American popular culture? As much as it makes me shiver, I’d nominate the likes of Mitt Romney and Glen Beck.

    Comment # 12 by Rob. Lauer | May 2, 2007 | Reply

13. 9:31 Hmmm… In the context of this documentary, watching kids sing “I Hope They Call Me On A Mission” has a slightly unsettling, “Jesus Camp” feel to it. Maybe it’s just me.

    You’re not alone. I watched the show last evening with some of my students (some LDS but not all that active, and others not LDS). They were ALL freaked out by this segment. The word “brain-washing” was thrown around quite a bit. And yes, one of them mentioned JESUS CAMP.

    Not having been raised LDS, I have always found “I Hope They Call Me On A Mission” unsettling. Groiwng up Methodist, I learned songs like “Jesus Loves Me,” “This Is My Father’s World,” and “For the Beauty of the Earth.” Teaching a four year old to sing “I hope they call me on a mission,” strikes me as somewhat perverse–in much the same was as when four-year-olds get up in testimony meeting and repeat into a microphone the testimony that their parents are whispering in their ears. I don’t find it cute, or touching or funny.I think it is a profound disservice to the child.

    I do not think that any child att four, five and six actually KNOWS anything about the nature of God, church or themselves–and I certainly don’t think for an instant that a child that young can actually and knowingly HOPE “they call me on a mission.”

    Comment # 13 by Rob. Lauer | May 2, 2007 | Reply

14. Not sure I agree with Dallin H. Oaks’s “watchman on the tower” metaphor…

    I know I don’t agree with it.

    The one comment made over the course of both broadcast that got the biggest reactions from the students with whom I watched the film was Oak’s statement that it is wrong to criticize the leaders of the Church–even when that criticism is true. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

    To have such a high ranking LDS Church official actually say this, stunned me. I think that idea is probably the most damning utterance any Church official in recent years has made. Is Oaks so ignorant as to not know that most rational people find such an idea not only exceedingly stupid but even immoral.

    Upon hearing this, the students started laughing in shocked disbelief, and then the words “Nazis” and “Nuremburg trials” were thrown about.

    Comment # 14 by Rob. Lauer | May 2, 2007 | Reply

15. Not sure I agree with Dallin H. Oaks’s “watchman on the tower” metaphor…

    I know that I do not.

    As I mentioned, I watched the show both nights with some of my students (junior college).

    The one comment made over the two nights of broadcasts that got biggest reaction from them was Oak’s statement that it was wrong to criticize the leaders of the Church–EVEN WHEN THAT CRITICISM IS TRUE. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????)

    I think this is the most damning utterance any LDS Church official has made in recent years. Is Oaks so ignorant that he doesn’t realize that most rational people would probably find this idea not only insulting but also profoundly immoral? I mean, the man is actually saying that LDS Church officials are above all criticism–even when they are in the wrong.

    Upon hearing this, the students began laughing in disbelief. Then the words “cult,” “Nazis,” and “Nuremberg trials” were thrown around.

    Comment # 15 by Rob. Lauer | May 2, 2007 | Reply

16. 9:55 Very interesting to see Boyd K. Packer discuss his infamous “Intellectuals, Feminists, and Homosexuals” talk.

    Didn’t Packer say that he couldn’t recall having made that statement, but that if it was in print, he probably did?

    If so, then Packer needs to leave Utah and come to Washington, DC.

    Comment # 16 by Rob. Lauer | May 2, 2007 | Reply

17. Nick wrote:
    “I was quite taken aback by Harold Bloom’s closing comment, re “the original Mormonism of the prophet, seer and revelator, Joseph Smith.” Anyone who knows me well, knows that I see a huge gulf between Mormonism and what I’d call LDS-ism, but I was surprised to hear the comment made as directly as it was.”

    Nick, I agree with you on this one. (Thus I’m a Reform Mormon.) I left the LDS Church in 1983, and came back in 1994 (leaving ocne and for all in 2002.)
    During my years outside the LDS Church I read Bloom’s THE AMERICAN RELIGION. He has been quite consistent over the years in saying that LDS-ism is NOT the Mormonism of Jospeh Smith. I agreed when I first read his book in 1992, and I agreed even more so after returning to the LDS Church in 1994. I could not believe the changes that took place in the Church and in LDS culture during my 11 years away!

    More and more, LDS-ism is becoming another right-wing evangelical protestant denomination. I appreciated that early on in last night’s episode of THE MORMONS, the talking-heads pointed out how the LDS Church has been trying to appear more mainstream Christian–from adding “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” as a subtitle to “the Book of Mormon” (and obviously not understanding what the word “testament” means; it does NOT mean “testimony”) to making the words “Jesus Christ” in the Church’s logo three times as big as the rest of the words.

    But I’m confident that a new generation of people (most not LDS) will discover Joseph Smith. In the Yahoo Reform Mormon Discussion Group we have quite a few members who have never been LDS, but who have discovered Joseph Smith’s new theology (what I call the Mormon Paradigm) and have converted to it.

    Bloom has written that in the future there will be great Mormon art, but that it will not be created by the LDS because they don’t appreciate Joseph Smith and what he taught.

    Comment # 17 by Rob. Lauer | May 2, 2007 | Reply

18. A good ex-mo friend of mine said that if LDS Central Casting couldn’t have done a better job casting a a raging, frothing at the mouth nutjob to play an ex-Mormon than Tal Bachman.

    Over on Mormon Mentality, Left Field (a herpetologist) has some interesting insights into the crocodiles and poisonous frogs.

    Comment # 18 by Ann | May 2, 2007 | Reply

19. Rob (# 14 & 15), I’m going to send you a few short poems that came into my mind when I saw the metaphor of the “watchman”. Hope it goes through.

    Comment # 19 by Eugene Kovalenko | May 2, 2007 | Reply

20. I thought Bachman was a bit much. Good grief! Overall it was an all right documentary. It could have been better, could have been worse.

    Sunstone needs to make the type here SMALLER. It’s way too buched up.

    Best,
    Kerry

    Comment # 20 by Kerry Shirts | May 2, 2007 | Reply

21. Just for fun, I updated Tal Bachman’s entry at Wikipedia. : )

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tal_Bachman

    Comment # 21 by Rick Jepson | May 2, 2007 | Reply

22. Rick, maybe you should say something about how he hoped to be able to die for the church while on his mission, and how he now writes anti-Mormon stuff about how the church is a death cult. He’s a real keeper, eh?

    Comment # 22 by Guido | May 3, 2007 | Reply

23. Rob wrote:
    “Not having been raised LDS, I have always found “I Hope They Call Me On A Mission” unsettling. Groiwng up Methodist, I learned songs like “Jesus Loves Me,” “This Is My Father’s World,” and “For the Beauty of the Earth.” Teaching a four year old to sing “I hope they call me on a mission,” strikes me as somewhat perverse”

    Even worse, have you heard the primary kids singing (or should I say chanting?) “Follow the Prophet”? If the words aren’t creepy enough, the tune is downright ominous. It always reminds me of the scene in The Wizard of Oz, where Dorothy and friends first see the witch’s castle, and the guards are marching and chanting. That scene always scared me as a little kid!

    Comment # 23 by Nick Literski | May 3, 2007 | Reply

24. Rob wrote:
    “During my years outside the LDS Church I read Bloom’s THE AMERICAN RELIGION. He has been quite consistent over the years in saying that LDS-ism is NOT the Mormonism of Jospeh Smith.”

    Yes, but in the same book, Bloom calls Thomas Monson the most brilliant Mormon leader since Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. When I read that, I pretty much lost respect for Bloom—at least until hearing his direct statement in the documentary.

    Thomas Monson should stand up in general conference, say “Bedtime Story #17. In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.” It would cut twenty minutes from conference, and nobody would miss anything they hadn’t heard twenty times. How anyone can think this man is “brilliant,” let alone “Mormon,” is quite beyond me.

    Comment # 24 by Nick Literski | May 3, 2007 | Reply

25. Nick….best two posts of the year.

    “Follow the Prophet” has always freaked me out. I like to sing it with a robot voice and doing the “robot walk” for added effect.

    In Monson’s defence, I think the kids really, really connect with him. I remember that as a kid and young teen watchin conference I’d perk up and pay attention when it was his turn. Now, with the miraculous development of TIVO, he gets fast-forwarded.

    Comment # 25 by Rick Jepson | May 3, 2007 | Reply

26. Postscript.

    Changing T.B.’s profile on Wickipedia was the sort of thing that seemed really, really funny after midnight but that wasn’t really that funny or mature. Same reason that MST3000 was only funny at 2:00 in the morning, I suppose.

    It got corrected lightning fast anyway. And I still think he’s a real idiot for comparing LDS Missionaries to suicide bombers (and I’m really disapointed in PBS for allowing that sort of ridiculous comparison). But anyway…..there are more constructive approaches than vandalizing wikipedia.

    Comment # 26 by Rick Jepson | May 3, 2007 | Reply

27. Kerry, go to the top of your screen, click “View”, go to “text size” and select a smaller size. I had the same problem.

    Comment # 27 by Rick Jepson | May 3, 2007 | Reply

28. Nick,
    I agree with you regarding “Follow The Prophet.” A goid friend of mine with whom I co-directed “The Hill Cumorag Pageant” from ‘97–’03, used to sing it with either a thick Russion accent, or with a German accent while giving the Nazi salute.

    Regarding Bloom’s comments on Monson in THE AMERICAN RELIGION, I think he said that Monson would be the youngest prophet since Brigah Young and something to the effect that Monson would be the shrewdest (with regard to governing the Church) since Young. Personally I share your view of Monson: he sounds like a cloying kindergarten teacher addressing a gathering of four year olds of below average intelligence.

    In nearly all of his subsequent books on the Western literary cannon, on religious and on genius, Bloom has included glowing comments about Joseph Smith and his (Joseph’s) new theology. He seems particularly impressed with “The Book of Abraham,” and the King Follett Discourse.

    I’ve think this for years now, but after watching the PBS documentary I’m even more convinced it’s true: that none-LDS such as Bloom, Kathleen Flake and Sarah Barringer Gordon actually GET Mormonism and appreciate it more than most LDS apologists and leaders.

    Comment # 28 by Rob. Lauer | May 3, 2007 | Reply

29. I watched the PBS series but was disappointed, which is often the case when you know a lot about a particular subject and you watch an outsider’s effort to tell the story. I would have liked more depth about the doctrines of the church including the nature of God, the literal nature of the resurrection, the plan of salvation, the role of Christ as the creator of multiple worlds, the atonement of Christ allowing Him to succor us in our pains, the Gift of the Holy Ghost and personal revelation, the doctrines of the Priesthood, etc. I did not mind the attention to negative aspects (Mountain Meadow, Excommunication, Blacks and the Priesthood, Gays and Lesbians, Polygamy, Joseph’s gold digging, etc.) but I thought that Helen gave more time to some of these aspects than was warranted. Why spend more time on Mountain Meadow than Missouri? I liked the second segment more than the first. I thought much of the artwork of God, Joseph Smith, and angels was strange and out of place. I would guess that many people watching this would be just as perplexed about what Mormons believe as if they had not seen it. I, obviously, would like people to be impressed enough to want to hear more after watching such a documentary. I would not be excited about knowing more, if that is all that I had seen about the LDS faith.

    Comment # 29 by Raymond | May 3, 2007 | Reply

30. Raymond, it seems to me that all Mission Training Center trainees should see this PBS documentary and then have opportunity to ask all the questions they can muster until all hearts and minds are satisfied. It also seems to me that you would be an ideal teacher in such an enterprise. This kind of approach would completely satisfy my concern for the lack of genuine glasnost in the LDS Church, which I expressed in an open letter to the editor of the Kyiv Post and sent to you earlier this year and which greatly distressed the local SP.

    Comment # 30 by Eugene Kovalenko | May 3, 2007 | Reply

31. It looks like Raymond Cutler’s remarks didn’t make it, to which I responded in #29. He had given me permission to use his private comments to me to use in any way I wished and to use his name. I must have violated some Blogger rule. Raymond is the son of my late U of U research director Ivan Cutler and is now a research scientist in his own right. Anyway, here is his thoughtful and intelligent answer to my invitation for comment:

    “I watched the PBS series but was disappointed, which is often the case when you know a lot about a particular subject and you watch an outsider’s effort to tell the story. I would have liked more depth about the doctrines of the church including the nature of God, the literal nature of the resurrection, the plan of salvation, the role of Christ as the creator of multiple worlds, the atonement of Christ allowing Him to succor us in our pains, the Gift of the Holy Ghost and personal revelation, the doctrines of the Priesthood, etc. I did not mind the attention to negative aspects (Mountain Meadow, Excommunication, Blacks and the Priesthood, Gays and Lesbians, Polygamy, Joseph’s gold digging, etc.) but I thought that Helen gave more time to some of these aspects than was warranted. Why spend more time on Mountain Meadow than Missouri? I liked the second segment more than the first. I thought much of the artwork of God, Joseph Smith, and angels was strange and out of place. I would guess that many people watching this would be just as perplexed about what Mormons believe as if they had not seen it. I, obviously, would like people to be impressed enough to want to hear more after watching such a documentary. I would not be excited about knowing more, if that is all that I had seen about the LDS faith…” Raymond

    Comment # 31 by Eugene Kovalenko | May 3, 2007 | Reply

32. Ah! Thanks Rick!

    I think it would have been mor effective to have Dan Vogel (he tells me he was intrviewed for a few hours, but at the last minute they completely excised him out of the documentary), or Brent Metcalfe than Tal Bachman. The man just did not impress me. Oh well, I don’t want to come across as a whiner either. I am quite sure everyone has someone else they would have rather seen, and someone else with more time, etc. Like I say though, overall it was O.K. I mean, I learned something new, I learned what Terryl Givens looks like! GRIN!

    Comment # 32 by Kerry Shirts | May 3, 2007 | Reply

33. Rob Lauer:
    In nearly all of his subsequent books on the Western literary cannon, on religious and on genius, Bloom has included glowing comments about Joseph Smith and his (Joseph’s) new theology. He seems particularly impressed with “The Book of Abraham,” and the King Follett Discourse.

    Kerry:
    Can’t blame him there. I am more impressed the more I read the Abraham account in all the records, as we have them anyway. Bloom is correct to be rightly impressed. It especially comes across more poignant in the Hebrew, Greek, and German than in translation, even though, yes, I know full well, all of the above are translations also. Indeed, the real beauty of reading in other languages is getting a broader fuller impression, meaning, and contextuality than from a single language. It really does do this……..

    Comment # 33 by Kerry Shirts | May 3, 2007 | Reply

34. “non-LDS such as Bloom, Kathleen Flake and Sarah Barringer Gordon actually GET Mormonism and appreciate it more than most LDS apologists and leaders”

    This is what I was most struck by. After watching, I was more excited about being a Mormon and more excited about Mormonism than I ever feel after sacrament meeting. And–importantly–my wife and I really connected on some topics that have been hard for us to discuss in the past. Mostly these deal with my struggles and her bedrock faith…it’s hard for us to understand each other sometimes. The documentary was a nice, even-handed middleground where we really developed a lot of understanding of each other.

    Honestly, I really enjoyed the experience and had a great spiritual high.

    Comment # 34 by Rick Jepson | May 3, 2007 | Reply

35. Rob, I was raised LDS (although 4 decades ago) and I wasn’t taught the dreary, didactic songs they sing in Primary today. We, like you, sang songs about beauty, the earth, God’s creations and little streams…

    Comment # 35 by KLC | May 3, 2007 | Reply

36. Kathleen Flake is LDS.

    Comment # 36 by Dan | May 3, 2007 | Reply

37. Also, Kathleen Flake is LDS. Go to PBS.org and you can read excerpts from her interview where she talks about her faith.

    Comment # 37 by KLC | May 3, 2007 | Reply

38. Nick said: “Even worse, have you heard the primary kids singing (or should I say chanting?) “Follow the Prophet”? If the words aren’t creepy enough, the tune is downright ominous. It always reminds me of the scene in The Wizard of Oz, where Dorothy and friends first see the witch’s castle, and the guards are marching and chanting.”

    I’m not a big fan of the words, but I certainly wouldn’t characterize the tune as “ominous.” Like the tune to “Book of Mormon Stories” it has a minor key and a comparatively faster beat. It’s a nice change of pace to the cheery, upbeat triffles that make up 98% of the Children’s Songbook. I substitute for the regular pianist in our primary at least 5 or 6 times a year. “Follow the Prophet” is one of the 3-4 most requested songs by the kids. They request it because of the tune, not the words. When they sing it they go crazy and it always makes me smile. I always feel a vicarious thrill/buzz being part of it.

    As for the words, are they really that bad? Are they any different from, say, pledging allegiance to a flag, or the words of some of our patriotic songs? I don’t know, maybe they are. I’d be bothered a little by them if I sang them as an adult, but the kids are just having fun. My kids love that song. Is the fear that they are internalizing the message and that it will wreck havoc on their lives later? I’ll admit, the lyrics would be better if it said “Follow the Savior” or something like that.

    Comment # 38 by Matt Thurston | May 3, 2007 | Reply

39. Matt, one part of the song says, as near as I can remember right now,

    We live in a world where people are confused
    If you don’t believe me go and watch the news

    That has got to be the most pedantic, irritating couplet in the history of religious song

    Comment # 39 by KLC | May 3, 2007 | Reply

40. I’ve got it!! We’ll start a primary rebellion! Secretly teach all the kids to sing “Follow your conscience, follow your conscience…”

    Teaching kids to chant, over and over ad nauseum, a directive to abandon their personal responsibility and judgement into the hands of another mortal is just frightening.

    KLC:
    Well, you know what they say about couplets. That’s just a little couplet, really. I don’t know that we really teach it. I don’t know that we really know much about it.

    Comment # 40 by Nick Literski | May 3, 2007 | Reply

41. When I take into consideration Roughstone Rolling and other works that are slowly finding their way to print, I wonder if we are seeing a change in what is considered faithful and what is not. I read the Church’s statment just few minutes ago, and apparently whoever wrote it was very pleased with the production. In fact I am going to print it out and put it in my scripture case and take it to church for those who were not happy with it and are going to think that it was anti.

    Has anyone heard of a book called A world of ideas? It is a collection of the complete transcripts of interviews that Bill Moyers did on PBS and is a fabulous book. Somehow we should find a way to make that happen with the interviews conducted. I am sure that in their entirety, they would give an even better perspective then the sound bites that we were subjected to because of the medium of television.

    What do you all say?

    Comment # 41 by Chris | May 3, 2007 | Reply

42. “After watching, I was more excited about being a Mormon and more excited about Mormonism than I ever feel after sacrament meeting….Honestly, I really enjoyed the experience and had a great spiritual high.” –Rick Jepson

    Rick,

    I couldn’t agree more. I taped the program and rewatched part 2 last night. I’ve also been reading the transcripts of the full interviews of the talking heads interviewed on the PBS website. I’m really inspired by it all! If I were not Mormon, I would definately want to know more about the religion after watching this show.

    I watched the first episode with my roommate and his girlfriend–both active LDS. After it was over, he exclaimed, somewhat jokingly, “okay! I get it! We’re all a bunch of weirdos!”

    I was surprised by his reaction. “No, we’re not,” I countered. “We’re fascinating!”

    I’m continually surprised by how defensive LDS Mormons are, and how they seem unabel to realize that a secular approach to our history, does NOT mean that the approach in anti-Mormon.

    I wonder how many faithful LDS would accept a 2 part documentary on the Catholic Church that did not explore any of the violence in its history, that contained no interviews with protestants, no interviews with Catholic skeptics and intellectuals; that just accepted uncritically as fact the Catholic Church’s claim that Peter was the first Pope, that the pope is God’s mouthpiece on earth, that the Catholic Churchhas the priesthood and is the only true church on earth, that did not challenge the validity and historicity of the miracles that have been attributed over the centuries to Catholic Saints?

    I would think most LDS would see such a documentary as nothing more than propoganda for the Catholic Church. But when it comes to a documentary on their Church, they want PBS to produce a missionary film. It makes me laugh.

    Raymond wrote:

    I watched the PBS series but was disappointed, which is often the case when you know a lot about a particular subject and you watch an outsider’s effort to tell the story. I would have liked more depth about the doctrines of the church including the nature of God, the literal nature of the resurrection, the plan of salvation, the role of Christ as the creator of multiple worlds…

    That would haveb been nice, but the purpose of the show wasn’t to explore Mormon theology as much as Mormon history and culture.

    …the atonement of Christ allowing Him to succor us in our pains, the Gift of the Holy Ghost and personal revelation, the doctrines of the Priesthood, etc

    Actually, I thought the section on the Colorado family–with the daughter who is dying of hypertension–touched quite movingly on the subject of Mormons finding “succor” from God “in their pains.”

    . I did not mind the attention to negative aspects (Mountain Meadow, Excommunication, Blacks and the Priesthood, Gays and Lesbians, Polygamy, Joseph’s gold digging, etc.) but I thought that Helen gave more time to some of these aspects than was warranted.

    Funny that “polygamy” is seen as a “negative aspect” when the LDS Church taught for half a century that it was a glorious principle, essential for Celestial Glory and joy in eternity.

    Why spend more time on Mountain Meadow than Missouri?

    Maybe because the US Government classified it as “the worst terrorist attack” in American history until the Oklahoma City Bombing. And you must admit that it is a bit spooky that Mountain Meadows also took place on September 11th. But the reason this event should continue to be addressed–and addressed openly by the LDS Church–is because it IS the low-point in Mormon history, and the massacre has never received the attention it deserves FROM the LDS Church.

    I liked the second segment more than the first. I thought much of the artwork of God, Joseph Smith, and angels was strange and out of place

    I really liked the art work used. Much of it was created by LDS artists.

    . I would guess that many people watching this would be just as perplexed about what Mormons believe as if they had not seen it.

    I watched it with many non-LDS college kids, and they said that the show helped them to understand their many LDS friends. (the college department in which I teach is about 80% LDS.)

    I, obviously, would like people to be impressed enough to want to hear more after watching such a documentary. I would not be excited about knowing more, if that is all that I had seen about the LDS faith.

    As I wrote, my reaction was just the opposite. I wasn’t raised LDS, but converted to Mormonism 30 years ago. I’ve never felt defensive about Mormonism. The PBS series actually made me prouder than ever to be Mormon (albeit a Reform Mormon; not an LDS)

    Comment # 42 by Rob. Lauer | May 3, 2007 | Reply

43. “9:31 Hmmm… In the context of this documentary, watching kids sing “I Hope They Call Me On A Mission” has a slightly unsettling, “Jesus Camp” feel to it. Maybe it’s just me.”

    ONE ARGUMENT I HATE BAD ENOUGH TO USE CAPITAL LETTERS WHEN REFERENCING IS THE WHOLE: THE PRIMARY BRAINWASHES KIDS!!!

    Depending on how you look at it: No frickin’ duh! Guess what, “hope they call me on a mission” is brainwashing! So is “Follow the Prophet” — but you know what else is? EVERYTHING YOU TEACH YOUR KIDS. They are sponges. They learn whatever they are surrounded with. Taking them to primary is just as much “brainwashing” as letting them watch the Disney channel or watch Keith Olberman or anything they do on a repeated basis. What are we supposed to do, send them to “Sunstone for Kids” every Sunday?

    Two quick examples: I was in grade school when our teachers scared us half-to-death about burning all the rainforests (think “fern gully”). I am fairly conservative, but I get a pit in my stomach when I think about the possibility that Brazillian rainforest acres are being burned by the millions. Whether true or not, I sponged it up.

    I have several friends whose parents are “intellectuals,” even victims of the 1993 purging. They complain that they grew up with an incredible uncertainty about religion and faith. Like Helen Whitney, they complain that their “faith is infected with skempticism.” They were taught to think for themselves, but they now believe that truth is either whatever they make up their minds that it is, or it is nothing at all.

    Why would you do this to your kids if you were 99.9% sure that the LDS church is what it claims to be? (sorry Tal . . . more on you later).

    Like many LDS families, my family let me go to primary and sing all the songs. As I got older, they encouraged me to ask questions and search for answers.

    Comment # 43 by anon | May 3, 2007 | Reply

44. anon (#43), I generally agree with you, though not all brainwashing “ideas” are equal. Obviously, “brainwashing” a kid to “follow the prophet” is preferable to brainwashing a kid that blacks are an inferior race.

    Note that though I made the original I Hope The Call Me on a Mission comment in the post, I’ve questioned the degree some of the commenters have taken this discussion in my comment #38. I sang I Hope They Call Me On A Mission and all of the other songs as a Primary kid and loved it. Though I have come to formulate my own ideas and beliefs, some of which are different from what I was taught by my parents and school/church teachers (who doesn’t?), I’ve never looked back upon a single Primary song as some insidious seed that was planted in my head (brainwashed) requiring years of therapy to extricate. Please.

    To clarify, the way the documentary framed the kids singing I Hope They Call Me on a Mission against the backdrop of missionaries tracting and explaining to the camera that they’d never considered not going on a mission… it had a subtle Jesus Camp feel to it. In reality, or at least in my experience, singing I Hope They Call Me on a Mission in church is no different that singing She’ll Be Coming Around the Mountain in school — both are innocuous diversions.

    Comment # 44 by Matt Thurston | May 3, 2007 | Reply

45. Eugene: “Matt, I’m confident you will keep this thread going for at least the next several weeks.”

    Don’t count on it, Gene. But it’s nice to see you commenting again.

    Comment # 45 by Matt Thurston | May 3, 2007 | Reply

46. Chris: I say, “Do it!”

    Comment # 46 by Rick Jepson | May 3, 2007 | Reply

47. I generally agree with you, though not all brainwashing “ideas” are equal. Obviously, “brainwashing” a kid to “follow the prophet” is preferable to brainwashing a kid that blacks are an inferior race.

    Is it really? I mean, if one “followed the prophet” prior to 1978, then one had to believe that “blacks are an inferior race.” Currernt LDS apologists may argue otherwise–that the LDS prophets never taught blacks were inferior.

    But as was pointed out in the PBS documentary, the Prophet John Taylor DID teach that the reason blacks were allowed to survive Noah’s flood was so that Satan wouldhave human representatives on earth. (As unethical as I find this teaching, I’m a great admirer of John Tyalor–who elsewhere taught that individuals had to think for themselves because the day was coming when the Saints “could no longer live on borrowed light.)

    The Prophet Brigham Young taught that blacks were cursed for being lukewarm in the war in heaven. He also taught that the penalty for a white person marrying a negro was death on the spot. And he taught that if all the priesthood leaders in the Church decided to give blacks the Priesthood, at that very moment the entire LDS Church would lose the Priesthood.

    Many Fundamentalist Mormons still “follow these prophets” and because of it, they are racist–many supporting white supremacist groups.

    All of which goes to show that “following” ANYONE and obeying without questioning (or questioning but somehow always managing to agree with that someone else) probably isn’t the wisest course for someone to take if they are serious about ethics.

    Annon wrote:

    “I have several friends whose parents are “intellectuals,” even victims of the 1993 purging. They complain that they grew up with an incredible uncertainty about religion and faith.”

    What of it? A person can still be ethical without any faith or religion whatsoever. Morality can be based on reason alone, with human life as one highest value. The radical nature of Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo-era theology is that the individual is uncreated, eternal and not dependent on God for his/her existence; that inidviduals can “learn to be Gods” themselves (to quote Joseph.) It might be frightening at times to know that your destiny is in your own hands, that you alone are responsible for your characters–but I think this that little thing called Free Agency. Part of living life on erath as a Free Agent is dealing with doubts. Doubt is not a bad thing since there are obviously many false ideas presented under the guise of religion. Doubt can prompt one to search for the truth–which many times means rejecting what everyone else for generations has accepted as the truth based on blind faith.

    Anon: “They were taught to think for themselves, but they now believe that truth is either whatever they make up their minds that it is, or it is nothing at all.”

    Do THEY really believe that THEY determine what the truth is…or is that YOUR opinion of them?

    I accept Joseph Smith’s definition of the truth found in the D&C: “Truth is knowledge of things as they were, as they are and as they will be.”

    That’s a pretty objective (actually a pretty secular) definition of truth–basically saying that truth is human knowledge of the facts. If one acceptsJoseph Smith’s own definition of the truth, then people being “taught to think for themselves” seems essential in the Mormon scheme of things (which is NOT necessaily the modern LDS scheme of things.)

    Bringing this back to the subject of this thread–this is why I was inspired by the PBS series “The Mormons.” : I was exposed to more TRUTH–about Mormon history, about the LDS Church, about Fundamentalist Mormons, about Mormon femninists, gays and intellectuals–than I have in any four hour period in recent decades.

    Comment # 47 by Rob. Lauer | May 3, 2007 | Reply

48. John Taylor, Blacks etc.: A little intellectual honesty wouldn’t hurt. Anyone with 1/2 a brain and even 1/10 a testimony knows that the Lord can only bless us with what we are ready to recieve. The church membership was not ready to receive blacks. (Blacks were ready — but the church and its membership (and before that, the society which produced them) were sadly decades behind in understanding the absolute equality of African Americans.) Why should we blame and get hung up on the church committing the exact same error that was committed by the entire United States for so many years? (I have black ancestors who took on my family name who wrote journals about how well-treated they were by, brace yourself, Brigham Young.) Anyway, if we couldn’t make mountains out of molehills we would all have to quit blogging and be resigned to useful, productive thinking.

    Whoever thinks that the LDS church and religion today is not the church and religion that Joseph Smith organized is overconsuming Mr. Dutcher’s dark irish beer. ( I love you Duther. Also, sorry, Mr. Bloom — I have an enormous amount of respect for you — I forgive you since you only implied that the foregoing was true.) Joseph Smith’s Mormonism is the current Mormonism. How do I know this? Because I read the Doctrine and Covenants. That book contains a detailed transcript of “Joseph Smith’s” religion, and it also currently acts as a detailed guide for church management today. Take DC 20 or 88 or 76 for example. C’mon hermanos: Joseph’s Mormonism and our LDSism is one and the same. I will concede that we have greater light and knowledge and that we have been doing the whole “line upon line” thing for several decades, but not nearly so much as to divide then from now.

    Rob — Yeah, my friends really are angry that they grew up without any sort of anchor. They complain that their parents taught them, “You just have to find your own path.” Then everytime they took a step on a path, they were filled with confusion and doubt. All they have in this world is the gratification they receive from fringe-mormon blogging — an exercise in which they “deconstruct” all conviction to complete relativity and subjectivity (i.e. reinforcing the idea that truth is what you make it, or is at least entirely unknowable). You give them a truth (take notions of Reform Mormonism for example) and then you watch them reduce it to a bowl of mush. Somehow they get pleasure out of that . . . it makes them feel like “Ooooh look at me, because I demonstrated that you were errant or poorly-thought-out in your beliefs and attitudes, must make me someone special.” ( Without this special form of gratification, I don’t think organizations like sunstone would exist. But hey, I’m here ain’t I ?)

    Then these same friends come home and admit that when they really look inward, they only see confusion where, “follow the prophet” and “I hope they call me on a mission” should be. Good job Mom and Dad — You are so enlightened. I hope getting high off of your edgy non-conformist ideals was worth it.

    Comment # 48 by anon | May 4, 2007 | Reply

49. Sorry anon (#48), I don’t buy your ethnocentric “Whites weren’t ready” argument. By bringing “the Lord” into your argument as you did, it suggests that God would let his black sons and daughters be maligned because He was worried about upsetting the sensibilities of his sensitive white sons and daughters.

    Look, if the church could accept polygamy, they could accept Blacks as equal members. Given the ultra-conservative, prudish (by today’s standards), Victorian values of mid-19th Century whites, accomodating Polygamy was a far greater stretch for the Church than accomodating Blacks among their midst. The Saints overcame the polygamy burden because “the Lord commanded it.” They would have overcome their uneasiness or prejudice around Blacks had the Lord commanded it.

    The priesthood ban was not about the church “not being ready”… it was about white predjudice and racism (same as secular U.S. society, as you say) and had nothing to do with God “only bless[ing] us with what we are ready to receive.”

    Comment # 49 by Matt Thurston | May 4, 2007 | Reply

50. Wow, “anon,” you seem to have a lot of anonymous resentment.

    I understand that you believe your own interpretation of the Doctrine & Covenants to be complete and certain evidence that the LDS church of today is the same in doctrine and practice as the church organized by Joseph Smith. You are certainly welcome to that opinion, whether under the influence of alcohol or not.

    I also understand that, under the guise of “continuing revelation,” some LDS may choose to rationalize any alteration in doctrine and practice, including such things as entirely gutting the initiatory ordinances of the temple (you know—those ordinances that Brigham Young said were complete, and never to be changed until the second coming of Christ?), or declaring that Joseph Smith’s revelation that deity was once a man is “just a little couplet” that we “don’t teach” and “don’t know much about.” I could go on and on with ways in which the LDS church has diverged from the religion of Joseph Smith, but of course, you’d counter that this was just “further light and knowledge,” and that nothing had changed at all.

    Somehow, I’m betting the same rationalizations were used throughout the centuries that the early christian church was being gradually lost.

    Comment # 50 by Nick Literski | May 4, 2007 | Reply

51. The priesthood ban was not about the church “not being ready”… it was about white predjudice and racism (same as secular U.S. society, as you say) and had nothing to do with God “only bless[ing] us with what we are ready to receive.”

    Yeah . . . the church wasn’t ready because of white prejudice and racism — just like I said. The Jews weren’t ready to teach the gospel to the gentiles until Jesus straightened them out either. So, I am glad we agree on this.

    But . . .

    “Look, if the church could accept polygamy, they could accept Blacks as equal members. Given the ultra-conservative, prudish (by today’s standards), Victorian values of mid-19th Century whites, accomodating Polygamy was a far greater stretch for the Church than accomodating Blacks among their midst.”

    How do you know it was a “far greater stretch”? The victorian values of the 19 century whites were prudish, no doubt, but they were also racist and prejudice — as you mentioned. Maybe they could handle one or the other but not both, or maybe they could have and should have handled both. For some reason the Lord decided to disperse it the way that he did. Take it up with him. He is the one who has to deal with an earthly church which is continually limited by imperfections of those who comprise it. Who knows what we could all be ready for if we were more obedient?

    “Wow, “anon,” you seem to have a lot of anonymous resentment.”

    : ) You seem like a kind / smart person . . . you don’t need to make comments like that.

    “I could go on and on with ways in which the LDS church has diverged from the religion of Joseph Smith, but of course, you’d counter that this was just “further light and knowledge,” and that nothing had changed at all.”

    Why do you post your arguments when you are perfectly capable of comletely refuting them on your own? Of course we learn line upon line and precept upon precept. We will continually refine the way the church implements the gospel and its ordinances. Aren’t we all hoping yet another shortening of the temple session? Given the work left to do, not even Brigham would begrude us that.

    “Joseph Smith’s revelation that deity was once a man is “just a little couplet” that we “don’t teach” and “don’t know much about.”

    It is true that the church doesn’t know much about that and so it doesn’t teach much about it. Kind of like we know that our Heavenly Parents must have Heavenly Parents . . . but we don’t go teaching about it. Or, kind of like Heavenly Mother(s) in general. Yeah, it is probably true — but it isn’t the focus of our teaching. The diety thing was put into a couplet that oversimplified the issue.

    p.s.

    : ) That is another smiley face to assure anyone who considers me resentful that we would, in all likelihood, enjoy hanging out with eachother, given the opportunity.

    Comment # 51 by anon | May 4, 2007 | Reply

52. I’m glad you’re happier than that last post sounded, anon.

    You stated:
    “Aren’t we all hoping yet another shortening of the temple session? Given the work left to do, not even Brigham would begrude us that.”

    I don’t want to be tossing off ad hominem arguments, anon, but I’m honestly rather shocked at such a statement. If I wasn’t careful, your statement would lead me to making all sorts of assumptions regarding what you think about the temple ordinances. How far would you be willing to take this “let’s get through it faster” idea? Suppose the church decided to quit going through the ordinance altogether, and merely had a person lay their hands on your head, saying something like “Brother anon, in the name of Jesus Christ, I lay my hands upon you for and in behalf of _______, who is dead, and declare you endowed.” Each person could do hundreds of such “endowment sessions” in a day. Would this be fine with you? Are you of a mind to approve of any changes whatsoever, so long as they are approved by the First Presidency, or would there be a limit to what you could see as legitimate changes? (I’m not being sarcastic, but rather asking to really see where you’re coming from on this.)

    The first Endowments were given in this dispensation just 165 years ago today. Look at just the Initiatory portion. It began with a full-body washing (described as being rolled around in a tub of water, even) and full-body anointing. It was later modified to the specific washing and anointing of mentioned body parts. Now, it’s almost entirely done away with, on what might be called the Brillcream Theory (”a little dab will do ya!”), and the person is only “symbolically” washed and “symbolically” anointed. Maybe those who only receive “symbolic” initiatories are only “symbolically” endowed. In any case, it’s certainly not the set of ordinances that Joseph revealed and Brigham organized. They’re not even the same ordinances as when I received them, in 1985.

    Comment # 52 by Nick Literski | May 4, 2007 | Reply

53. Anon,

    I’m being completely honest intellectually,, and I know I have an entire brain (not “half a brain.”) I also have a full testimony (but not of your LDS Church–or rather I have a 100% testimony that your LDS Church is not what it claims to be).

    So God didn’t gives Priesthood to blacks because of racism? So you’re admitiing that Birgham Young, John Taylor and the subsequent LDS prophets (and the LDS community as a whole?) were racist? Okay, that’s pretty intellectually honest; I’ll agree with you on that one.

    But then what does this say about your concept of God? That God is bound by human prejudices? And if those earlier prophets were racists, then obviously they were preaching false doctrine as true doctrine from the Tabernacle pulpit during General Conferences, and they instituting racist policies in the very organization that they were claiming was the “One True Church”–policies over which they excommunicated people if those people preached against those policies.

    So what’’s the foundation of morals, ethics and morality in this sort of situation? I suppose it’s the motto “Follow the prophet.”….which bring us back to the principles taught in that Primary song.

    I won’t accuse you of intellectual dishonesty as you did to me. I would love to see some intellectual consistency, beacuse without it, the approach to living that you are presenting is devoid of any prinnciples–other than blind obedience to authority.

    Ponder the history Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s if you want to see what that brinsg about.Or better yet, ponder the situation in Cedar City, Utah during the first weeks of September 1857.

    Comment # 53 by Rob. Lauer | May 4, 2007 | Reply

54. Anon wrote:
    “It is true that the church doesn’t know much about that and so it doesn’t teach much about it. Kind of like we know that our Heavenly Parents must have Heavenly Parents . . . but we don’t go teaching about it”:

    Why not teach it? J

    oseph Smith taught about the Gods at length because he thought the world was ready to hear it. In fact, he “proclaimed” it for all the world to hear in his King Follett Discourse.

    Until 1905, the Lecture Before the Veil (which is now cut from the LDS Endowment) included a lengthhy lecture on the Gods, how they organized worlds, how one becomes a God, even a partial geneology of the Gods.

    Let’s be intetletcually honest: these doctrine were abhorant to traditional Christian orthodox, so the LDS Church–in its great accomodation and in its attempts (and currernt drive) to be seen a mainstream Christian–distanced itself from these teachings, at times denied them (see Bruce McConkie’s Deadly Heresies sermon and every statement by LDS prophets denying that Adam-God was ever taught) and now often claims ignornace of these doctrines (see President Hinckley statements to the press on that old “couplet.”)

    Of course, if I follow the principles you laid out in your previous posts I could reason that because the LDS prophets are currerntly prejudiced against these central doctrines of early Mormonism, then God Himself is bound to also distance Himself from them–and if I really have a full 100%testimony of Mormonism, I should reject them, too. (That reasoning seems a bit circular: a testimony of Mormon requires that I reject the central tenants of 19th century Mormonism.)

    Doesn’t seem to be a very principled way to live one’s religion…unless obedience to LDS Church authority is the sole principle one is embracing.

    Comment # 54 by Rob. Lauer | May 4, 2007 | Reply

55. Nick — I’m glad / hopeful that we’re all friends. I do believe that the execution of ordinances are not what you’d call a “principle” of the gospel. In other words, there is not a precise handbook for the completion of ordinances in heaven. For baptism, I think it is necessary that the person be submerged in water. For sacrament, I think it is necessary that (xxxx) represents body and that (xxxx) represents blood, but obviously, as long as it doesn’t detract from the spirit the (xxxx) actually used is of lesser importance.

    As for your temple comment — that was an enjoyable ride down a very steep slippery slope. (Think: Why not snap our fingers and have all the work done?)

    To tell you the truth I was just thinking about the non-dialogue movie segments that take up 15 mins. Or perhaps having a special highly explanatory session for newbies, and a session which omits the re-instruction for seasoned temple goers. That would take out a big chunk of the “if this is your first time” type stuff.

    But, as for the temple session in general — it is changed from how they did it in old testament times, then in Jesus’s time, then again throughout the ages via the Masons (though done w/o correct authority) and now from the Young, to Kimball, to Hinckley etc. ages. Basic covenants and principles must stay in place.

    I don’t think that a particular combination of gestures or words is written on a scroll as the exact way it must be done in heaven. I think that we are talking about a larger problem here — which I may address at a later time. Perhaps you have a sense for it. Its like, when critics suggest change, brether call them heretics / when the bretheren change stuff, all the sudden it is greater light and knowledge. Well, if that were my accusation, it would be fairly easy to respond to.

    Comment # 55 by anon | May 4, 2007 | Reply

56. Rob — is your real name Tal? jk, I’ll get back to you later. I know you have a whole brain. — if only it were more functional!!! : ) Just kidding. I need some time to think about what you said, and eat lunch.

    Comment # 56 by anon | May 4, 2007 | Reply

57. anon (#51), the problem I have here is that we seem to assign God with a schizophrenic personality. When it suits us he’s a passive God: “Anyone… knows that the Lord can only bless us with what we are ready to recieve. The church membership was not ready to receive blacks.” The implication is that God couldn’t do anything about it… his hands were tied… he had to wait for the whites to be ready.

    On the other hand, when it suits us he’s an active God. Witness Joseph Smith and Polygamy… God commanded him using Angels and drawn flaming swords to restore “Celestial Marriage,” who cares whether the people were ready to recieve it, who cares how repugnant the idea was to most 19th Century American Mormons (or Scandinavian Mormons, British, etc.). God commanded and the people either obeyed or disobeyed.

    I don’t see how we can have it both ways.

    If you are a believer in an “active God” (I am not, btw), it would be more consistent to say that God commanded Church leaders to treat all men equal, to give all men the priesthood… but the leaders disobeyed. Otherwise, you are faced with a God who would go so far as to send sword-bearing angels to make sure polygamy was restored, but would sit back and let an entire race be persecuted because the other race wasn’t ready.

    Comment # 57 by Matt Thurston | May 4, 2007 | Reply

58. Matt —

    The dilemma you raise (or perhaps that I raised — but which you eloquently describe) seems to require that unsatisfying band-aid : God moves in mysterious ways.

    But is it entirely mysterious? If you attempted to explain why God might be active in some regards, and passive in other I bet you could match or exceed my best efforts. Not that the following represents by best interest, but here are some possibilities:

    The men in the church were better suited to bear the difficulties (and, gasp, benefits) of polygamy-

    The timing and purpose was right for polygamy — perhaps the line: to provide every woman with a man to take care of her etc. has some merit.

    Blacks receiving the priesthood wasn’t an issue. All over church history, revelations crop up when there is a real-life issue facing the church (think Doctrine and Covenants). Word of wisdom wasn’t an issue until the whole school of the prophets thing. Then the revelation came. Even after the revelation, it took several decades for the church to turn it into a strict standard. Once the blacks and the priesthood question really became an issue at the forefront, the Lord provided the answer. I readily admit that other times, revelation crops up out of (apparently) nowhere. Usually, it seems there is a contextual reason for it. I call this the Bushman analysis. His book is replete with stuff like: No wonder Joseph was chosen to translate through stones . . . he’d been using such things his whole life. Maybe it troubled Joseph that Abraham had many wives, which prompted his prayer regarding celestial marriage. Certainly the faith of African Americans troubled Spencer Kimball, which prompted him to seek clarification.

    I know that is all speculation, but I hope that it at least provides a plausible basis for saying that God can act both passively and actively.

    The other question: Do we tie God’s hands here on earth with our lack of preparedness and imperfections? I would stand by my answer that we do — though, not absolutely. I think that the fact that church members are prejudiced and not ready to extend full fellowship to the blacks would prevent us from receiving the blessings of having those good people in the church. On the flip side, that narrow-mindedness causes us to bear the shame of our exclusion for so long.

    God will not give an individual commandments that she is not at least somewhat ready to receive and believe. I think it is by and large the same with the church.

    Comment # 58 by anon | May 4, 2007 | Reply

59. Ponder the history Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s if you want to see what that brinsg about.Or better yet, ponder the situation in Cedar City, Utah during the first weeks of September 1857.

    Rob — I don’t have time to get back to you on all of your questions. I figger that a mere cut-and-paste of your last line would force a re-reading, and an instantaneous dismissal of that ridiculous comparison. But anyway, . . .
    

    Of course, if I follow the principles you laid out in your previous posts I could reason that because the LDS prophets are currerntly prejudiced against these central doctrines of early Mormonism, then God Himself is bound to also distance Himself from them–and if I really have a full 100%testimony of Mormonism, I should reject them, too. ‘

    Objection: mischaracterization

    The accepted church curriculum is designed with a purpose: to keep things simple and bring people to Christ. They aren’t going to delve into the King Follet discourse and all of its implication during sunday school. Think practically. The church is an organization — it needs to think about all the members when deciding what to emphasize. If your personal study leads you to King Follet — then great. Not teaching King Follet, or that couplet does not mean a rejection of them. A distancing might appear to occur because the church is trying to change its focus. The church wants people to come to Christ, get baptized by the correct authority, and be active in the church. After that is accomplished, they can delve into interesting personal study. Why would an organization ever put the complex / ambiguous (and for now, non-essential) stuff first? It would be like trying to teach first-graders about the possible existence of extra dimensions. Why would the church do that?

    It seems that many of us our beset by a self-centered approach towards the church — like it was designed for the singular purpose of challenging and satisfying our intellectual and spiritual needs. It is just a Church, it happens to have the correct authority and the bretheren happen to be directed by God, but don’t act surprised if it acts like any other large-scale organization in the implementation of its principles.

    Comment # 59 by anon | May 4, 2007 | Reply

60. Questions from a non-Mormon (I am Catholic)…first, why such anti-Catholic rhetoric from Church leaders up until recent decades? Second, given the concept of marriage for eternity, if one loses a spouse, is remarriage rare? Third, I have heard individuals claim that women are equal partners in Mormon marriage, but I have also read that a women needs the Church’s permission to break the covenant of Temple marriage, but that a husband can remarry in the Temple without the “blessing” of the Mormon church…is this true? Lastly, does anyone know if Mr. Dalrymple’s child survived after birth and Mrs. Dalrymple passed away? Heartbreaking.

    Comment # 60 by Lucy | May 4, 2007 | Reply

61. Anon,

    I, too, am strapped for time, so I’ll just add a brief comment. (Let me add that I am enjoying our discussion. Thanks for taking the time to engage.)

    “The church wants people to come to Christ, get baptized by the correct authority, and be active in the church.”

    This “coming to Christ” is new to Mormonism. I don’t know how old you are (not that it matters, only in relation to what you may remember from your own time in the Church.) I’m 48. The evangelical Christian idea of coming to Christ and having a personal relationship with him (called “Mormon Neo-orthodoxy” by Mormon historians and scholars) was just coming into vogue during my last year at BYU (1982), In March of ‘82 Apostle Mark Peterson gave a devcotional talk at BYU CONDEMNING this concept of a personal relationship with Christ, and suggesting it would lead to apostacy from true doctrines. He warned that Church members should NOT focus on Christ and having a relatiomship with him because our focus should be our relationship with out Heavenly Father.

    This was a while before the LDS Church began to radically change its focus, before “Another Testament of Christ” was added as a subtitle to LDS editions of “The Book of Mormon.”

    As for the Church wanting people to be active in the church- and be submit to its authority–I couldn’t agree with you more: this indeed is their objective, and to accomplish it they are willing to throw traditional Mormon theology and docrtine out the wind.

    I was grateful that the second part of the PBS series pointed this out–this major change of focus.

    
    “After that is accomplished, they can delve into interesting personal study.”

    Why JUST perosnal study? These doctrines are not mysteries; they were still addressed openly when I joined the Church in the 1970’s. They were still be taught openly in Sunday school lesson manuals of that era.

    “Why would an organization ever put the complex / ambiguous (and for now, non-essential) stuff first? It would be like trying to teach first-graders about the possible existence of extra dimensions.”

    Because what you describe (incorrectly) as “complex, ambiguous and for now non-essential stuff”(!?!) concerns what Joseph Smith and trdaitional Mormonism taught was THE purpose of human existence; this was THE Plan of Salvation.

    Also because the doctrines of the plurality of God and the potential godhood of humans are cenral concepts in many sections of the D&C (76, 132, etc) and the central concept of an entire book of scripture (The Book of Abraham).

    “”Why would the church do that? ”

    Oh, I dunno….may be because they might actuallly take Joseph Smith seriously; because the founding prophet of their religion, he thought these doctrines WERE essebtial–so much so that he declared in his King Follett Discourse that without this knowledge (of God, His origins and man’s true character and potenrial for Godhood) salvation was impossible.

    If an organization actually takes Joseph Smith seriously as a prophet, if they actually DO embrace his teachings about the nature of the very God for whom he claimed to speak (and I hold the LDS Church no longer does this)–well, there are two very noble reasons for doing this.

    But I agree with you: the LDS Church is mainly interested in getting as many poeople as it can to submit to its own authority.

    Thus Mormonism has been replaced with LDS-ism.

    It seems that many of us our beset by a self-centered approach towards the church —

    Ah, yes! The standard LDS “blame yourself” guilt trip. We’re all too selfish. That always cracks me up! Heaven knows there’s no selfishness in the Church trying to get as many people as possible to submit to its authority, devote their lives to its programs, never criticize its leaders, never question their motives and, of course, donate 10 per cent of their income to ithe Church coffers.

    –like it was designed for the singular purpose of challenging and satisfying our intellectual and spiritual needs.

    Well, yes! Isn’t that EXACTLY what the Church has claimed its purpose was. Doesn’t THAT alll tie in with “perfecting the Saints,” and “the glory of God is intellligence” and “seek ye wisdom out of the best books?” (Those last two reference are to The Docrtine & Covenant–what I call, “The Ignored Testament of Jesus Christ.”)

    It is just a Church,
    I agree. It is JUST a church–and not a mediator between the individual and God.

    it happens to have the correct authority and the bretheren happen to be directed by God, but don’t act surprised if it acts like any other large-scale organization in the implementation of its principles.

    I disagree that it has anything other than human authority. (I could bear my testimony to that truth, but this isn’t a testimony meeting.)

    If the Brethren really are directed by God, then He must be a confused, self-conflicted Diety, so I’ll just take Joseph Smith’s advice and try to “learn to be a god myself , the same as all gods before us have done.”

    I am NOT surprised that the LDS Church acts like any other large-scale organization.

    But I am amused to no end that so many of its members get bent out of shape when PBS dares to treat the LDS Church like such an organization in its investigation of it.

    Comment # 61 by Rob. Lauer | May 4, 2007 | Reply

62. Hi Rob,

    You said:
    In March of ‘82 Apostle Mark Peterson gave a devcotional talk at BYU CONDEMNING this concept of a personal relationship with Christ, and suggesting it would lead to apostacy from true doctrines. He warned that Church members should NOT focus on Christ and having a relatiomship with him because our focus should be our relationship with out Heavenly Father.

    Kerry:
    I suspect you meant Bruce R. McConkie, yes? Just a nit,pick, I know, I know……..

    Comment # 62 by Kerry Shirts | May 4, 2007 | Reply

63. Anon:
    Think: Why not snap our fingers and have all the work done?)

    Kerry:
    Indeed! Not only about temple work though……..think why God did anything at all? If God is all powerful, all insightful, knowing, etc. (the ultimate intellectual - I can just *hear* Bro. Packer groaning at that one! GRIN!) Then why bother with even making an earth for us? Just snap the ole fingers and wala, we’re all assigned our places of glory. That sure woulda saved one helluva lot of agony and heartache on our parts in this earthlife (magnified by billions)! Why do anything in time, when all God has to do is snap His/Her fingers? GRIN! You *do* get the point I am driving at dontchta?!

    Comment # 63 by Kerry Shirts | May 4, 2007 | Reply

64. Kerry, this Anon — and I don’t get your point. And the number of consonants in a row in the word “dontcha” is really troubling.

    I was saying that about the snapping of fingers to point out that ceremony (in this case, the temple ceremony) IS necessary — but that it is more flexible than some people may believe. It is not so flexible that we could just change it to a single snap or our fingers, but it is flexible enough that if we change part of the initiatories it doesn’t invalidate the whole church. Dontcha think? Seriously, don’t you?

    Comment # 64 by anon | May 4, 2007 | Reply

65. Rob — I too enjoy the conversation, but you are out of my league. You have thought so much more about why the church isn’t true than I ever will. I accept that.

    I know the church hasn’t given Christ his due — my grandma (much older than 48, now passed on to the other side and probably reveling in the error of your ways ( winking iron smiley face !!!! )) used to always complain that they don’t talk about Christ enough. She was literally afraid to go to sacrament on Easter because she worried that no one would focus on the Lord. However —- the church has started to correct that problem, and has come a very long way.

    The Book of Mormon was and is another testament of Jesus Christ long before the church ever put those words on the outside. I think it is interesting that the title page (written by Moroni, or perhaps Mormon) states that the purpose of the book is to convince everyone that “Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations. So regardless of what you might have understood McConkie as saying, we at least know that the ancient American prophets had their act together. The bretheren have always claimed, as it says in scripture, that their primary role is to be an especial witness of Christ. Oh, and there is that little problem of 2nd Nephi 25:23-28. All about Christ. And, I have one other reference for you, Nephi 1:1 - Moroni 10:34. I think, I can’t remember, but I think one or two of those pages says something about the Lord.

    Anyway, I am so tired that I can’t even tell when I am being sarcastic.

    Comment # 65 by anon | May 4, 2007 | Reply

66. Lucy,

    Why such anti-Catholic rhetoric? The Book of Mormon talks about “the great and abominable church” or “the whore of the earth” to refer to the people or churches who have lost their way and pervert the ways of God. I’m not sure which Mormon leader first explicitly designated the Catholic Church as “the great and abominable church.” Probably Joseph Smith, but maybe it came later. I know I grew up with the understanding that Catholic Church = Great and Abominable.

    But really, the reason for the anti-Catholic rhetoric is the sometimes seemingly universal need of people or organizations to villify the “other,” to draw clear lines between “us” and “them” that allows “us” feel more special or “chosen.” Hopefully, most people/organizations grow out of it as they mature, as the Mormon Church seems to be doing with respect to this unfortunate doctrine or folklore. I’m guessing the Catholic Church has not been immune to such unfortunate doctrine or folklore with respect to villifying “others” during its history, not that I’m making excuses.

    Regarding the death of one’s spouse and remarriage… yes, it is very common, given the importance of family in the LDS faith, to say nothing of the the church’s strict moral code prohibiting sex outside of marriage. Men can remarry for “eternity,” but women can only remarry for “time,” as in this lifetime. A man/widower who marries a previously unmarried woman (or previously married woman whose temple marriage was officially cancelled) will have two wives in heaven. A previously sealed woman/widow, should she remarry, will only be married to her first husband in heaven. I’m just giving you the party line, not saying I believe or agree with it.

    Comment # 66 by Matt Thurston | May 5, 2007 | Reply

67. Matt:

    Thank you for your thoughtful response to my questions re Mormonism. You are quite correct that the Catholic Church has not been immune from bigotry, intolerance, and blights on its past. I would like to think that much of that is behind us, but even in the present, the Church seems to have significant missteps that tarnish its reputation in the eyes of outsiders (i.e. the child sex abuse scandal). By and large though, I can say that I have grown up attending a Catholic school that did not preach condemnation of other faiths, and most of the priests with whom I have spoken have uttered nary a cross word about other churches. It goes without saying that I was born and raised in a post Vatican I and Vatican II world. My husband on the other hand (now a Catholic-convert), was raised in a very strict synod of the Lutheran faith that spewed poisonous and contemptuous things about the Catholic Church.

    I had not been aware that the Mormon church had also held the Catholic Church in such regard until watching the show and doing a little reading. I hope that such views (both from the Catholic and non-Catholic perspective) are becoming a relic of the past. I don’t think you will change the older generations though. Even my grandmother, probably the sweetest little lady on earth, upon finding out the a Mormon family had moved in by us and that I had become very good friends with the mom, was worried that I was being exposed to “that cult.” Goes to show that prejudice has run both ways.

    Comment # 67 by Lucy | May 5, 2007 | Reply

68. Kerry,

    You’re right: the talk was given by McConkie. Thanks!

    Anon,
    I tried for decades to keep a testimony that the LDS Church was the oen true church; Lord knows I wanted it to be. But experiences (both commonplace and spiritual), studying our history, pondering, praying, etc. convinced me otherwise. I respect the right of others to believe otherwise, and I don’t for a moment think that believing the LDS Church’s claims reflects badly on anyone. If the LDS Church brings meaning, strength, comfort, spiritual growth, etc. to someone, then that is a good thing. But what I can no longer pretend to believe is that the LDS, its leaders and its ordinances are divinely mandated as necessary for one’s salvation, progression or exaltation.
    Best wishes!

    Comment # 68 by Rob. Lauer | May 5, 2007 | Reply

69. Rob, re Kerry:

    The McConkies have long had a reputation of being unequivocally right–at least before the policy change of 1978. I think it runs in the family. When I was in graduate school at the U of Utah in the early 1960s, Bruce R’s brother, Oscar Jr., was a new member of the U of U student stake presidency. He took a shine to me because of a passionate contribution to a stake speech festival on the theme “How can we build the moral strength of our nation.” I suspect that Oscar was the architect of the festival theme, although I do not know this for sure. In any case, I was soon called on a stake mission and (without a priesthood partner!) he pronounced the setting apart blessing in his down town law office. I had feared his over-enthusiasm and so fasted and prayed for three days in preparation. His rush to set me apart intensified my concern.

    During the blessing I heard these startling, powerfully spoken and unequivocal words: “The Lord is aware of you and the hopes of your heart. He will step out of his regular pattern to bless you in an especial way. You will know of a certainty what your work is before this mission is through.”

    Startled, I began praying silently: “Lord, this is not typical language. Must I take these words seriously? He has said nothing about my studies, my professional path, my family or any other normal matter.” My concerns were quietly laid to rest when McConkie’s words immediately addressed each silent concern in turn and in the order asked. I resolved never to forget them.

    Now, over 45 years later and having been excommunicated twice in the interim, what do I think about them now? I still think they were prophetic. But I doubt Oscar does.

    Comment # 69 by Eugene Kovalenko | May 7, 2007 | Reply

70. Anon,
    I wonder why you do not identify yourself. You write forcefully and with passion and conviction. But you write from the shadows. Your African-American roots make you even more interesting to me and I dare say to others. I believe Mormonism (versus LDS-ism) has evolved well beyond its magical, mythical roots.

    In 1976, shortly after I had returned to the LDS Church after a ten year absence, I met “Brother”, a Black pastor in a Pentecostal church in south central Los Angeles (the Watts district). Brother hired me to sing Negro Spirituals every week over his Sunday radio broadcast for about six months. He got a great chuckle out of saying that no one in the radio audience outside his congregation ever knew it was a White guy singing!

    Brother was my first Black friend. He was a great admirer of the Mormons. I will never forget his charisma, charm, intelligence and creativity. He taught me much. I miss him.

    Comment # 70 by Eugene Kovalenko | May 7, 2007 | Reply

71. Rob said:

    “But what I can no longer pretend to believe is that the LDS, its leaders and its ordinances are divinely mandated as necessary for one’s salvation, progression or exaltation.”

    I completely agree!

    Comment # 71 by Eugene Kovalenko | May 7, 2007 | Reply

72. Yes, the McConkie reputation has been a fascinating phenomenon to observe….. fascinating to me personally because I so disagree with everyone who says they were always correct and right and doctrinally sound in their exegeses of the scriptures. Now that being said, they are good for some who are, for lack of a better way of putting this, on that level of spirituality. It was Louis Midgley who turned that around with serious force in one of the FARMS Review of Books on the book by Joseph Fielding McConkie and I believe Robert Millet on the “Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon.” Midgley’s tour de force logic and analysis is second to none. Absolutely *powerful!*

    Comment # 72 by Kerry Shirts | May 8, 2007 | Reply

73. I’m late to the party as usual, but I had to add my two cents after finally watching Part II tonight. I have tried really hard to read Margaret Toscano’s essays in Dialogue and Sunstone, and I always give up about halfway through. I just don’t get it. It’s her writing style - I just can’t get into it. And a lot of the theology and such is way beyond me. I was kind of disappointed that she was featured so much tonight - wouldn’t Lavina Fielding Anderson talk to the producers? I think she’s a much more interesting speaker and personality and more people who know something about her experiences in the 1990s can relate to her. At least I can.

    Marlin K. Jensen was my mission president for the first half of my mission, and I think he is one of the greatest people I have ever met. He often gave me the impression of someone who didn’t always want to be nice or to spout the party line - a real person, in other words - but who thought deeply about various issues and tried to do as he thought the Lord would have him do, even when he didn’t like it or feel like doing it. He has been a great example to me in this respect. I am still in touch with him and get two or three short letters a year from him. My husband and I visited him and his awesome wife Kathy when we were on vacation in Germany and he was in the Area Presidency there. Sister Jensen is even cooler than President Jensen (he’ll always be President Jensen to me).

    The Dalrymples’ story made me feel sick. I have so much sympathy for them because I have seen similar situations among people I have known. I think much of my mother’s ill health (mental as well as physical) was the result of having too many children (she had seven children and many more pregnancies that ended in miscarriage), yet she often said that she always felt like there was “one more.” During the last few weeks of her life, she often hallucinated that there were toddlers and small children running around the house and would say they were her children. I myself had my third child because I felt strongly that there was “someone missing.” I had a very difficult delivery with my second child, but my life was never in danger, and my doctor assured me that I could have other children if I wanted them, but it was still a very difficult decision for me and I felt a lot of resentment about having to go through another pregnancy and, as it turned out, another difficult birth. But my little boy is so precious, and I feel certain that he was meant to come to our family, so how can I say that the Dalrymples were wrong? And yet… It was especially wrenching after watching Wednesday’s episode of “Lost,” in which the evil Ben is revealed to be evil at least in part because his father blamed him for killing his mother in childbirth. I wonder how little David Dalrymple feels about his place in the family?

    The exiles and dissidents - meh. Like many of you, I think they could have gotten some better people. I really disliked the part about Margaret Toscano’s excommunication and the emphasis on the “on