Revisiting "The Godmakers"

[_Coggins7]

OK, so you shared your opinion about Scratch, told us your opinion about the movie, now, could you give a few examples of the lies within the movie? What is it that is offensive or inaccurate?

Loran:

Surely you jest. Decker's work has been torn to pieces and exposed to the disinfectant of light for upwards of 25 years now by other competent scholars and critics, and there is no purpose served at all going over a screed that has been laid to rest with other eqivalent works like God's Natural Religion and Newspaper stories on the Soviet Union by Walter Duranty. Do your own homework on this one, the issue is a closed one. And you know, anyone who defends Decker or his work is telling me lots of things about themselves and little about the LDS church.

Loran

[_Mister Scratch]

Apparently, this clip is excerpted from Ed Decker's infamous film, Temple of the Godmakers, the entirety of which I haven't seen. What I do know is that, arguably, the entire contemporary field of LDS apologetics appears to be oriented around dealing with and "fixing" the PR damage inflicted by this 20-some-odd-year-old film and the issues it raises. In fact, there is a lengthy, "play by play" deconstruction of this film over on SHIELDS:

Loran:

I thought, at one point you were, at least to some degree, a serious critic of the church and to at least be, to some degree, intellectually honests in your evaluations of evidence, but I must now retract that perception having followed many of your posts in recent weeks, including this one.

For heaven's sake, the Godmakers films were deconstructed, dismantled, and exposed for what they were (demogogic cinematic screeds so intellectually dishonest that other Christian denomiations, organizations, and pastors denounced them in print and stood in solidarity with the Church against Decker and Jeremiah Films

I'm only aware of one religious organization that did this.

for their shameless excercise in religious bigotry, mendacity, and hysteria creation (which these same people have aimed at others as well, including Catholics, practicioners of eastern religions, Seventh Day Adventists, Jews, and anyone else who comes within their sights)) for some 20 years. There is barely a frame of film in ether of thses screeds that isn't demonstratable fraudulent or contrived. Decker's mendacious deceptiveness here is only rivaled in the secular world by Michael Moore.

I happen to like Michael Moore's films quite a bit. Also, your reaction to the OP says a lot, in my opinion. Can you speak to anything specific about the film that seems so "bigoted"? Or do you prefer to simply issue general, non-specific ad hominem attacks and harangues against Decker's character?

The fact that you would want to revisit a excercise in intellectual debauchery, caulumny and defamation quite on a par with the Protocols of The Elders of Zion or claims about Jews made in the publications of the Nation of Islam or the White Identity movemnet says a good deal about who you really are Scratch, and what the itch is to which that term relates.

I haven't yet been persuaded that the so-called "intellectual debauchery" and "defamation" in The Godmakers is all that different from the smear campaigns published on a regular basis by FARMS Review. The bottom line is that I don't really understand why there has been so much fuss over this film. Again, I have only seen the cartoon, but based on that, I'm left "scratching" my head over the big stink that you and others have made over it. I mean, if it really is so blatantly and obviously as bad as you say, then why get all bent out of shape, you know? Why is this film's representation of Mormonism worse than, say, the "South Park" episode that dealt with the history of the Church?

You should be ashemed to raise your head in public among mature, educated adults, or anybody else with any moral or intellectual integrity.

This is utterly, utterly pathetic.

Loran

Actually, I think your knee-jerk reaction and complete failure to produce even one shred of specific evidence is more pathetic. in my opinion.

[_Mister Scratch]

Hi Scratch! :)

I didn't view the cartoon link on youtube, but I did read the Shields link.

There are some very valid points on that site addressing what is wrong with the Godmakers' film. There are quite a few discrephencies in Mormon doctrine listed, so I'm a little confused about your point.

Although I have never seen the film, or read the book, my take on why members have been so offended by "The Godmakers" is that it paints an extremely disrespectful picture of temple ordinances, which is something that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints hold sacred. The material is massively disrespectful in that sense.

According to Sheild's review, it also appears that many facets of the film were poorly researched and inaccurate.

I agree that, from a certain point of view, the temple material is disrespectful. However, my personal opinion is that the temple ceremony should no longer be kept secret, so I have less of a problem with the cartoon, I guess.

My point, in any case, is that it is unclear to me why this film has been so vilified by LDS apologists. One can see quite clearly, on the basis of Coggins's reaction, that this movie cuts extremely deep. And why? In fact, I can't think of any other anti-Mormon work that TBMs hate more than "The Godmakers." Is it really about a misrepresentation of the facts? Is it the eerie music on the soundtrack, what? Why is this film so completely and utterly despised?

As for the SHIELDS article, much of it seems like fluff and spin, in my opinion. I would be interested in seeing a better, more intelligent response to the film, if one exists. All I have seen so far is attempts to brush the film away via ad hominem attacks and verbal assault.

[_Coggins7]

Decker is the prime example, however, of Juliann's misuse of research. How so? Decker is exactly the kind of career apostate that the literature describes. Decker exhibits all the things Juliann's research talks about: sponsorship in making a career, the adoption of a standard "exit from captivity" story, and so on. What makes Juliann's use of that same research dishonest is that she paints the rest of us as of the same kind as Decker.

Loran:

Runtu, if you were not, at least in some fundamental way, "like" Ed Decker, you wouldn't be here in this forum, or any other, attacking and attempting to deligitemize the church in the eyes of others and destroy their faith and commitment to it. Neither would Shady, Rollo, or any of the others here with a similar agenda. As I believe Wade has pointed out time and time again, the majority of people who leave the church go on with their lives and let the church fade into the background. Some number of these will eventually come back to the church, and some won't, but it is only this tiny core of apostate critics who become either a part of the Evangelical Protestent counter-cult movement, leftist secularist critics of the Signature Books and Dialogue type, or ranting bigots like CoffeeCat, Nortinski, Polygamy Porter, and a few others here and in other forums.

These people clearly share a similar psychology and self concept not shared by the majority of people who don't stay with the church, but who don't gravitate to forums like ex-Mormons.org, Mormons In Transition, or Recovery From Mormonism. and who don't write books attacking the church, don't, create institutions and religious ministries invested in the destruction of the church and its teachings, don't create blogs and websites invested in the impunging of the church and its teachings, and who don't convey the kind of hatred, venom, bitterness, and frank intellectual dishonesty in their criticisms of the church that is a staple within this subcultural element of ex-Mormons. It doesn't seem to mattter whether one becomes a flaming leftwinger or a Bible thumping fundamentalist in response to one's leaving of the church for other pastures. The underlying dynamics seem quite similar across the spectrum of both commited amature and professional anti-Mormons.

No, you may not be the demagogue, intellectual hack, and flat footed snake oil salesman that Decker and others like him are, and you're approach to defaming and distorting church teachings and history may be more restrained, civil and, shall we say, domesticated than Deckers, but again, the underlying dynamics retain similarities that can be defined and critiqued.

Loran

[_Mister Scratch]

I read the book when I was working at the COB. It is indeed a worthless piece of crap. I think I would have figured out the church a lot sooner had I not read that book. I figured that if that was the best the "antis" could come up with, it wasn't worth my time to bother with it.

Decker is the prime example, however, of Juliann's misuse of research. How so? Decker is exactly the kind of career apostate that the literature describes. Decker exhibits all the things Juliann's research talks about: sponsorship in making a career, the adoption of a standard "exit from captivity" story, and so on. What makes Juliann's use of that same research dishonest is that she paints the rest of us as of the same kind as Decker.

Scratch, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're basing your view of the Godmakers on a very small portion. It's seriously crap of the worst kind. I don't know that it's so much dishonest as it's polemical to the point where I'm not sure the authors understand the extent of their distortion.

I have only seen the cartoon. While the music suggests that the filmmakers see Mormonism was something that is somewhat ominous and eerie, I'm not sure why the cartoon is necessarily a "distortion." I mean, what, technically and specifically speaking, is "distorted" about it? I noted above that the Jesus w/ his three wives seems made-up, but is there anything else? Is it basically just the POV that people object to?

[_harmony]

For heaven's sake, the Godmakers films were deconstructed, dismantled, and exposed for what they were (demogogic cinematic screeds so intellectually dishonest that other Christian denomiations, organizations, and pastors denounced them in print and stood in solidarity with the Church against Decker and Jeremiah Films for their shameless excercise in religious bigotry, mendacity, and hysteria creation (which these same people have aimed at others as well, including Catholics, practicioners of eastern religions, Seventh Day Adventists, Jews, and anyone else who comes within their sights)) for some 20 years.

What is it with these lo-o-o-ong sentences today? Granted, there's only 88 words in that sentence, at least 2 phrases shy of Wade's record 103 words, but can't you shorten it a little? I'm 2 weeks older than I was when I started reading it! (ok, slight exaggeration, but still!)

And please name those Christian demoninations. The Baptist church across the street from my ward building showed the Godmakers every night for a week when it came out. They certainly didn't find it offensive or question its honesty.

The fact that you would want to revisit a excercise in intellectual debauchery, caulumny and defamation quite on a par with the Protocols of The Elders of Zion or claims about Jews made in the publications of the Nation of Islam or the White Identity movemnet says a good deal about who you really are Scratch, and what the itch is to which that term relates.

This isn't FAIR/MAAD, coggins. This is MD, and we discuss all sorts of topics here, even ones that you might find offensive. If you can't stand the heat, the pool's out back. Avail yourself of it. In the meantime, either add to the discussion or don't, but haranguing Scratch for asking a question and setting up a thread is pretty lame, even for you.

You should be ashemed to raise your head in public among mature, educated adults, or anybody else with any moral or intellectual integrity.

Your over-the-top reaction is most interesting. I'm wondering why you're so upset.

[Nomomo]

No, you may not be the demagogue, intellectual hack, and flat footed snake oil salesman that Decker and others like him are, and you're approach to defaming and distorting church teachings and history may be more restrained, civil and, shall we say, domesticated than Deckers, but again, the underlying dynamics retain similarities that can be defined and critiqued.

Loran

Like Decker, Loran, you lose credibility when you engage in hyperbole.

I've hated Godmakers before and after leaving the Church. I think that sharing my experience with people about Mormonism -- including some of the more secret rites -- is fair. I do not attend GC and drag Book of Mormon's or throw garments into the faces of the passers-by. I also do not tell my children that they're idiots for believing. I don't believe they -- or you - are.

But the disagreement that I have with Mormonism is valid. I think the leaders have lied. Maybe it's just because they're human. Maybe they don't have to be truthful all the time. My standard for "The only true and living church" is higher than my standard for Decker -- but I would repudiate his trash just like I would the deceptions perpetuated by the Church.

At least, that's what I tell myself.

[_Mister Scratch]

OK, so you shared your opinion about Scratch, told us your opinion about the movie, now, could you give a few examples of the lies within the movie? What is it that is offensive or inaccurate?

Loran:

Surely you jest. Decker's work has been torn to pieces and exposed to the disinfectant of light for upwards of 25 years now by other competent scholars and critics, and there is no purpose served at all going over a screed that has been laid to rest with other eqivalent works like God's Natural Religion and Newspaper stories on the Soviet Union by Walter Duranty. Do your own homework on this one, the issue is a closed one. And you know, anyone who defends Decker or his work is telling me lots of things about themselves and little about the LDS church.

Loran

The fact that the "tearing to pieces" and "exposure" has been going on "for upwards of 25 years now" really speaks to the PR damage that this film did, in my opinion. My OP was interested in getting at the reasons for this. I mean, can you name anything specific? You claim "the issue is a closed one," but the fact that apologists have been dealing with it "for upwards of 25 years now" says otherwise. I realize that I don't know the whole story about Decker and his work, but the fact that people just vilify Decker without citing specifics says a lot about the state of LDS apologetics as well, in my opinion.

Edited to add: I just want to clarify---my intention isn't to defend Decker or his work, I'm really just interested in trying to understand why apologists see what he did as so "harmful," so to speak, as to merit 25+ years of response. Really, is it as Runtu says, that it's a matter of polemics, or of disliking his tone? Is it factual inaccuracies? A combination of things?

[_asbestosman]

What is it with these lo-o-o-ong sentences today? Granted, there's only 88 words in that sentence, at least 2 phrases shy of Wade's record 103 words, but can't you shorten it a little? I'm 2 weeks older than I was when I started reading it! (ok, slight exaggeration, but still!).

You should see the one in 3 Nephi 21:1-7 which has 392 words for one sentence.

[_Yoda]

Runtu, if you were not, at least in some fundamental way, "like" Ed Decker, you wouldn't be here in this forum, or any other, attacking and attempting to deligitemize the church in the eyes of others and destroy their faith and commitment to it. Neither would Shady, Rollo, or any of the others here with a similar agenda. As I believe Wade has pointed out time and time again, the majority of people who leave the church go on with their lives and let the church fade into the background. Some number of these will eventually come back to the church, and some won't, but it is only this tiny core of apostate critics who become either a part of the Evangelical Protestent counter-cult movement, leftist secularist critics of the Signature Books and Dialogue type, or ranting bigots like CoffeeCat, Nortinski, Polygamy Porter, and a few others here and in other forums.

Woah, Loran! With all due respect, I don't think that Runtu, Shades, or Rollo have an agenda to destroy anyone else's faith. Most of their comments have revolved around specific points of Church doctrine they don't agree with. Rollo, as far as what I have read, is still active in the Church. Runtu and Shades have decided that the Church is not for them, but I don't see them actively trying to sway members away. This message board is an open forum. All types of things are discussed. Why are you here if you find it so offensive?

As for CoffeeCat, Not, and PP, it's obvious that they are working through anger issues involving the Church.

However, I don't think that you can lump everyone who disagrees with different Church issues as having an "agenda".