Revisiting "The Godmakers"

[_Mister Scratch]

I recently discovered this cartoon on youtube:

[NB: the clip contains temple material.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7v_V8qSIIo

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:

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/GMErrors.htm

My question is: How inaccurate is The Godmakers? It seems to me, based on the cartoon, that much of the stuff dealing with doctrine is actually correct. Some of the material seems sketchy, such as the claim that Jesus (whom the film refers to as "The Mormon Jesus") was married to three women. But the rest of the cartoon relies upon history and doctrine which is or has been genuinely accepted by the LDS hierarchy and intelligentsia.

So my question is: What is the primary beef with this film? Is it really the inaccuracies? Or do apologists mainly find fault with the film's POV---i.e., that it's not "faith promoting enough" (or at all)? Is it an issue of focus, as has been discussed notably by Ben McGuire and DCP---i.e., that the film focusses on issues that needn't be dwelt upon? (That is, the Church is interested in focussing on faith, rather than peculiarities of doctrine.) Is it a matter of putting concrete imagery to theology which is meant to be "not systematic" that's troubling? Or is it, ultimately, just an issue of wanting to control everything?

I guess what I'm saying is: I don't get it. My take is that The Godmakers may get a few things wrong, but that, on the whole, it is fairly accurate in terms of what it's saying (at least based on this cartoon, anyway). So why have apologists been bent out of shape over it, and for so long? Just curious what others think.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

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 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.

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.

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

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

I still say COOGY is talking to himself....who is LORAN anyway

[_Yoda]

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.

[_Coggins7]

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.

Loran:

You are quite correct, but not exactly. The entire film, as a whole, is not so much poorly researched as a flat footed lie. Decker and the producers of the films knew they were lying, knew they were deceiving, and knew they could have avoided doing so had they desired to. Much of the material they got wrong is available at any public library, so if poor research is to blame, then these folks were operating at somewhere near a 5th grade level of scholarly ability.

Scratch is about as serious a student and commentator upon the LDS church as Marx was a serous student and commentator on economics.

Loran

[_Runtu]

Loran:

You are quite correct, but not exactly. The entire film, as a whole, is not so much poorly researched as a flat footed lie. Decker and the producers of the films knew they were lying, knew they were deceiving, and knew they could have avoided doing so had they desired to. Much of the material they got wrong is available at any public library, so if poor research is to blame, then these folks were operating at somewhere near a 5th grade level of scholarly ability.

Scratch is about as serious a student and commentator upon the LDS church as Marx was a serous student and commentator on economics.

Loran

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.

[_Bryan Inks]

I'd be interested in knowing how many of the people lambasting Decker's work have actually read his book or seen his movie.

Personally, I've never seen the movie, other than the cartoon section (which has been online for a couple of years now), but I have read the book and found it to be extremely accurate.

Granted, there is a bit of an evangelical streak to it, but the "facts" of the book are accurate.

For that aspect alone, I find it to be a useful tool.

[_Runtu]

I'd be interested in knowing how many of the people lambasting Decker's work have actually read his book or seen his movie.

Personally, I've never seen the movie, other than the cartoon section (which has been online for a couple of years now), but I have read the book and found it to be extremely accurate.

Granted, there is a bit of an evangelical streak to it, but the "facts" of the book are accurate.

For that aspect alone, I find it to be a useful tool.

As I said, I read it on my lunch hour over several days while I was working in SLC. It's not so much inaccurate as it is distorted for use as a polemical club (rather like Wade's posts).

[_truth dancer]

Hi Loran,

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?

Thanks,

~dancer~

[_Coggins7]

I'd be interested in knowing how many of the people lambasting Decker's work have actually read his book or seen his movie.

Personally, I've never seen the movie, other than the cartoon section (which has been online for a couple of years now), but I have read the book and found it to be extremely accurate.

Granted, there is a bit of an evangelical streak to it, but the "facts" of the book are accurate.

For that aspect alone, I find it to be a useful tool.

Iv'e read the books and seen various scenes from the film, and you have now demonstrated adaquately that your personal integrity is roughly at the same subterrainean level as Ed Decker's. You know very well that the film isn't even marginally accruate in its portrayal of church doctrine and history, and in so knowing but telling a public lie here and pretending you don't know, we once again see the naked realities of the "ex-Mormon" culture of flash and trash intellectualism.

Who on earth do you think you are fooling?