(emphasis added)Daniel Peterson wrote:The speculation will all be over in just a few days, but I would be dumbfounded, amazed, astonished, and . . . well, surprised if the film turns out to be anything like a "bigoted and unprincipled assault."
Will it discuss and emphasize things that many of us would rather not have emphasized, or even publicly discussed? Probably. Will it always handle them the way we would prefer? Probably not. Will it give a few critics a platform that we ourselves would not have given them? Almost certainly. But I expect that there will be things in the film that we -- or, at least, that I -- will like very much. Helen Whitney isn't a public relations flack for the Church, or a missionary. We have no right to expect her to act like one. We do, however, have a right to expect that she will be reasonably fair and sympathetic, and that is precisely what I, for one, do expect. If she's not, I'll be disappointed in the film and in her, and (for what little it's worth) will tell her so.
Wow! Not only does he manage to insult both Church PR and the missionaries in one fell swoop, he is threatening to chastise Helen Whitney if the film doesn't meet his standards? Krispy Kreme King indeed! This seems like a significant slip-up on his part, and I think he really should have known better than to label Church PR people as "flacks." Not very nice at all! Does this mean, by extension, that he thinks the Church whitewashes its history and image? So, not only does he engage in malicious gossip, but he secretly looks down on Church PR as well! Stunning!