DiscussMormonism.com

I didn’t watch The Mormons. Paraphrasing Pee Wee Herman, I don't need to watch it; I lived it. Rather than being about the documentary per se, this thread is about the surrounding chatter.

1- A fashionable criticism of the project is to say that the amount of attention that critics and various unflattering or controversial issues have received was “disproportionate”. However, the film attempted to “[explore] the richness, the complexities and the controversies of the Mormons' story as told through interviews with members of the church, leading writers and historians, and supporters and critics of the Mormon faith.”

Exploring the richness, complexities, and controversies of the faith is a valid project, and interviewing a variety of members, writers, historians, supporters, and critics is a valid way to explore it. The concept of exploring is to walk into something big and complex and look around at what is most interesting. Practically speaking, such an endeavor can’t be proportionate. And it was never intended to be.

What it should be judged on is whether or not it did in fact address richness, complexities, and controversies, whether it was exceedingly one-sided, and whether or not the people who were interviewed were sincere and knowledgeable about what they were talking about.

2- The reaction of most Internet Mormons seems to be melancholic acceptance that this is the best that could be hoped for by a secular outsider. I hope they take consolation in knowing that there are all sorts of non-Mormon religions, belief systems, lifestyles, and histories that are at least as strange and/or unflattering.

3- The reaction of most Chapel Mormons is that it was full of anti-Mormon lies and that interested people should contact the missionaries to find out the truth about the faith. I would remind such people that the missionaries don’t address the richness, complexities, and controversies of the faith. If you are interested in such things, you need to look beyond the missionaries.

4- Tal Bachman is getting some flak for saying that he would have committed an act of terrorism if he would have been commanded to do so. That is the attitude my mission presidents wanted missionaries to have. I was clearly and repeatedly taught to always obey God, and that “whether by my own voice, or the voice of my servants, it is the same.” I was taught that when an angel commanded Abraham to murder his son, that Abraham took the correct course of action by obeying. If somebody takes seriously what the church does in fact teach, then there is only one answer: if you are commanded to commit an act of terrorism, you should in fact do so. Believers who contemplatively read the Mormon scriptures ask themselves, “What if an angel commanded me to murder innocent people? Would I be as obedient as Abraham was?”

5- Various people have criticized it for saying things that were beyond their own pre-conceived notions (e.g. the dance segment). The Mormon experience is in fact rich and is different for everybody. People should want to see different facets of the complexity, learn of the experience of different people, and see the same issues from different perspectives. They should have approached the film hoping to see some new, interesting, and perhaps valid ways to view the faith, rather than approached it to see how closely it matched their preconceived notions.

I agree with just about everything you said. Might I just comment on this:

Analytics wrote:I5- Various people have criticized it for saying things that were beyond their own pre-conceived notions (e.g. the dance segment). The Mormon experience is in fact rich and is different for everybody. People should want to see different facets of the complexity, learn of the experience of different people, and see the same issues from different perspectives. They should have approach the film hoping to see some new, interesting, and perhaps valid ways to view the faith, rather than approached it to see how closely it matched their preconceived notions.

My objection to this part of the film was simply that it came out of nowhere and seemed oddly disconnected from the rest of the narrative. It's an interesting idea about the connectedness of the physical and the spiritual, but it wasn't established in the narrative very well. And because it was so disconnected, it seemed strange and out of place to me.

Why the Tal comment is fair:

It's true. The point was made by seminary teachers and even my laid-back Book of Mormon teacher at BYU, Alan K. Parish (who was a good teacher by the way), who told our class that if the prophet ordered us to kill, we should do so, and we'd be blessed for it.

Why the Tal comment is unfair:

There is no precendent to suggest that modern-day Mormon terrorism at the command of a priesthood leader is likely, or better, more likely to happen than comparable acts being committed by a random assortment of normal people from other walks of life out of peer pressure, the promise of money, love, or other noteriaty.

Runtu wrote:My objection to this part of the film was simply that it came out of nowhere and seemed oddly disconnected from the rest of the narrative. It's an interesting idea about the connectedness of the physical and the spiritual, but it wasn't established in the narrative very well. And because it was so disconnected, it seemed strange and out of place to me.

That is a fair criticism. It sounds like this was something she found interesting and was good "richness" material, but really didn't fit in well with the rest of the story.

grayskull wrote:Why the Tal comment is fair:

It's true. The point was made by seminary teachers and even my laid-back Book of Mormon teacher at BYU, Alan K. Parish (who was a good teacher by the way), who told our class that if the prophet ordered us to kill, we should do so, and we'd be blessed for it.

Why the Tal comment is unfair:

There is no precendent to suggest that modern-day Mormon terrorism at the command of a priesthood leader is likely, or better, more likely to happen than comparable acts being committed by a random assortment of normal people from other walks of life out of peer pressure, the promise of money, love, or other noteriaty.

I pretty much agree; the prophet wouldn’t command somebody to do such a thing. Since such a commandment would never be issued, it isn’t fair to associate Mormonism with terrorism by saying they’d obey a hypothetical commandment.

But on the other hand, the Mormon ethic of obedience was complicit in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. There isn’t much of a difference between saying, “I’d kill my own son like Abraham if commanded” or “I’d kill a passed-out drunk like Nephi if commanded” or “I’d blow myself up if commanded”. His comment may have been a cheap shot, but it hit close to home.

Analytics wrote:4- Tal Bachman is getting some flak for saying that he would have committed an act of terrorism if he would have been commanded to do so. That is the attitude my mission presidents wanted missionaries to have. I was clearly and repeatedly taught to always obey God, and that “whether by my own voice, or the voice of my servants, it is the same.” I was taught that when an angel commanded Abraham to murder his son, that Abraham took the correct course of action by obeying. If somebody takes seriously what the church does in fact teach, then there is only one answer: if you are commanded to commit an act of terrorism, you should in fact do so. Believers who contemplatively read the Mormon scriptures ask themselves, “What if an angel commanded me to murder innocent people? Would I be as obedient as Abraham was?”

Was what Tal said inconsistent with the loyalty oaths taken in the endowment ceremony? No.

The reason the terrorism comment draws ire from faithful saints is because it unfairly associates Mormons with fundamentalist Muslims who currently engage in acts of terrorism. The sleek implication is that a Mormon missionary is a time-bomb ticking away, when the reality of the situation is their belief - while the position of all those who properly love God - is abstract and is not likely to be used to the immoral ends Islamic terrorists do anymore than any other person is likely to engage in terrorism. It transfers the the understandable fear and not-so-understandable bigotry that many feel towards conservative Islam to the Lord's Church.

A Light in the Darkness wrote:The reason the terrorism comment draws ire from faithful saints is because it unfairly associates Mormons with fundamentalist Muslims who currently engage in acts of terrorism. The sleek implication is that a Mormon missionary is a time-bomb ticking away, when the reality of the situation is their belief - while the position of all those who properly love God - is abstract and is not likely to be used to the immoral ends Islamic terrorists do anymore than any other person is likely to engage in terrorism. It transfers the the understandable fear and not-so-understandable bigotry that many feel towards conservative Islam to the Lord's Church.

I agree. I understand the point he was trying to get accross, but i think he would have been better off saying something like:

"If the mission president told me to jump off a building, i would have done it." or "If the mission president told me to slit my own throat, i would have done it."

Or if the prophet said to trek across the United States even though three of my children may die, I would have done it.

Or if the prophet commanded me to marry multiple women I would have done it.

Or if the prophet said to pay tithing even though my family will suffer, I would have done it.

Or it the prophet said I need to give all that I have to the church, I would have done it.

Or if the prophet said I need to kill myself rather than disclose the tokens, I would have done it.

I think there are a lot of folks in the church who would do whatever the Lord, through his mouthpiece, commanded.

~dancer~

A Light in the Darkness wrote:The reason the terrorism comment draws ire from faithful saints is because it unfairly associates Mormons with fundamentalist Muslims who currently engage in acts of terrorism. The sleek implication is that a Mormon missionary is a time-bomb ticking away, when the reality of the situation is their belief - while the position of all those who properly love God - is abstract and is not likely to be used to the immoral ends Islamic terrorists do anymore than any other person is likely to engage in terrorism. It transfers the the understandable fear and not-so-understandable bigotry that many feel towards conservative Islam to the Lord's Church.

Well, there are different facets to this. From one angle you are totally right; it isn’t fair to associate the squeaky-clean-shaven reps of America’s home-grown religion with Islamic Terrorists.

But from a different angle, they have made solemn covenants to unconditionally obey God, their sacred scriptures say that whether by God’s own voice or by the voice of his servants it is the same, their scriptures have multiple examples of God telling people to kill and the people obeying, their current leaders have used these scriptural stories of people obediently killing as examples of people doing the right thing, and their history has examples of various lunatic-fringe Mormons sincerely believing that God wanted them to kill, and them obediently doing so.

You don’t need to relate Mormonism to Islam to be disquieted by this.