PBS The Mormons

[_beastie]

Anyone else watch it tonight? I was transfixed by it. I thought she did a very good job capturing some of the complex contradictions and enigmas about the religion that absorbed me as a young adult, and still interests me today. I thought it was quite powerful and moving.

[_Jersey Girl]

No darn! Was it on tonight? Will it be repeated?

Darn!

[_beastie]

by the way, it's past my bedtime so I won't be responding right now, but I hope to see all sorts of insightful comments in the morning!! :)

I thought that the only thing LDS apologists would strongly contest was Bagley's somewhat categoric statement of there being little doubt Young ordered MMM, although it was followed by a couple of other comments denying that was so obvious.

Other than that, I didn't see anything that any apologist or internet Mormon (heh) could really contest as inaccurate or misleading, although given how they generally seem to view Bagley as the scum of the earth, I imagine they were probably rather disappointed he was so prominent in the first hour or so, until the MMM discussion, after which, If I recall correctly, he was no longer utilized.

Of course, back in my day as a naïve believer, when the only church history I'd been exposed to was from church sources or Deseret, many of the statements in the documentary would have flabbergasted me. (the peep stone, the casual mention of Joseph Smith having 30 wives, ten of whom had other husbands, for example)

[_TAK]

From "anti" perspective it could have gone much worse for the TBMs ..
I love the part w/ DCP explaining/ acknowleging the Seer Stone in the hat.. I am sure that shocks a few Mormons who had no idea..

In all not bad...

[_skippy the dead]

My DVR is set for later tonight (it hasn't started yet for us West Coasters). I expect to find time to watch it tomorrow.

beastie - did you find it to be even handed? From the interview I heard with the producer, I would anticipate an objective presentation.

[_Blixa]

I only watched up until "polygamy." I'll probably finish later.

I didn't like it, but for reasons that have nothing to do with either supporting or criticizing Mormonism.

I thought it was very bland and Ken Burns-y. Argh! Terrible visuals which often had little connection with what was being discussed (the advent of Brigham Young and the first wave of Utah pioneers was illustrated with images of Bryce Canyon, Monument Valley and Goblin Valley. Very different terrain from northern Utah and the GSL basin). Also what the heck was that "lake" image that kept cropping up during the MMM section? And the Joseph Smith "art" was---well I guess probably indicative of contemporary "Mormon art"---more's the pity.

I watched with a nevermo friend and asked her if she could peice together a coherent narrative from the choppy presentation and she said that it was very hard to follow (this is a film student, by the way). My impression was that if I didn't already know the "story" I would have found it confusing.

I thought the leap from the migration West to the Mountain Meadows was left fairly unexplained, despite the important factor of the Reformation being lightly discussed. Will and Judith were good and Glen Leonard may have been edited into something more compromising than he intended, but I need to look at that part again.

Who were those talking heads? "Author," "Journalist," "Islamic scholar," etc. There was no indication why most of the heads had any relevance (my friend did ask why an Islamic scholar was part of it!).

Its partly a problem of jamming a whole lot of history/theology into a short space, I realize. But still.

Also, Harold Bloom's lost a lot of weight since I last saw him. Much as I dislike his work, I thought it could've used more of his commentary.

The tight head shots of Terryl Givens were disturbing. As my friend said, "Imagine that in high def!"

[_beastie]

Yes, I found it to be even-handed, but with the kicker - that in today's "information age" (ie, the internet) there are some hard facts that the apologists freely admitted that, in the past, I imagine would have been omitted. (the seer stone, for example) Dallin Oaks even made a statement that sounded like he realized that, at least at some level, the killers of MMM did what they did out of religious fanaticism gone astray and that some level of leadership had been involved. (just going by memory, that was my surprised impression of what he said)

Of course, not everything was included that interests me, the content of the Book of Mormon was glossed over although they did have a short statement by Michael Coe, which pleased me. But really, how important is the CONTENT of the Book of Mormon anyway? It's more the IDEA of the Book of Mormon that matters, and they did address that well.

Also a clipping of Hinckley stating that if the church's claims aren't what they say they are, it's a fraud. Hard words, somewhat like Orson Pratt's comments about how if the Book of Mormon isn't what it claims to be, it is a fraud that ought to be exposed. Why should believers act so offended when exmormons call it a fraud, when their own leaders present it as just that sort of choice?

I thought she did an excellent job delving into the persecution and violence. It was such a complex situation, and for a two hour special, I think she made that clear.

And the polygamy part - all those wholesome believers claiming they're the true followers of Joseph Smith... that probably won't go over well.

I think you can tell it wasn't designed to please anyone, but rather attempted to get as close to the "truth" as possible. I also liked how she said, at the beginning, something I've often said: Mormonism is so young, born during the age of the printing press, it just can't hide in the "mists of time" (her phrase) like other religions.

It also mentioned several times the idea of progressing to be gods, and how God was once like us. Don't know how that will settle with the PR crowd. The final statement mentioned how amazing it was for this hated sect to become almost the prototypical mainstream american/religionists, and they really ought to have mentioned the church's awesome PR machine in that transformation. Maybe in the next episode.

in all, I thought it was wonderful, and will buy it if I can. I couldn't help but wonder if my family were watching it, but that's not the sort of thing i can ask them.

[_beastie]

Blixa -

You may well be right that one had to have background information to keep track of it all. And I'm a philistine, never notice the lack of good art. ;)

[_truth dancer]

I watched some of it but fell asleep!

I thought members should be glad they didn't go into the life and behavior of Joseph Smith, the temple ceremony, various unfulfilled revelations, etc. etc.

I also thought it would be difficult to follow if one is unfamiliar with the church.

I thought they spent way too much time discussing the poetic perspective... to give one example, Terryl Givens going on and on about dance and the focus on the physical body. I mean I have never EVER heard anything like this in church, the Ensign, or anywhere at all. It may have been his experience but in my opinion, it is not the mainstream focus. With all that could have been addressed, to have so much time discussing dance and showing video of dancers, seemed odd.

I also thought they showed the early members as total victims of persecution, whereas in my opinion, WHILE I DO NOT CONDONE the horrific behavior or those mobs, I do think they were responding to various issues... Joseph Smith crowning himself King, rumors of his womanizing etc. etc. NOT THAT IT EXCUSES IT AT ALL!!!!!

But, I was really tired and fell asleep so I will have to rewatch it to get a better idea of it all! ;-)

And yeah, the artwork thing was weird. The music was lovely and moving however.

Good night!

~dancer~

[_Blixa]

I do have a nearly allergic revulsion to Ken Burnsishness, but that aside, I did wonder all throughout if it would make as much sense to me if I couldn't fill in all the blanks, or knew issues that were being ellided.

Art aside...come on! How many times was "Joseph Smith/the Mormons then departed..." illustrated with a single horseman against a horizon? Not to mention uber-generic "old time" pseudo-photos (mostly landscapes) standing in for everything from "upstate New York" to "life on the frontier."

The only good use of visuals---and again would only make sense to an MMM specialist---was the silent parade of murderer's portraits: Haight, Klingensmith, Nephi Johnson and maybe one other, though none were identified, over commentary that not only Lee was involved...