PBS The Mormons

[_The Nehor]

Mormonism on its best day is still a series of bad nightmares that Mormons wish would disappear forever.

Why would I want my one shot at immortality and ruling the cosmos for eternity with an iron fist to go away?

[_Seven]

My goodness, this show went way, WAY easy on them. It skipped over or outright ignored LOTS of potentially damaging controversies.

Who knows, maybe I've been embroiled in the world of Online Mormonism for so long that I've forgotten what's shocking and what's not, but it seems like this is by far the most favorable possible documentary they could've expected from a bunch of non-Mormons.

But who knows what was said that has just rocked the foundations of Chapel Mormonism?

I felt the same. I am really surprised to see the majority of TBMs on MAD complaining about it when they are aware of all the contraversies that were ignored. I know there will be many outraged chapel Mormons after viewing this show for the basic reasons many of us ended up researching church history. Internet Mormonism will be getting a boost. For those not familiar with DCP, he could be perceived as anti Mormon by chapel LDS for his comments on the stone in the hat translation.

I felt like the show left out so much historical information and had way to much commentary fluff. It was bordering on boring at times. Joseph Smith's polygamy history was not covered enough but the little they did mention would be enough to shake up some Chapel Mormons. I would guess many LDS will go away from the show believing PBS smeared the Prophet with anti Mormon history.

I was impressed that they focused on the obedience factor in so many of the "faithful" engaging in immoral activity. They mentioned "fanatical" a few times when describing the level of obedience the Saints lived. They gave a very balanced approach to the LDS restoration and almost seemed converted to the idea that Joseph Smith's claims are no crazier than traditional Christianity. The comparison with resurrection of Christ and claims of Mormonism probably made other Christians cringe and was very favorable to Mormons.

I was disappointed they left out Woodruff and the apostles authorizing and entering into new plural marraiges post manifesto. There were so many opportunities to present more detailed historical information. on the contraversial subjects but they wasted time on people like the creepy poet, a weird dance segment that was unrelated to Mormonism, and some redundant commentary. The problem is you would need a week long series to cover the topics well so they kept it pretty basic. Kathleen Flake came across as stern, but she put spin on polygamy so I wasn't sure which side of the aisle she was on.

Overall, I felt it was more postive for LDS apologists than negative but it will be harmful to the "chapel Mormon" community. I don't think it will have much effect on non members except educate them for the movie "September Dawn."

There is supposed to be a rebuttal on the PBS show Friday. That should be interesting.

[Anonymous]

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. [b]NOT THAT IT EXCUSES IT AT ALL!!!!![/b]

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~

I agree with you. The dance segment was odd and nothing I have ever associated with Mormon history. It's not significant to any part of LDS faith and made no sense to put in the documentary. Everything was romanticized and the persecution part was not balanced in my opinion. They barely touched on how Mormons were claiming for themselves in the name of God, land that was not theirs and fighting for it. How did they miss Joseph Smith crowning himself King? Commanding other mens wives and 14 year old girls out of obedience? I think LDS are so lucky PBS didn't focus more on his behavior. Like you, I don't condone any act of violence on the Mormons but they were presented as guiltless innocent victims of persecution in the entire show. I was bothered by the spin on MMM by some of the historians interviewed. Oaks mentioned "local leaders" but steered away from any higher leadersip involvment. I really get sick when I hear excuses for killing innocent women and children, and unarmed men.

[_Seven]

I thought it was well-balanced.

Personally, I think that tomorrow night's segment will be more controversial. It deals with missionary work and temple ordinances.

It appears possible from the preview, but after reading comments on MAD, the second night is supposed to be more positive. There were a few people quoted who viewed it ahead of time and were favorable to the second night and not the first one. I wonder if they will go into Masonry at all, or if the historical parts of Mormonism were only for tonight.

[_Seven]

Here is some information. on those interviewed for the show:

http://www.pbs.org/Mormons/interviews/

[_beastie]

DCP's part was quite minor. I don't even remember, off-hand, what he talked about.

Regarding the dancing - at first that struck me as odd, too, and it probably wasn't more important to mention then, say, the Book of Abraham (a major omission, in my opinion). But I do think there is some justification for their attitude, that dancing is reflective somehow of Mormonism. Since I didn't grow up Mormon, I think I can add some outsider comment: you guys don't realize how much more you dance than the rest of us, at least the teenagers. You do dance more. The dance team at BYU is a big deal. When you're a single young adult in the Mormon church, it seems like they're pushing dances on you all the time. (I thought they were trying to marry us off)

Also remember that, at that time period and for a long time afterwards, many uber conservative religions (like the one my mom grew up in) forbad dancing at all - I think they thought it was vertical, dressed sex. And it is sexy in many ways. I think LDS youth let off some "sex steam" at dancing, to tell the truth.

The rest of us didn't really have that much dancing in our lives. One or two dances in junior high (and using dancing loosely, mainly boys leaning against the wall and girls "dancing" with each other, moving slightly with some arm movements), proms, that's it.

My boyfriend is a good example. That boy can dance. He's not what you would think of for a "dancing man". The only reason he can dance the way he can is because he grew up a Mormon. Anyone old enough to remember Star Palace? (I think that was its name)

I have more comments but, sadly, have to go to work. I'll add more later, but I do think some of you are a bit desensitized, as someone already said. A lot of this stuff, so casually mentioned and presented as non-contested facts, would be utterly shocking to chapel Mormons.

[_Runtu]

Started watching it with my wife and all 3 daughters. I actually wasn't planning on watching it, after all, but they had announced it in the program on Sunday, apparently, so my daughters wanted to watch it.

My eldest daughter commented on the poor visuals (blurry black and white trees interspersed with scenes from "Legacy" and scenes of Goblin Valley and other locales far from the Wasatch Front) and said she'd never heard of the Haun's Mill Massacre or MMM. Both were pretty shocking to her.

Middle daughter got bored about 45 minutes in and left.

Youngest daughter lasted a little longer but went to bed at 9:00, halfway through.

None of the boys were interested in watching it.

My wife watched the whole thing but didn't say anything to me about it.

My impressions:

I agreed with my daughter about the visuals. I did enjoy the discussion of the hat-in-stone treasure-seeking method and then a few minutes later DCP's explanation of the translation method. Made me smile. Other than that, there wasn't much that was groundbreaking. It would have been a good introduction to the church for outsiders, but the narrative was disjointed and hard to follow.

I was surprised that they gave Terryl Givens so much time. I'm not sure what it was, but he kind of creeped me out a little. Kind of a "Michael Ballam bearing his testimony while on speed" vibe, or something. It was striking to me that most of the interviewees grounded Mormonism in an American setting, but Givens spoke in near-mystical terms. When they did the extended thing about dancing and the body, my eldest daughter turned and said, "What are they talking about? I've never heard anything like this before." I was baffled. It seemed completely disconnected from the rest of the program.

Interestingly enough, Will Bagley did not come across as the frothing, hateful anti-Mormon he's described as. I thought his discussion of Brigham Young's dream about assuming the mantle was quite moving. What I did like was the way they refused to reduce Joseph Smith and Mormonism to black and white. When Bagley said that he thought BY ordered the MMM, you had Glen Leonard denying it and another historian saying that he had merely set the stage for it. Similarly, they refused to attribute polygamy to a mere desire to have sex.

It will be interesting to see the second half, but as a documentary, it wasn't particularly good.

[_truth dancer]

Just a little FYI...

You can join the discussion on PBS.org and share your thoughts.

Also, you can watch the first two hours of the documentary online after noon today.

~dancer~

[_Runtu]

Heh. Just out of curiosity, I read the MAD thread about the PBS special. Not surprisingly, a lot of people thought it was fairly balanced. Juliann gushed about how "poetic" Givens was, and there were a few gripes about that evil little man, Will Bagley. But overall, I think most people recognize that it was about as good as you can expect from an outsider's perspective.

charity's post made me chuckle, though. She's "miffed" about this blatantly anti-Mormon show.

[_Yoda]

My boyfriend is a good example. That boy can dance. He's not what you would think of for a "dancing man". The only reason he can dance the way he can is because he grew up a Mormon. Anyone old enough to remember Star Palace? (I think that was its name)

OMG! Yes, I remember the Star Palace! I was a BYU student when that was a big deal! LOL

Yes, I'm 43...I'm old!