PBS The Mormons

[_Bond...James Bond]

Here's the link to Part 1

[_silentkid]

I enjoyed the program. To me, it seemed pretty fair, showing both sides of the debate on controversial Mormon history issues. I was hoping it would discuss some of the other Reformation doctrines like Adam-God and blood atonement. I'm looking forward to tonight's show.

[_Yong Xi]

With regards to the PBS documentary, it could have been a lot worse for the church. Overall, I thought the production was fairly evenhanded, given the topics that were covered. Having said that, I was not overly impressed with the production itself. At times it seemed disjointed and to make assumptions that viewers would have some prior knowledge of topics/people. I suspect it may have been difficult for non-members or some chapel Mormons to follow.

TBMs are decrying the emphasis on polygamy and Mountain Meadows (or is it Mountain Meadow? I have seen both.) Perhaps the aspect of Mormonism which people are most familiar with is polygamy, thus the emphasis. The MMM was one of the largest massacres in U.S. history and has a religious element. Accordingly, its' lengthy discussion was justified in my opinion.

I thought Will Bagley was restrained. Ken Verdoia was excellent. Truman Madsen absolutely drives me crazy. He acts as though the "veil" is very thin whereever he happens to be. He is always on the verge of tears. Teryl Givens creeped me out as well. I missed the DCP part so have no comments on him.

Having grown up LDS, I must say that the program simultaneously made me proud to be a Mormon and repulsed by Mormonism as well. What a polarizing religion! Not only do many people have very strong opinions either for and against, I suspect that many like me are both powerfully drawn to the church story while being powerfully repelled by it as well.

[_Dr. Shades]

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

He talked about three things:

• The urim & thummim were translation devices dating back to Old Testament times,
• Most of the Book of Mormon was translated via the seer stone, and
• The face-in-the-hat translation method.

During that last part, the camera simply panned over a picture of a top hat. The Internet Mormons should be thanking their lucky stars that PBS didn't do an actual re-enactment of the face-in-hat trick with an actor portraying Joseph Smith hunched down in a chair with his face buried in a hat. Had they done so, the Chapel Mormons would all be committing mass suicide right now.

At any rate, Seven brings up a good point: Although DCP is, indeed, a scholar of Islam, PBS should've given him more descriptive billing. The should've used the less-descriptive "BYU Professor" or even "Defender of Mormonism." As it was, the Chapel Mormons who've never heard of him probably wondered why they interviewed an Islamic scholar about Mormonism and also, due to the outrageousness of the face-in-hat story, could've mistook DCP for an anti-Mormon.

[_Who Knows]

due to the outrageousness of the face-in-hat story, could've mistook DCP for an anti-Mormon.

lol. I said the same thing to my wife.

You see all these comments on the pbs board, about how there were too many 'anti-mormons' giving their opinions. I wonder how many of them have mistaken the TBM's for antis.

[_Mister Scratch]

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

He talked about three things:

• The urim & thummim were translation devices dating back to Old Testament times,
• Most of the Book of Mormon was translated via the seer stone, and
• The face-in-the-hat translation method.

.

He was also given a very special piece of narration. He was the one who got to offer up a description of the First Vision! Helen Whitney must have really liked him to give him such an important bit of information to deliver.

At any rate, Seven brings up a good point: Although DCP is, indeed, a scholar of Islam, PBS should've given him more descriptive billing. The should've used the less-descriptive "BYU Professor" or even "Defender of Mormonism." As it was, the Chapel Mormons who've never heard of him probably wondered why they interviewed an Islamic scholar about Mormonism and also, due to the outrageousness of the face-in-hat story, could've mistook DCP for an anti-Mormon.

Good points. I think they should have identified him as a "Mormon Apologist."

My overall thoughts on the doc: I loved it. I recognize other people's criticisms of it (e.g., it was choppily edited, the dancing bit was odd, etc.---this latter bit strikes me as something that Helen Whitney would have wanted to include; many filmmakers love dance, and just look for an opportunity to include it in their films.) I don't know that it's really altogether accurate to label this a hard-and-fast "documentary." It *is* factual and balanced, in my opinion, but there is a lot of artistic license at work here, too.

Frankly, I was hooked from the opening chords of that melancholy, somewhat discordant piano music, and the image of the temple spire set against a hazy, partially obscured horizon. (Another favorite moment: the image of Moroni, sans bugle, being hoisted by a rope up into the air. I gather that this was meant to represent a religion which is still in the process of 'becoming'.) The whole program seemed to be relaying a subtext of mystery, and doom, and apocalypse---all those pictures of blood-dimmed suns framed by blackened trees, desolate southern Utah landscapes, etc. Overall, to me, the film captured many of the feelings that I associate with Mormonism, which was no small feat, in my opinion.

I cannot wait for the second installment.

by the way: I thought that Terryl Givens looked rather like Michael Emerson, the actor who was in Saw, and who plays the leader of The Others on Lost.

[_Blixa]

"Mountain Meadows (or is it Mountain Meadow? I have seen both.) .."

The original name was Magotsu Creek (Magotsu being the local Nuwuvi name for the place). The Mormons called the general area Mountain Meadow and the specific place Mountain Meadows (for the several lush meadows there), and for a while after the massacre it was known as Murderer's Spring. The small mountain range west of the place took the name Bull Valley Mountains from a group of the Fancher Party's cattle that ran wild there.

Will was very restrained. Just like he is in print. The portrait of him as some embittered and angry anti is so far from the truth as to be more downright funny than insulting.

---------------------


On the train today, I ran into a nevermo colleague who said he thought the documentary was really nice to Mormons. How so? I asked, because I'd read alot of things this morning on various websites where Mormons were protesting how the church was represented. He was surprised and asked what they wouldn't like about it---his big point was "they showed that guy with three wives and made it seem like polygamy was real great."

I got a big laugh out of that and told him that was exactly why Mormons were upset by it!

[_Seven]

For the TBMs and apologists on MAD who have consistently scoffed at the evidence of "chapel Mormons" I found these comments on PBS to be representative of how most LDS will respond to the show: (there are too many to list here) It will be interesting to see how many chapel Mormons decide to research the facts for themselves or rely on the old "anti Mormon lies" defense. It seems most of the LDS viewers were unaware of how many LDS historians were a part of the show. Like Dr. Shades said, there should have been a better description of how these apologists relate to the church. Most of them are unknown in Chapel Mormon land.

I watched what you presented tonight and am totally amazed at the incorrect reporting about the Church. I have always heard that a Mormon who turns against the Church is probably the meanest of the mean, full of misrepresentations of the faith. I indeed saw that tonight. Less than 3% of the church practiced polygamy and that was so the widows and children of the men slain by good "Christians" could be taken care of. AND it was with the permission of the first wife. My Heavenly Father does speak. I feel sorry for the ones who choose not to know the truth. What wonderful peace they have missed. They can leave the church but they can't leave it alone - they're always picking at it. I trust tomorrow night will bring out the truth. Let those who say it isn't true prove it isn't. I know they can't and this is from a former Methodist, and then Baptist.
Middleburg, Florida

I am disappointed. I had hoped that an equal amount of content would be presented both for and against. The overall tone has been more negative towards Joseph Smith and the Mormon faith. For example compare the short amount of time spent on the Haun's Mill Massacre compared to the larger amount of time spent on the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
Also, Mormons are portrayed as living by blind obedience. This is not true. Mormons are taught to pray for guidance to know for themselves if what the prophets say are true or not.
Sandy Jardine
Strasburg, VA

As Rollo pointed out, Hauns Mill was 17 murdered vs. the horrific number at Mountain Meadows. It was more than fair.

I watched the last part of your program and I must say that it left the veiwer greatly mislead. You (PBS or the producer) made little to no effort in pointing out that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints denounces polygamy. In fact, the way in which the segment ended left the veiwer with the greatly erroneous thought that the Church has a somewhat fuzzy veiw on polygamy which is simply not true-it's the exact opposite. It shuns the practice more so than many other Christian faiths and in fact takes a proactive approach to doing away with polygamy unlike many other Christian faiths.
Also, why is it that when a member of the Church was speaking the subtitle read something like, "a Mormon educator" instead of a "professor of political science or history", or better yet an "elder in the Mormon church" as opposed to a "historian" like the non-mormon counterpart. All in all this was a very misleading section of the program and I hope that it gets more fair and accurate in the next segment.
Aaron Koeppen
Small Town, Missouri

write this with great saddness. I had hoped that a fair picture would have been presented. It was not. To use mostly ex-mormons as authorities was unfair. To have them say that I, as a practising Mormon, struggle and am at odds with parts of Mormon history is just false and not good journalism.
You glossed over the suffering of the Saints while spending an amazing amount of time on two "sensational" topics. Is this Inside Edition? I understand that you must sell your work and therefore you must make it as controversial as possible but I am deeply dissapointed that this is what documentaries have become. Thankfully I can and do think for myself and I can and do receive guidance from a Higher Being and I will go on living in happiness and peace with my faith.
Kati Layosa
Reno, NV

This viewer is unaware of the LDS used throughout the program. The suffering of the Saints was the main theme of the entire show!

That was the without a doubt the biggest piece of shoddy journalism I have ever seen. On the PBS/Frontline website there is a section about their guidelines on journalistic standards practices including fairness all about how they will approach a story with an open, unbiased mind and will check all facts before airing. Unfortunately this didn't happen.
The so called "experts" interviewed had the most convoluted opinions and were no better than rumor mongors spouting falsities and hearsay. I am shocked and surprised that this was ever produced and aired on television. All they had to do was to interview leaders of the Mormon Church in order to get the facts that they were severely lacking. Now viewers will be sucked into believing rumor rather than truth. If anyone wants to learn for themselves, just contact the Church's missionaries in your area. Refer to www.Mormon.org for contact information.
Steven McClellan
Hawthorne, CA

i am appalled to see PBS broadcast such a documentary that so misrepresents my religion. i can not believe i encouraged people to watch this program i will relay to them my sadness that this program represents the leaders of our church in such a horrible way. I will not be viewing PBS after this.

David Vatcher I was disappointed with the section on plural marriage. I feel there we some fundamental points of this priciple that were not perresented well. First of all the aspect of "Plural Marriage" versus "Celestial Marriage". These are not the same thing. A Celestial Marriage is any marriage that begins in the Temple of the Lord and is then worked at by both partners to make it celestial. Simply marrying multiple partners will most definitely not assure your place in God's Kingdom.
Did anyone else notice that the "fundamentalists" appeared to be drinking a glass of wine with their dinner. I just think it interesting that these "fundamentalists" follow polygamy, a most un-fundamental priciple, but don't live the Word of Wisdom, which is most definitely a fundamental priciple of the church.
Matt Roberts
Fenton, Missouri

Fresno, California

As an active member of the LDS church I watched the program with great anticipation. I read articles previous to my viewing of it that stated this program was to help people understand Mormons and our faith. What a huge disappointment. What misrepresentation. If the intent of the film maker was to help people understand what the Mormons are all about, this production failed miserably. I question what the true intent of the film maker was and is? Those not of our faith will be more puzzled and misled then ever. Mormons now have a new batch of misconceptions to overcome. This film claims to be a documentary of the history and beliefs of the Mormons. It misleads so much, and is so off the mark, it cannot be considered a documentary. It is merely opinions regarding the most extreme events of our history and what we believe. So as a Mormon I shake my head at the absurdity of the film and continue as I and other Mormons have always done. Try and help the world understand what we are really all about.
Lorraine C. Dobson
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

]This program literally made me sick to my stomach. It was such a biased view of what the church is like. They didn't discuss half of the hardships that the early members endured and spent most of the time discussing things that didn't really pertain to what the church is about. I hope that tomorrow night gives a better view of who we are and what we believe. But so far, with the anti-mormon spin that has been placed on this documentary, I doubt that will be the case.
Cassilyn Rhodes
Oshkosh, Wisconsin

A variety of LDS disucsssion boards are filling with similar comments from Chapel Mormons.

[_Seven]

The Internet Mormons should be thanking their lucky stars that PBS didn't do an actual re-enactment of the face-in-hat trick with an actor portraying Joseph Smith hunched down in a chair with his face buried in a hat. Had they done so, the Chapel Mormons would all be committing mass suicide right now.

I thought the same exact thing. I have a Mormon sister who was active most of her life and her response to the face in the hat description was "We don't believe that do we?" She was embarrassed that it was mentioned and had never heard of it of course. LDS are very lucky it wasn't re-enacted, along with many other disturbing parts of Mormon history PBS glossed over.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Kevin Barney posted this over on "By Common Consent." I found it very insightful (and suspect that even DCP would agree):

There are open threads all over the Bloggernacle on this documentary (to which I direct you for general commentary), and so here I simply want to comment on one particular ramification of it. But first let me say that I enjoyed it and thought it was very well done. There was the occasional mistake, and there were choices made that I wouldn’t have made, but overall I think Helen did a superb job.

The particular thought I had as I sat in my family room watching it last night had to do with the topic of inoculation. To illustrate: I feel pretty confident that I could stand up in front of my ward’s Sunday School class and ask whether Joseph Smith started plural marriage in the Church, and only a small minority would have the confidence and knowledge to be able to answer in the affirmative. Most members of the Church today really don’t know; for them, hmmm, maybe it was Brigham Young.

The Church as an institution doesn’t seem to be in any hurry to educate its members on this and other controversial topics. The hope appears to be that they will manage to navigate their entire lives and not come face to face with them, a hope that is becoming less rational in the internet age. I’m of the view that intelligent Latter-day Saints in developed nations with internet access sooner or later are going to come across these kinds of issues, and that it would be in our interest to broach these subjects first in a faithful context. But for the time being, that simply is not going to happen.

So the thought occurred to me that the PBS special is actually serving to some extent as an inoculation, in a way that the Church itself could never accomplish. It is exposing not only non-LDS, but many, many LDS, to difficult issues in our history, of which the average LDS is ignorant. And while it is not doing so in a faithful context, it is doing so in a sympathetic, sensitive context. I think average Mormons who view this special might be troubled by some aspects of it over the short term, but over the long haul their faith will be strengthened and made less vulnerable to easy attack on these topics.

As I like to say, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.” Surely it is not easy to hear Richard Bushman talk about Joseph pressuring women to marry him. But getting that out in the open and on the table in a responsible way can only be good for the Church.