Apparently it’s also going to be available to be viewed online after it’s aired for people like me who have other things going on those nights. Also, interestingly, I’ve heard from others in the blogging world that they were counselled about it at church that it might be a negative thing and to be cautious as the church was not presented favourably (nothing about being presented honestly, which I’m pretty sure it’s going to be.) Whereas in our ward it was announced with times and dates from the pulpit as something interesting to see. Maybe there is no such thing as correlation after all? LOL.
Director Helen Whitney shared preview clips of this film at Sunstone West last weekend, and her presentation was terrific. She’s done thousands of hours of interviews with members, scholars, former members, General Authorities, and “regular folks”, and from the clips she showed us, she’s got a good handle on The Mormon Story. FYI, her first cut was 6 hours, but she’s had to whittle that down to 4 so that it will fit the PBS schedules.
What we saw was not negative, but it does tell the truth, warts and all. That being said, the warts seemed to be presented fairly and without inflammatory language, and there were plenty of LDS-testimonial-type speakers that helped balance things out. If people have only heard LDS history from Sunday School lessons, they may be surprised at some of the stories that come out, but I think the program will be fairly balanced.
Church leadership seems always upset when filmmakers spend significant portions of time discussing polygamy (and the breakoff polygamous groups), but when survey after survey shows that non-LDS Americans think of “polygamy” whenever they think of “Mormon” it seems obvious that it needs addressing. Especially when the film is an historical overview.
When speaking of her access to all things LDS, Whitney told Sunstone participants that the church basically said, In our heart of hearts, we’d probably like ‘one of our own’ to do this documentary, but nobody in-house can do it the same way you can, so do your best, and we’ll share everything we’ve got and give you what you need.
As one of the commenters at the symposium said, I could go to my local library and check out an ‘American Experience’ video for my mom about Eleanor Roosevelt or 9/11, or The Pope, but until the creation of this PBS program, I could never do the same for anything LDS-related. We’ve finally got a well-done documentary that I can point curious people to without worrying that the source of the documentary will bias their viewing.
“What we saw was not negative, but it does tell the truth, warts and all.”
And there’s the rub. Unless it is 100% positive in its portrayal of the church, I fear the more orthodox members will dismiss it out of hand. And that would be a shame, since “objective journalism” shouldn’t mean “anti-mormon”.
I sent a link to the PBS website to several of my LDS friends earlier today. One of them forwarded my email to her *clearly* paranoid mother, who promptly wrote me to tell me that she had been “warned about that show” in church and from her neighbors. She then accused me of advocating for organizations that teach things contrary to the LDS church. Yikes!
I guess my take is that I just don’t feel that we have anything to be afraid of. Hiding from our history and the truth doesn’t do anyone any favors in the long run.
I watched that link you posted anon… just because the news station reporting on the documentary decides to be inflammatory and unbalanced doesn’t mean the documentary itself is like that. ABC 4 is a news station and news stations are notorious for inflaming everything for good ratings… how good would it be for their ratings to advertise that a new documentary was coming out that showed mormons in a balanced, favorable view? Everyone loves a controversy and so they of course stuck to the controversial points and made it sound like this was a total anti-mormon film. To really know, we have to watch it and see for ourselves. As the statement from the church says… “This is a film about the church, not its producers.” And how the church’s history and theology is presented will be in the hands of those who did the film… it’s an independent documentary as it was pointed out… so it’s not going to be a sugar coated Sunday School lesson. It was made ABOUT the church, not FOR the church. I am very interested to see how we are portrayed to the rest of America by someone who isn’t an anti-mormon or even a mormon even..but someone who has been referred to by other mormons as very fair and honest. The proof is in the pudding… {not the kool aid}.
LOL!! I agree that our own opinion should be formed. That was one of the main resons I joined the church. It seemed to encourage you to use your brain a make your own choices.
Leaders out here have mentioned it and promoted it. No one has said anything along the lines of staying away from it, but they have cautioned that it’s not made by the church and that it features some people that who do not support the church and that therefore it might be uncomfortable for some people. Basically, we were warned not to expect sugar coating, which I think is a perfectly fair and reasonable warning to make.
Everyone around here is planning to watch it…if we can agree what time it starts! *Goes to check PBS web site.*
I am a member of a bishopric in Seattle. I just wanted to talk a little about the *warning* that was given about the documentary. We recieved a letter from the Quorum of the Twelve (not the First Presidency) about the documentary. The letter was not to be read to members of the church. It just said that the documentary was not produced by the Church, but the Church did cooperate fully with the filmmaker. The letter as said that the documentary features Church leaders, active and in-active members, and critics of the Church. We were not asked to avoid the documentary — nor were we to ask our ward members to avoid it. It was a warning that this documentary may result in members of our wards seeking answers and explanations to some of the things shown in the film. I saw it more as a heads-up and study the *warts* in our history so I can answer questions when they come up.
Anyway, I just thought a little clarification would be helpful.
In this morning’s NY Times there is a review of the documentary. I thought it portrayed the church in a fairly positive light. Especially in the last paragraph.
We were told something similar to #9. They said the church did participate in parts of it, but the church did not produce it. Nothing specific about avoiding it or watching it.
For those who missed it, the entire program will be on the PBS website tomorrow: http://www.pbs.org
I too was disturbed by Elder Oaks ending comment about never criticizing church leaders, even if the criticism is true. But he did say the same thing in the Church Ensign:
“In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not.”
- Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, “Criticism,” Ensign, Feb. 1987, page 68
Overall, the mormons was really well done. The parts talking about Joseph Smith reminded me a lot of Bushman’s book Rough Stone Rolling, I wonder if they used his material to tell the story.
The dancing part was awesome. The discussion of the eternal and godlike nature of our bodies and the video of ballroom dancing. What a cool portion of the documentary. I’ll bet the dance dept at BYU is cheering! (I told my husband that this is why I want our sons to be ballroom dancers
Don’t be sad Lisa. You can download it.
I was quite surprised by how fair it was. Parts were like my church history class with inclusions of the things they usually skip over.
I was a bit surprised that, as long as they were talking about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, they didn’t talk about the Utes and other tribes already present in Utah, and how the pioneers impacted them. Not one mention of the Walker War.
(Jessawhy, you should DEFINITELY have your sons be ballroom dancers. They get the same scholarships as football players at a lot of colleges, and dancing has a lot fewer injuries.)
missed the begining…look forward to seeing the rest of it online. it was fun to see kathleen flake–we were in the same ward for years during her graduate work before she headed off to vanderbilt. thanks for informing me of the series lisa…i hadn’t heard about it from anyone else and would have missed it. ♥
I LOVED the little bit they did about conflating the body and spirit (the fact that they felt compelled to offer an explanation for all the church dances was alone enough to crack me up, and then I really liked what they actually said as well). Plus, I never thought I’d hear my favorite Neitzche quote on a PBS special about Mormons. “I should only believe in a God who would know how to dance” indeed!
Their treatment of the MM massacre evinced a lack of anachronism which pleased me. The special was pretty even-handed by not soft-pedaling or only focusing on mistakes or/icky stuff in an absence of context.
I am a wee nervous about the “trailer” quote from Elder Oaks regarding criticism of church leaders and about the special regarding NOW’s response (I fear the anti-feminist backlash and the anti-mormon backlash complicating my happy little worldview).
Yes, Janet, my favorite part was the dance portion. That was just beautiful. Terryl Givens was on the whole very pleasing to listen to. I really liked the art. I believe some of it was done by Trevor Southey. I thought the documentary was interesting, fairly accurate, and probably of interest to a wide spectrum of viewers. I’m really interested to hear Margaret Toscano tomorrow, as I believe she will address many of my concerns with Mormon feminism.
if you watched this as an active member of the church and you came away impressed and talking about the clips on “dancing” then you amaze me and remind me why those of us fortunate enough not to live in Utah should be very happy. that was the very least significant part of the entire thing. it has nothing to do with BYU ballroom dancing. please….
Comment by you must be kidding — May 1, 2007 @ 12:52 am
#27 - I haven’t watched the documentary, but I think it is significant from the standpoint that most conservative US religious movements look down on dancing, so it’s interesting to explore the reasons the LDS church doesn’t. Not that it’s the most important thing about the documentary (which again, I haven’t watched), but I can see why it would be included.
my mind is racing after watching the show….
beginning with the ending-Elder Oaks statement about criticizing leaders. that bothers me. and confuses me. never mind the fact i have a mental illness to wrangle with, now i’m thinking i’m about to have a crisis of faith. i didn’t hear these stories before i got baptized. i didn’t know it’s wrong to criticize church leaders.
what if Brigham Young ok’d the MMM???? i’m reaaallll sorry-but i’d have to criticize someone who told me to massacre people.i feel like crying, i feel panicky and paranoid now.
and the polygamy thing-i thought we were supposed to follow the laws of the land. why was Brigham Young willing to go against the laws of the land and only later it seemed that the Church “gave in” to pressures from the US govt. and banned polygamy. i’m just feeling alot of inconsistencies here.
Was the Manifesto really a revelation….did Heavenly Father look upon the situation and sigh, and say something like…well ok, i’ll tell you guys to stop since the Govt is giving you such a hard time?? what the heck?
i want to know what to read that is the HONEST truth. i am feeling angry, like i’ve been duped. i don’t feel like i’ll make it to the Celestial kingdom at all anymore. i’m feeling really sad.
i feel my only True Friend is my Savior.
i wish i could go to sleep and not wake up, then at least i wouldn’t be surrounded by all these scholars, intellectuals, anti-mormans, mormons who aren’t active b/c of this or that….at least i’d be safe. it’s as if i’m in a whirlwind with an unlimited number of opinions and stories swirling about me and i’m being thrown up against walls of doubt, confusion, and fear.
First of all, I stumbled across your blog looking for reaction to tonight’s documentary. I thought that it was pretty good.
Nita, I just wanted to try and answer some of your questions, if I can.
As a historian, I have spent some time studying about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I’ll try and tell you about the conclusions that I’ve come up with that seems independently consistent with what the Spirit indicates is true.
Brigham Young did NOT order the massacre done. The statements by Will Bagley (the guy that said it was Young’s fault)
to the contrary are his own personal views, and he has an axe to grind with the Church for whatever reason. I’ve read his book. He’s just the latest in a long line of writers who have tried to pin the whole debacle on the Church as an organization for whatever reason. The evidence is very circumstatial to suggest that he ordered it. Two facts, I believe will suffice.
First off, the massacre happened near Cedar City, which, if you are unfamiliar with UT geography, is in the SW corner of Utah, near the Nevada border. It’s something like 250 miles from Salt Lake to there. There is no way with the technology they had then in the Utah Territory (no phones, telegraphs, or anything like that) that Young could have coordinated an attack with Lee and his people in southern Utah while the train was moving southward. Lee’s superiors dispatched a rider to Salt Lake to ask Young what to do (and he said spare them by the way), and he made it there and back again in 3 days (returning to Cedar City after the massacre). The travel time is simply too great.
Any statements that anti-Mormon people make that Brigham Young said this or that appearing to condone the massacre are victim to the power of suggestion. It may appear that that is what they said. On the other hand, if you examine the full context it is in, it has quite a different meaning, or it is quite ambiguous what they meant.
In regards to the Manifesto, if you look in the back of the Doctrine and Covenants after the “Official Declaration 1″ (which is the Manifesto) there is a page and a half of small print. In there, Wilford Woodruff makes the statement that he would have , if the Lord had not told him to do what he did, he would have kept on fighting against the government no matter what, until the end, if needs be. To me, that doesn’t seem that he bowed to government pressure making a statement like that.
The twelfth article of faith states that we believe in honoring and sustaining the law. However, when that law conflicts with the laws of God, as the polygamy thing did, then we are to obey the laws of God. That was why they resisted the U.S. government.
Finally, there is a difference between criticizing a leader and disagreeing with them. When you disagree, that is a thought thing. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and to worship what they may. Hence, you can disagree with something a leader says, but still be okay in the Church. An example of this would be Harry Reid. He’s the Senate Majority Leader. As such, he is a high ranking official in the Democratic Party. As such, he gives at least a tacit approval of abortion (because that is something that the Democrats support in their party), something the church has clearly come out and given its opposition to (except in certain circumstances). There is nothing wrong with that. That is why he is still a member and hasn’t been excommunicated for.
Criticism is different. That implies action. You are telling something to someone else. That something else may lead another person to lose their testimony and to leave the church, jeopardizing their salvation. Back to the example, if Harry Reid came out and said that the Church leaders are wrong on the whole abortion thing, and every single one of them is going to hell unless they choose to be pro-choice. That’s different. He may be excommunicated for something like that. I hope my example helps and isn’t too utterly confusing.
Furthermore, we shouldn’t criticize our leaders because we are really criticizing our Lord and Savior (our leaders speak for the Lord, thus it is like we are critcizing Him).
We could sit here and explain things all day, and we wouldn’t get anywhere, but have sore eyes from reading our computer screens all the time. However, the only way that you are going to really know for sure is to pray and ask God if His Church is true. If you seek out your own answers, God will answer and you will know the truth. When you have that testimony, then it really doesn’t matter what the anti-Mormons, intellectuals with an axe to grind, or inactive people say. You will know it is true and that is all that matters.
I’m sorry for the length of this post. I just felt compelled to make a stab at answering Nita’s questions and try and help to put her doubts to rest. If i missed anything, feel free to add on to that.
Nita, you darling. I had some of the same questions as I watched the program… I looked at my husband repeatedly for confirmation… “Is this true? That can’t be true…” you get the point. If you want to read something that is the honest truth, then get out your Book of Mormon. Also, if you go to PBS.com you can read the full interviews that they used for the show. President Hinckley’s nearly brought me to tears, I think it might help to calm you.
Don’t despair, and don’t lose faith. The Church is true, even if its members aren’t perfect. The history of the Church may have “warts”, but there are also people who have agendas, who try to exaggerate and make things seem worse than they were.
You say that you’re in a whirlwind with unlimited numbers of opinions surrounding you… there is only one that matters: Heavenly Father’s.
I know what it feels like to be pulled in several directions, and I know what it feels like to want to hide under the covers and never leave, and it may sound trite, but do you know what helps me? I pray. Ask your HF to confirm your testimony, to send you comfort, and you’ll be fine.
Nita,
I think a very lot of the people here have been through experiences like yours. Everyone’s journey through it is unique and so I can’t tell you where the journey will take you. But I can tell you, that even though my faith is less broad now than it was before I knew these things. I feel like it’s a thousand times deeper now.
We should do a category to highlight our posts about reconciling difficult history (or doctrine or culture) and faith. Maybe I should post your question as a new post? I bet there are a lot of people feeling what you are right now.
Nita-
The organization of the church is of the earth, and therefor, flawed. The leaders of the church are human, and in being so, are imperfect. The Gospel and its doctrine, are from the Lord, and perfect.
This is how I keep it together in my own mind. I hope it helps you.
Comment by just call me Cassandra... — May 1, 2007 @ 8:47 am
I watched some of it. It was a pretty accurate history of the torso of the church but they (as usual) cut the head off. We need to give up on expecting a history of the transcendence of the Restoration from third parties.
We need to give up on expecting a history of the transcendence of the Restoration from third parties.
I honestly can’t say that I’ll have to give that up since I never had the expectation in the first place. It’s not really a non-believers place, is it? And why would you expect it to be so?
That said, it would be nice, wouldn’t it? To have the real history, whole, with the transendence too. But the torso and the head seem always to be segregated. It’s a pity.
Nor I. What I find is that good bad or indifferent there is so little substance in a secular history of the church that it isn’t really worth the time or energy. For instance Richard Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling was meticulously reseached and “balanced” and all that but it was boring and tedious. For all that matters, Wilford Woodruff was by far the greater historian.
Al–tediousness is somewhat subjective. I’ll admit that Rough Stone Rolling wasn’t a popcorn-muncher, but then, I’m just glad to have a treatment of church history from a faithful mormon that isn’t simple popcorn. Heh.
You Must Be Kidding: No no, the dance thing wasn’t cool because BYU has a kick-arse dance team. It was cool because it dealt with the renegade contention that the body can augment the spirit and vice versa. Not exactly Augustine or even St. Paul. Doctrinally, it’s the most unique thing about Mormonism which the documentary dealt with. Polygamy is not unique and neither are ginormous scandals, etc. Plus that section was especially well-written and quoted a Neitzche in way he almost never gets quoted (as in, not a grumbly misanthrope).
I suppose I’d have responded differently to the documentary if I hadn’t already been thoroughly familiar with the troubling stuff already. (I was a mess when I first found out about Mountain Meadows, or Joseph’s secret marriages which he hid from Emma.)
Janet, what’s really really cool is that Terryl Givens was AD LIBBING the dance part. The whole thing was just eloquence, not scripted, certainly not written by Helen or Jane.
Boring and tedious? Huh. RSR is fabulous. It should be required reading for all members. Why do Mormons tend to shirk from good, well-researched scholarship? Do we fear our history? Why pretend that we’re perfect?
So far I think that the documentary has been terrific. I’ve told all my friends about it. I’m looking forward to tonight.
(crying)…..
thank you to everyone who responded to me. i was afraid i’d get yelled at-i read my post later and felt it sounded a bit insane.
i knelt in prayer last night and just told Heavenly Father and my Savior how much i loved Them and asked Them to please guide me each day, for Them to show me Their Truth, not anyone else’s….i do know the Gospel is true and perfect. i cannot deny my testimony, for i have felt it so strongly for many years and cannot deny the Spirit i have felt while in the Temple. All the ugly stuff just vanishes for me when i think of the glorious experiences i have had in the Temple.
i think i reacted so strongly b/c of the MMM incident, mainly.
i sometimes live in a fantasy world, where i try to believe that no member in the Church is ever going to make a serious mistake. of course, that’s not realistic. i dreamt last night about the people at Haun’s mill and at MM. i don’t deal well with violence at all-i have PTSD from past experiences, and to think that Church members were involved in murder really freaked me out. but like i said, no body is perfect. i also calmed down and tried to realize the time, the atmosphere, and the heated memories that the people involved in MMM must have had. i was thinking that they must’ve been pretty hypervigilant about anyone passing through as potential persecutors. don’t know if what i’m saying is true, its just what i got from what was said last night. i know for myself if i’d been through persecutions like the early members had, i’d be pretty on edge too.
As far as Joseph Smith, i think i have had him on a pedestal for many years….i thought he was perfect. did he truly hide his marriages from Emma?
i have been reading “Church History in the Fullness of Times”, and i recall the brethren being upset about the Lord’s command to take other wives. Maybe Joseph was afraid Emma would divorce him or be totally ticked, finding out that he had been commanded to marry other women. i know i probably would’ve been.
i guess i’m just trying to realize these people were just people, that they had normal human feelings and i can’t imagine the major traumas and changes they experienced. the ones i have gone thru in my own life have been bad enough….i am trying to see them from a different point of view.
people in the Old and New Testaments and BoM made mistakes too. i don’t know why i have this fantasy about modern day members. i’m just weird i guess!!
my Bishop keeps reminding me that the Church is a hospital for sick people,that if we were all perfect, we wouldn’t need the Gospel or the Atonement.He helps me keep things in perspective when i panic. i am sure he and i will be discussing all of this!
(((hugs)))) to anyone who likes to hug! and thanks again. your posts helped me to calm down.
Was it a command from the Lord to President Woodruff to ban polygamy, in order for the Utah territory to be admitted to the United States? I wonder what would’ve happened if the LDS had just continued on with the practice?
my elementary understanding of the purpose of men having plural wives, as i’ve read in the scriptures, was to populate the earth with righteous posterity. is that correct?
the statements someone made last night about Joseph Smith’s sex drive were a bit bizarre to me….of course, later my crazy mind got to thinking about that…..What if that were true???
so, when the Savior returns, and the Govt. is His and not man’s , then everything will be ok, right- even polygamy…and it will be understood as a Divine, Eternal institution?
i do hope my questions make some kind of sense. please be patient with me!!
thanks,
nita
Dear Megan,
thank you so much for your sweet response. i kept looking at a beautiful painting of our Savior that i have last night and just tried to imagine myself in His safe embrace, knowing that He would never lie to me or lead me astray. And you’re right, Heavenly Father’s opinion is the only one that counts.
Today is my day to work at the Family History Center and i feel less depressed and anxious about everything.
i am going to make plans to attend the Temple asap. when i feel depressed, i isolate and that’s dangerous.
Thank you for your comforting words.
Nita
These are questions that scholars and historians are debating even today. Listening to the debates is fun if one has the constitution for it. I know for a fact you’d get various views from General Authorities on some of these questions. “What if’s” make interesting tangents, but really aren’t healthy when your knees are so wobbley.
Keep reading, keep praying and hang on. The answers will come in time.
Nita - according to Mormon Enigma, Joseph didn’t tell Emma for several years, and it’s estimated he had married 16 others in that time. (I think - I don’t have M.E. to hand). Lisa’s already pointed you to some good stuff here, and I think it’s important to realise that expecting perfection in our leaders and in the church as a whole is unrealistic (you could also see my post entitled ‘Infallible Leaders?’). Humans are fallible, and therefore a church run by humans is also open to that fallibility.
As a non-Mormon who respects your religion, let me ask this. Non-Mormons often find the story of the finding and translating of the Book of Mormon hard to swallow. As a Mormon, could you keep your faith without believing in that history? Are there Mormons who disbelieve that history but keep their faith? Thanks.
I’ve had spiritual experiences that were undeniably answers to my prayers, and also answers to questions. One of those spiritual experiences I’ve had is confirmation that the Book of Mormon is a true book, translated by Joseph Smith. If I deny that experience (or any that I’ve had) suddenly, I’m on shaky ground as far as, not only LDS doctrine is concerned, but also the existence of Christ, His rising from the tomb, and the existence of God.
So in my case, no. It’s a piece of my faith, the belief in the Book of Mormon, in conjunction with the Bible and all other prophecies by God’s prophets.
I wonder what would’ve happened if the LDS had just continued on with the practice?
Well, we did for a while. Post-manifesto polygamy is one of those topics which can cause all sorts of angst. I would not exist without it, though, so hmmm.
Don’t feel bad about having questions or feeling torn up about them. Most of us have been there and re-visit the territory now and then. I wish I had time today to really address the things you’ve asked about, but right now I’ll have to settle for telling you that lots of us have been there and come out on the other side with love of God and even our flawed predecessors intact.
Cora–
Yeah, I know a number of people who consider themselves believing Mormons but who don’t believe portions of the originary story. And I believe their belief (the blog By Common Consent recently had a post on “cafeteria Mormonism” which might interest you, since most religious people “pick and choose” to some extent. You can also read about various levels of engagement with belief in *Sunstone.* I believe the whole shebang, though–it’s no more ridiculous than believing a virgin conceived or a dead man ceased to be dead
Cora, as Janet says, there are all kinds of people with varying levels of belief. I however, doubt that anyone can truly be converted heart and soul if they don’t have a basic testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the calling of Joseph Smith.
For me, the truthfulness of the gospel stands or falls on the Book of Mormon, the cornerstone of our religion.
42. Boring and tedious because a history of the Church that isn’t a history of its transcendence is as interesting and relevant as a history of the Shakers no matter how scholarly, witty, or anything else.
The secular history of plural marriage is a bit spicy in the beginning but it was a dud as it played out. But the spiritual history of plural marriage and the development of a people around its practice and the end of its practice as they list to obey a prophet is fascinating.
As a non-Mormon who respects your religion, let me ask this. Non-Mormons often find the story of the finding and translating of the Book of Mormon hard to swallow. As a Mormon, could you keep your faith without believing in that history? Are there Mormons who disbelieve that history but keep their faith? Thanks.
I don’t believe any scripture, including the Book of Mormon, to be a 100% accurate, literal history of actual events. That doesn’t mean I don’t find them to be of worth, or that I don’t believe in Joseph Smith’s mission, or that I don’t think God wants us to learn from the scriptures, or that I think they’re “made up.” But I just don’t care if archaeology or genetics support the Book of Mormon or Bible because I think their spiritual truths are what matter, not any supposed historical account.
After reading the justifications on this website and other Mormon websites, I have to ask. Please be honest. If the Church was not true, would you want to know? Would it even matter?
Joseph Smith was just a man and capable of mistakes? Really? Do you really believe that Joseph Smith believed he was just a man? Didn’t he believe that no man would get to heaven but through him? Was he just delusional?
Janet (in, um, #25, I think) — The Utah NOW program is not related to feminism. NOW isn’t National Organization for Women in this case, it’s Utah NOW as in Utah TODAY or Utah HOTNEWS or Utah WETHINKWECANGETANAUDIENCEBYPIGGYBACKINGONTHOSEOTHERSHOWS. Relax, and enjoy!
mary/Cora - There is no way you can prove or disprove issues of faith. If you choose to belive in any religion, you must choose to believe in things that don’t make sense and can’t be proven by science. I believe the church is true. I believe the Book of Mormon is scripture, and that it was translated the way our history teaches us it was translated. I also believe that a virgin gave birth to a son who was killed and came back to life. I know it is irrational. But I cannot deny it.
From time to time, people will try to prove or disprove the Book of Mormon is true, using archeological evidence. For those who choose to believe, no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince us. For those who choose not to believe, no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince them. In the end, it comes down to taking that glorious leap of faith and believing in something you cannot see, but hope is true.
Ardis–LOL!!!!! That’s really funny. I was feeling *exhausted* at the thought that a local NOW chapter was trying to neurotically pick apart the documentary to prove how deluded we LDS faithful women (especially the ones who audaciously call ourselves “feminists”) are. Heh.
Todd–I don’t know what Paul *meant* to communicate, but his writings often communicate (to me) a discomfort w/bodily things, a sort of cognitive dissonance. On the other hand, he uses a fantastic controlling metaphor of the body to describe the necessity of diverse roles and skills within the organized church. I cannot see Paul celebrating sensuality as a potential connection to spirituality, however.
Mary–Of course I’d want to know. If the church weren’t divinely inspired I’d drink coffee, get a 10% raise (or give that money to other charities of my choice) and become a unitarian and take longer naps on Sunday. I’d ask you to be honest about your motivations for asking–do you *hope* we’ll all say it doesn’t matter to us? Do you think most religious people would want to know if their belief was unfounded? Would I want to know if Jesus had just been a really smart fellow and not God’s son? Sure. But I’m reasonably sure he was what he claimed to be, even though it sounds quite “out there.”
Doug–”just a man” is a weird phrase in this context. Prophets are mortal, and mortals are flawed. Someone who claims to believe (s)he is a prophet and proclaims personal perfection in the absence of Christ’s atonement easily discludes themselves from prophetic running by virtue of the statement. Joseph taught that we need Christ. He did not teach himself as a replacement, although he did have an (ahem) healthy ego. But my faith isn’t based on Joseph Smith anyhow; it’s based on Jesus Christ, of whom Joseph testified.
Didn’t he believe that no man would get to heaven but through him?
well if you think about it. JS believed that no church contained the fullness of the gospel until he restored it on this earth, and How can we achieve celestial glory without the fullness of the gospel, so it follows that without Joseph Smith, no man would get to heaven.
I am guessing that you are not a member of the LDS church, so one of the basic beliefs that we hold is that you cannot achieve the highest level of glory, the “Celestial Kingdom”, without preforming certain temple ordinances, and taking certain covenants. Joseph Smith told us how to perform these things after receiving revelation from the Lord. I think that he was probably told that “no man could enter heaven without him”, and misinterpreted that to mean all must be sealed to him, resulting in “dynastic sealings”. This practice was ended very quickly, and I believe that the Lord set them straight and reiterated his meaning so that we, mere mortals, would better understand.
p.s. I am not the biggest church history buff here and I might have some of my facts wrong. Feel free, anyone who knows better, to correct me if I am wrong….
Comment by just call me Cassandra... — May 1, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
cora… I have a hard time with the ‘technicalities’ of the book of mormon, things like the translation process, physical geography, DNA testing, archeological evidence, etc… But what is most important to me, what overshadows all those other things is the fact that there are powerful things in the book that have helped me to feel closer to God.
I tend not to buy into the idea that “if the Book of Mormon is not what we say it is than the Church is a fraud” (paraphrasing here!) my thinking is more along the lines of: the Book of Mormon has some powerful teachings, and it is a part of a church that has a powerful influence for good in the world.
sorry if I am rambling, I am putting my thoughts on this into words for the first time here…
I would agree with the Church that, generally, the documentary is respectful. I thought Terryl Givens was overquoted in the first hour (thank you, Ms Whitney), and Ken Verdoia was not interrupted anywhere near enough in the second hour.
The sensational stuff (to the world), FLDS & MMM, were, yes, way overdone (I’d agree with Terryl Givens on his post documentary commentary on that).
Not every distracting or misleading thing was necessarily just spoken, either. The picture they showed, purportedly of an angel, when speaking of the angel Moroni helped to convey the “weird” view too many Gentiles (& “feminist Mormons—which, to me, is also as big an oxy-Mormon as a ‘gay Mormon’), as well as the 3-pix/profile painting of a young Joseph Smith (supposedly) both lent an air that Mormons are strange, like those gawdy things old aunts or great aunts who wore perfume far too strong and gagging, and had gawdy looking objects in their home, which one especially notices when they are young. They scream out— This is too uncomfortably strange to me!!!
One does notice, though, that Helen Whitney interjected Pres. Hinckley to (again, supposedly) balance and correct who really is “Mormon” and isn’t, and other similar things – believing truly that the Book of Mormon was translated from Gold Plates delivered to Joseph Smith by a REAL angel from God.
I’m looking forward to what the world (sometimes) takes as balance, the view of Zion by those from Zion, those who left Zion for Babylon, and those who have always remained in Babylon (without subtitles, that identify upfront who is who).
Historians of Mormonism who have a seemingly acquired lisp, for example, (whom I expect we will see some of tonight in the 2nd 2 hours) as thoughtful and gentle as they may sound and come across to many, still, give me the heebeegeebees. (Yes, I am mildly homophobic. Okay, so its more than a merely mild level of homophobia)!
And, if Sodomites don’t have a home in Zion, then, what shall we do? What shall we do? My nightmare is that they will be not only allowed to stay, but invited to bring their ‘friends’, and make friends with current residents of Zion, and will turn Zion into Sodom.
And, heaven help us, if we find that Mormons have been baptizing Jews without the permission of living Jews. (My money is on how angry those dead Jews are going to be toward the living ones preventing it)! – After all, if our religion is true, baptism would be a good thing! And, if it is not, what does it matter? If any modern-day Druids want to put a hex on my ancestors, or take it off, let them have at it!
I hope that Ken Verdoia isn’t given too much of tonight’s show again. Terryl Givens I enjoy, and even understand. I know what Ken Verdoia’s take on Mormonism is, and I don’t need him to regurgitate that some more, like some Seagull something that was distasteful, really, to him.
I hope to hear what your takes are on the Frontline portion. I suppose last night, the Pharisees were given a bit more time than the Sadducees. Skeptical Sadducees will probably get more “equal time” tonight!
I also wonder how many ’saints’ will ultimately leave the Church because of this documentary, and how many converts it might also ultimately bring in (& how many more anti-Mormons will be “born”)
As a non-Mormon who respects your religion, let me ask this. Non-Mormons often find the story of the finding and translating of the Book of Mormon hard to swallow. As a Mormon, could you keep your faith without believing in that history? Are there Mormons who disbelieve that history but keep their faith? Thanks.
Comment by Cora — May 1, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
Cora,
If I told you that men once landed on the moon, would you have a true concept of history if you did not accept that story?
May I suggest that you invite some missionaries to your home. Explain to them that you aren’t sure you want to join the (LDS) Church, but you want some help in understanding the Book of Mormon.
Read it. Consider what it teaches, both in parts of it where sermons are given. As well as in “hints” it gives here and there in presenting things.
Ask yourself as you read it a question like, “Could a man NOT empowered by God have written the doctrine, the revelation, this story that promotes keeping all of God’s commandments, that advocates people doing right to one another, pushes people to contemplate their standing before their Maker, etc?”
If all of it seems either too fantastic, too miraculous, then consider how you and I are kept alive on this whirling little blue ball called earth. If it seems too different, too unfamiliar, too strange to what you are use to, read the story (again, if you’ve read it before), about Naaman, the head military man from Syria at that time, who came to leprosy to receive a cure from a prophet in the nation of Israel. Consider how unexpected his remedy (to cure leprosy) from what he expected this man of God to do to him. And what he then did, and the results. For a refresher, look this story up in 2 Kings 5 (in the Old, or, as I like to call it, the “First” Testament in the BIBLE). Compare Naaman’s expectations on how a cure of leprosy should happen with what your expectations of how God might reveal his will to mankind in our time might somewhat correlate.
Y’know, I was on a world religion panel a couple of weeks ago at my university and we were posed a very similar question to the one asked earlier in this thread. We were asked “if you found out your religion wasn’t true, would you leave?”
One of my fellow panelists asked the audience member why he asked. “Well,” he said, “when the moderator asked you why you practice your faith, not one of you said ‘because it’s true.’”
Needless to say, it was quite a sobering moment.
Throughout the night’s discussion, the other five panelists and I found that we tended to give very similar answers, no matter what the question was. So whoever spoke first would soon receive a chorus of “dittos” from the rest of us on the panel.For this question, the general consensus that all six of us panelists reached was:
1) Yes, we would leave.
2) But we would not feel that we wasted our time practicing our “false” religions because we knew that we were better people for it.
3) If we did leave, it would be to find truth elsewhere, because truth can be found everywhere.
Another panelist–a retired Catholic bishop– added that much of religion boils down to personal choice. We can choose to believe in Joseph Smith/Marian apparitions/Mohammed’s writing/the triple goddess/whatever, and we can choose not to believe. Sometimes that’s all we can do. The scriptures say that faith=hope in the unseen. Much of our religion and many others are unseen. I can never see what really happened during the First Vision, or the first meeting of the Church, or at the Garden of Gethsemene. Since I can’t, I can only hope. And you’d better believe that I will hope with all my might until the bitter end, because I love God and the Gospel too much to not believe.
I posed this question on my blog. One reader summed up my thoughts pretty well. She said the only way she could know it wasn’t true is if God showed up and told her so. Thus, she’s going to stick it out. I think, as others have pointed out, that it’s far too difficult to prove/disprove matters of faith, especially when we are so chronogically removed from Biblical times and other key events of Christianity. All I can do is hope. So hope I will.
P.S. In case anyone was wondering, the panel consisted of a Mennonite, a retired Catholic bishop, an Orthodox Jew, a non-denominational Christian, a Muslim, and myself.
DMP–I’m not sure how to read you. Are you serious with the homophobia running rampant in your post? I mean, the gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone, right? The lisping “sodomites” aren’t going to try and convert you to their orientation–and if they’re coming to church, chances are they’re trying to be celibate anyhow. Surely you’re not saying you honestly wish for a huge portion of God’s children to just go away? I really, really hope that’s not what you’re suggesting. (BTW, I know plenty of straight folks who lisp and gay folks who articulate so clearly they could be anchormen–although my hairdresser can lisp like it’s an Olympic event.)
Then again, maybe I’m missing something in your tone, because this evening has consisted of, among other things, a small house fire resulting from a friend circuit in the swamp cooler switch. So I’m frazzled beyond reason. I hope I’m just misreading you.
On other fronts, I do like your “whirring ball called earth” bit. The miracles we take for utter granted can cause serious pause, even on a night you’ve set your house on fire accidentally. Again.
A few years ago I watched a beautiful documentary called “Lost Tribes” about gay Mormons. Specifically it was about Sue Ann Post, an ex-Mormon lesbian comedian, and her journey to a convention in Salt Lake that united gay Mormons and ex-Mormons. It was sad. Here were all these beautiful people who (for the most part) longed to be active and serve the Lord, but felt they couldn’t do that without being dishonest to themselves. DMP, I’m sorry you can’t look past the outward appearance to the beautiful person within. You are missing out on some tremondous opportunities for friendship and growth.
To DMP: seriously, lay off on the anti-gay comments. They are people, fellow brothers and sisters, not “sodomites”–your little comments add nothing to the discussion.
I felt like the major tone of the show was dark and eerie. Were they unable to get copyright information of church art pieces? Also, I felt that they portrayed the Mormons’ as very-anti American, and conveniently forgot to mention the Mormon Battalion and the men that left their families to go and fight in the war against Mexico.
Stephanie–just curious, since I didn’t get the vibe you did: can you share a few more details that made you feel the show was dark and eerie? As for your question about copyright, the church cooperated in the making of the documentary so I imagine that’s how they got the images. There wasn’t anything untoward like secret cameras in briefcases or anything :).
I might be overstating, but I believe the church populace DID go through a rather anti-American period. That’s fairly understandable, really, when you consider that the federal gov’t looked the other way while the MO state gov’t went about killing us, etc. etc.until we had to go to the frickin inhospitable desert (which is now so frickin’ lovely!). It’s really interesting when you look at stuff like the Mormon Battalion and the *immense* faith and forgiveness those men must have had to fight for a government which had in many ways betrayed them. The MO gov’t only officially apologized for the nasty stuff of the 19th c. when we were living there 10 years ago.
I wonder if the impression you got came in part from their liberal use of music in minor keys. I loved the music, but it did strike me as a little weird that so much of it was in “sad” keys.
Stephanie–so far (half-way through) tonight’s installment seems more critical and eerie to me, but that could stem from the fact that my own discomfort with tonight’s topics is far more weighty than my discomfort with the older issues.
Janet, interesting you bring up what happened in MO. On Monday I was speaking with the church’s lawyer for this Area, and he said words to the extent of, Mormons were their own worst enemies in MO; they were at least partially responsible for things going so badly there. I’d never heard a member of the church put it so bluntly. I think you’re right, there was a lot of anti-Americanism in the early days of the church. There’s Missouri, there’s the US Army invading Salt Lake, etc. I think the early Saints and the governments (both state and federal) fed on each other’s distrust until it became almost a paranoia.
LOVED IT. Intellectuals in crisis, gays, women and the priesthood, women and unreasonable pressures, ERA, vaults in mountains, assimilation, excommunications, missions, welfare, retention issues, blacks and the priesthood, temple work, eternal nature of families….did she miss anything?? I haven’t watched anything that intriguing in ages. I think Helen Whitney accomplished an astonishing work.
Minor concern–family of eleven homeschooled kids in Colorado? No offense to them (I’m sure they’re terrific people) but was that supposed to portray a typical LDS family? Is that what your family is like?
Best line–from female convert (I’m paraphrasing here), “Genealogy? I didn’t even like my family!”
This is the Mormon church that I recognize. I know this is horrible but I did feel like puffing my chest out a little when they highlighted LDS Katrina relief efforts, the sacrifices of missionaries, and anything that Harold Bloom said. I am a tiny part but a part nonetheless of a fabulously complex community.
See what a little PBS can give you? I’m feeling quite wonderfully optimistic
WOW! Tonight 2nd episode of “The Mormons” (the PBS American Experience & Frontline co-production) was FAR BETTER than I feared it might have been. It was much better, I thought, than last night. My children also commented on how they didn’t dwell on anyone thing tonight, negatively, too long, like they did the MMM and the FLDS last night.
Any gentile that watched it, that was not braced to be or remain prejudiced, should have seen what the Church’s PR Dept could have never done themselves in a millennium! A religion that not only looks from one eternity (premortal existence) to eternity (postmortal existence), but is both practically concerned with what happens very much in the “in between” (mortality).
The Terryl Givens quotes tonight were even better than last night’s, and Harold Bloom’s take on Mormonism’s conquering death (for an agnostic Jew, that’s pretty good), were great.
Whitney (or Barnes?) seemed to weave tonight’s vignettes together as if they were Church Relief Society presidents (though they are not even members). And, speaking of Relief Society, I’m trying to remember if they even touched upon that either night? (Someone help me here).
Perhaps, tonight’s Frontline episode did more to show the LDS Church “behond & besides polygamy”. (I wonder if Jacob’s nearer descendants ever had to explain the plural marriages their ancestors contracted)? From family home evening, family prayer, marriages at temples, to genealogy and baptisms for the dead, to families, faith, Sister Stevenson and or many frank, funny but forthcoming quotes (”…some white boy, a dead angel, and gold plates…”), and the impact the most read verse in the Book of Mormon had and still has on her! Powerful stuff! Wouldn’t you agree?
Oh, me, of little faith! One tiny excerpt about the Jewish holocaust victims being victimized twice (once by Hitler, twice by proxy), that Marlin K. Jensen so genuinely conveyed the Church’s reassurances on. (For also being a Democrat and a lawyer, he seems to have a pretty good shot at C-3! —TIC)
Glad we bought a clean new videotape and captured it.
Now, watch as all the Pharisees and Sadducees across the nation and around the world castigate it for being too favorable towards “The Mormons”. No. A REAL piece must show and convey MUCH MORE DIRT (they will say) than this piece did!
Again, “objectivity” is when (according to the dissenters, detractors and critics) you see it the way “they” do. (If you don’t have anything good to say about The Mormons, then come sit by me–and tell me all about it), they will say.
Inasmuch as men (including wo-men) do good (including & especially Helen Whitney now), they shall in no wise lose their reward!
(I think I’d like to see the original 6-hour version she had before she edited down to this 4-hour version). Let’s see if she’ll sell that version too!?!
DMP–can I ask how old your children are? i was wondering how younger folks would respond to it (young teens, say) since they often see things a little on the black/white side. Sounds like yours understood nuance. Are they older? Or was I just a really nutty teenager? (Well, yes, but for other reasons).
Quimby (73 - unless the timestamp gremlins strike) - that Sue Ann Post documentary “Lost Tribes” was really very beautiful and touching. I’ve seen the book in the ABC Shop a couple times and almost bought it. And it was a marvellous illustration of the fact that one can’t just put all GLBT people into one basket: at the Affirmations conference there were those who wanted to continue their involvement with the LDS Church, those who weren’t sure, and those who wanted nothing more to do with the LDS Church, or any other church.
I did attend one Affirmation event when the LDS Safe Space Coalition emerged. It was the most spiritual event that I had experienced in a long time.
It is not enough to say “my heart goes out to them” and continue to ignore the evidence regarding homosexuality. That is negligent, especially as this continues to be a matter of life and death for many Mormon families.
If we perceive the gospel in a way that denies nature with destructive consequences then we are not understanding the gospel properly.
The sad thing is that the more we believe, the more we are vulnerable to this problem. Homosexuals are, by the way, only the most exposed victims. To varying degrees, our denial of biology also affects the status of women and the well being of straight teenagers.
Hey, I’m no-mo and never will be (unless you’re allowing espresso sippers with gay boyfriends in tow…but I digress). I wanted to express that I came away from the show with a complicated respect…thankful that someone’s gone out there and redone the massacre history better than Krakauer…I didn’t find Joseph or the Angel creepy at all (but then I’m a weirdo myself)…I was impressed, again, at how much the religion practices listening to the Spirit, and say “bravo” and good for you all, the world needs this right now.
The hardest bits to me involved Margeret Toscano’s ex-communication. It was evident in her sorrow that their was a great love of the gospel. That spoke volumes to me.
I thought it was fair and balanced. It countered every negative with a positive and ended the discussion with the positive. The overall feeling I received from watching it was much like Lupitas. I was excited to be a part of this church, warts and all, and I had my strongest testifying moment with my DH.
Loved It.
Also, I want to be in Sister Betsy’s ward. People praising during testimony meeting and singing gospel music with flavor and enthusiasm. Alas, I live in a very white bread ward in Idaho…
It was neat how the filmmakers showed a contrast between Sister Betsy and the homeschooled family in Colorado. You couldn’t get any two examples that were further apart on the spectrum, yet, they were talking about their faith in the same way. It was inspiring to whitness that diversity within the church, and an ecxellent artistic interpretation of such from the filmmakers.
DM
I’m glad you turned out not to be a nutto… you had me worried there for a moment. I would suggest that if you care or risk criticizing people, that you try to do it in a kinder, more benevolent tone, reflecting your obvious, well intentioned, Christian beliefs.
Comment by just call me Cassandra... — May 2, 2007 @ 7:15 am
Janet…
I don’t know why last nights program would hit close to home. They were tslking about Mormon intellectuals…
Comment by just call me Cassandra... — May 2, 2007 @ 7:50 am
Mary (57)
After reading the justifications on this website and other Mormon websites, I have to ask. Please be honest. If the Church was not true, would you want to know? Would it even matter?
You ask that as if it’s an all-or-nothing proposition. In my mind, more than enough of what we believe is true and verifiable. Not all of what I have been taught has borne out to be accurate, but definitely enough, allowing for truckloads of human error.
And the most basic propositions of our faith about the reality of Jesus Christ are impossible on so many levels, but they are completely true and personally verifiable.
I have read the Book of Mormon probably in the area of 25-30 times in my life, and each time I read, I come across elements that I question, where I wonder if they came from some prophetic exigesis on the part of Joseph Smith. But I come across other passages that I am certain are divinely inspired. And I do believe it to be historically accurate in light of the testimonies of its witnesses, and in absence of evidence to the contrary.
DMP–can I ask how old your children are? i was wondering how younger folks would respond to it (young teens, say) since they often see things a little on the black/white side. Sounds like yours understood nuance. Are they older? Or was I just a really nutty teenager? (Well, yes, but for other reasons).
Comment by Janet — May 2, 2007 @ 12:04 am
My children still at home range from age 7 to 26. The youngest, of course, wasn’t much interested in it. Our 11-year old might have watched a little. My daughters, 13 (almost 14), 16, 18, and 20, all watched all of it, as did my 26-year old son.
They all have been and are taught somewhat in the learning of their father. We all read the scriptures together every Sunday. It took us about 4-1/2 years to get through the ‘First’ (Old) Testament. We’re in Acts right now in the NT. We read through the BoM together before doing the First Testament, though some of us also read the BoM in 2005, and others read it on their own, of course, still.
I have long worked on teaching my children the basics, as well as tutoring them so that they might catch the nuances. Of course, their ability to do so is affected by my effort, as well as the native intelligence of each individual, and their own interest in any given thing, and/or lack thereof.
Regarding the “intellectual” close to home thing, I found Elder Oaks’ comment helpful. Obedience, I have found, is not who is right and who is wrong, but who is in charge. David, when Saul pursued him, wrongly, gave us the ultimate example. When Saul was seeking David’s life, and David cut off the hem of Saul’s skirt, David wept over doing that to the “Lord’s anointed”.
I try to “straighten out” those above me, as much as I can influence them, by “teaching correct principles” when and where I can, and always “esteeming (my) brother as (my)self”. I try to leave the rest to the Lord. As a watchman upon the tower (Ezekiel), I take seriously my obligation to sound the warning cry. However, I will leave to the Lord the judgement of Priesthood or other authorities who heed not that appropriate sounding. And, I try hard not to steady the ark. My attempts are given as suggestions or ideas if given directly, or general “lessons learned” if speaking to a congregation or class. The prophets “couching” of their warnings in certain language, as even the Savior did, sometimes, was perhaps done in a way to keep others from directly accusing them of challenging authority, while they did it nonetheless.
However, with that said, my view is generally that many so-called “intellectuals” in the Church don’t have sufficient faith that either God knows what he is talking about, or is able to fulfill his own word—which, they do, not wisely, and to their peril, and that of the whole Church, if they repent not.
DM
I’m glad you turned out not to be a nutto… you had me worried there for a moment. I would suggest that if you care or risk criticizing people, that you try to do it in a kinder, more benevolent tone, reflecting your obvious, well intentioned, Christian beliefs.
“You tell that ‘fox’…” is a quote from the Savior of the world. He also said things like, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine…”, and, “…It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs…” to a non-Israelite who sought him to heal her child.
Your view of being “Christian”, it is obvious, does NOT include ever saying things in the way that the person of whom all are called “Christian” is taken from did, at appropriate times.
It is important to be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” on one hand. It is also equally important, at other times, to “call a spade a shovel”. If we forever fawn to the world, may we not forget He who taught not to offend, nevertheless necessarily offended (those who needed to be pricked, to attempt to arouse them from their comatose sleep, heading to spiritual death). Few likely heeded his insults, but that is why, I am sure, those words were given. As well, also, to thereby warn away disciples, should they ever be tempted to take on “…the leaven of the pharisees”.
In other words, if we always treat those with kindest who are living quite contrary to what they should, might not our kindness, thereby, be more cruel ultimately? Mrs Toscano should have and should take that “warning” both before and after her excommunication. She did not. She has not yet repented. It is important not to let the body die from cancer. If thine eye offend thee (be cancerous), as hard as the medicine may seem, it must be “plucked out”. The body, the Church, has many maladies in it that arise. They must be dealt with, if they will not heal, to save the rest of the body!
I love and even have great sympathy for those who have fallen into error. But I will not risk the whole body for a single member.
The only thing I would have added was a small explanation on the WOW and garments. It’s one of the questions I get asked most, even if I am a lapsed Mormon. It would have been nice to see the garments seen in the same religious vein as a yarmulka or vestments, rather than magic underwear.
I’m so surprised at some of the negative reactions to the art– for the most part, I really enjoyed the pieces they showed– and head and shoulders above some of the things I saw in a Deseret Book recently. Seriously, going in there left me a little concerned about the state of LDS art (some of it actually gave me the giggles.)– but I loved the artists they chose for the documentary. J Kirk Richards’ works are lovely– and they’ve been featured in the Ensign.
I just have one comment about faith with an example. Native Americans are not decedents of Israel. DNA has proved that they are decedents of Asia. You cannot have faith that something is true when it is proven wrong. The earth revolves around the sun. I cannot have “faith” that the sun revolves around the earth because it has been proven that it does not.
The whole DNA thing to me is a moot point. We have records (in the BOM) of one or two (actually, three isn’t it?) groups of people from various places who are lead across the ocean to the promised land. Who knows how many more there were that we don’t know about? And what about the bearing strait? I have full confidence that N.A. ancestry is probably a nice mixture of a lot of different places. And remember the variance in island cultures around the area of S. America and polynesia, as well.
Adelheid #84 - Don’t you love the ABC shop? I was actually a bit wary of “Lost Tribes” but I thought it was beautiful and moving. Can’t wait to see “The Mormons”; do you think it’ll be on SBS or ABC?
Yeah, the DNA issue doesn’t prove that the BOM didn’t happen, but it does prove that Native Americans are not from Israel. And we’ve all been taught in church that Native Americans are descendants of the Lamanites. So if the prophets have taught us that, and they have, it still shows something’s up. What exactly, I’m not sure. But something.
re DNA: it is just an impossible proposition to prove the BoM false or true with DNA. for several reasons. i highly recommend reading this http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_and_DNA_evidence
before letting someone shake your faith. it’s strange to see so many non-scientists voice such strong opinions about what genetics tells us about the BoM. i do happen to know a thing or two about this area, and i’ll just say that if you take the time to look into it, you’ll find no reason to doubt.
Again, “objectivity” is when (according to the dissenters, detractors and critics) you see it the way “they” do. (If you don’t have anything good to say about The Mormons, then come sit by me–and tell me all about it), they will say.
I think this comment is neither fair nor accurate, at least with respect to myself and the great majority of my fellow “dissenters, detractors and critics.” For example, you can check out my reviews of the program at my blog and see that I praise producer Helen Whitney for producing an excellent documentary. I specifically praise some of the segments that portrayed positive aspects of the church and its members. I do not think the documentary would have been a valuable contribution to Mormon Studies had it been entirely critical of the church.
Incidentally, my reviews of discussions on the program across the Bloggernacle, the DAMU, the PBS site, and Deseret News site, reveal that while a few “critics” of the church thought the documentary was too easy or soft on the church, most thought it was quite fair and objective. On the other hand, you will not need to search far for comments from devout Mormons who are sharply critical of the program for not looking and sounding like somethin produced at 50 South Temple.
Nita:
I was moved by your initial reaction. There are many people who responded similarly when first learning that the church was not all they had been taught it was and that there was much more to the story. Some of these people come to a deeper appreciation for the Mormon faith; some become disenchanted but remain in the church even though they no longer believe literally in what is taught in the correlated materials; still others discover that without a strong conviction in the literal truth of the church’s approved version of its history, there is nothing sufficiently compelling in the social and cultural aspects of the church to justify continuing activity.
Quimby #100 - I’m thinking SBS, in the 7.30pm Saturday slot, if they can managed to easily break each two hour segment into a one hour segment. Shown over a month. SBS seems to get more of the PBS docos, whereas ABC gets the BBC stable.
And yes, the ABC shop is a dangerous, dangerous place. I always walk out of there with a much lighter purse…
I am a non-Member and I saw the PBS doc the other day. I’ve been interested because I heard a lot of Mormons were upset about the content and so I thought I’d try to find what some people are saying–this site is one I found. One thing I’d like to say is I’m confused why some are afraid of discussing any bad history for the church. Its all about what sort of attitude you approach things and instead of oh my gosh its them against us, why not approach this is a missionary opportunity or a chance to educate yourselves about how people perceive your church and help them learn the correct way? I have been so shocked by the many comments I’ve heard across blog land giving the impression that “we’re the victims” and we must avoid all negativity about our church. Doesn’t that bring the risk of turning ignorant? Again–I’ll repeat what I’ve said before. Its about attitude and what you do with the information. Are you going to play a poor me or use it as a way to embrace people with love? Isn’t that what your church is supposedly about?
I haven’t finished watching the PBS special (saw Monday night’s; haven’t watched Tuesday’s yet). All the same, though, I’d like to take a stab at answering your questions.
Yes, the Church is about love and learning. The Doctrine and Covenants teaches that “the glory of God is intelligence.” The PBS special (the first episode, at least; again, haven’t seen the second part) was pretty accurate. There were a few misses, and there were other things that I thought were a little unclear (such as who all the commentors were–they usually said “author” or “professor” with no additional insight as to their areas of expertise). Overall, though, I think Helen Whitney did a pretty good job.
That said, though, let’s remember about your call to use this as a teaching moment: that would be the IDEAL thing to do. The LDS Church, like so many other organizations, has many noble ideals but is filled with less than perfect people to carry them out. Yes, you are right: we should use negative moments to teach others. But in the spur of the moment, sometimes that’s just plain HARD.
Obviously, I can’t speak for everyone, but I do know that I’m not the only Mormon on the planet who has had to put up with negativity. I’ve been told by close friends that I’m going to hell. I’ve had people ask what I believe, seeming sincere, then turning around and telling me what they “know” I believe, their knowledge usually being utterly and completely false. Often times I can think of calm, rational, loving, intelligent things to say after the fact. But more often than not, when those hurtful things are said, the tears usually come first, not the reason. Please note that I’m not only referring to times when people have said false things. My dad is very antagonistic towards the Church–even though he is *technically* a member. I’ve been crying all my life when I’ve heard him berate the Church because it’s something that’s so dear to me. Remember that when you tread on emotional ground, you can’t be surprised when you get emotional responses.
Also, one person–can’t remember who–said in Monday’s episode that the LDS Church does not have the benefit of a “time buffer” like the rest of the Christian world does. It’s still new. We have always been in the public eye. Thus, we as a church have had not had as much time to digest, review, and respond to some of the less-pleasant periods in our history.
All the same, though, even though our history is somewhat new, there’s still a lot we don’t know and probably never will, especially in regards to polygamy. How many wives did Joseph Smith really have? Did Emma really deny polygamy? Was Joseph Smith III really ordained by his father as the next leader of the Church? Did the Church know about said ordination when Brigham Young took over? There’s evidence here, there’s evidence there, emotions still run high, both sides can be argued. Ultimately, in some matters there’s nothing left to do but pick a side and stick with it. It all boils down to “I believe” or “I don’t believe.” I have come to accept the necessity of making a leap of faith, but find that it makes teaching extremely difficult. I’ll refer again to my earlier statement of emotional ground producing emotional responses.
Overall, I’d say you’re right, we shouldn’t be afraid of our past. It’s complicated, but beautiful. But please try to understand why some people might not be ready to make that leap of faith just yet. Walking by faith is a hard thing to do.
Oh, and not all Mormons hated the program. I thought it was great. =)
Apparently it’s also going to be available to be viewed online after it’s aired for people like me who have other things going on those nights. Also, interestingly, I’ve heard from others in the blogging world that they were counselled about it at church that it might be a negative thing and to be cautious as the church was not presented favourably (nothing about being presented honestly, which I’m pretty sure it’s going to be.) Whereas in our ward it was announced with times and dates from the pulpit as something interesting to see. Maybe there is no such thing as correlation after all? LOL.
Comment by Kerri — April 28, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
Director Helen Whitney shared preview clips of this film at Sunstone West last weekend, and her presentation was terrific. She’s done thousands of hours of interviews with members, scholars, former members, General Authorities, and “regular folks”, and from the clips she showed us, she’s got a good handle on The Mormon Story. FYI, her first cut was 6 hours, but she’s had to whittle that down to 4 so that it will fit the PBS schedules.
What we saw was not negative, but it does tell the truth, warts and all. That being said, the warts seemed to be presented fairly and without inflammatory language, and there were plenty of LDS-testimonial-type speakers that helped balance things out. If people have only heard LDS history from Sunday School lessons, they may be surprised at some of the stories that come out, but I think the program will be fairly balanced.
Church leadership seems always upset when filmmakers spend significant portions of time discussing polygamy (and the breakoff polygamous groups), but when survey after survey shows that non-LDS Americans think of “polygamy” whenever they think of “Mormon” it seems obvious that it needs addressing. Especially when the film is an historical overview.
When speaking of her access to all things LDS, Whitney told Sunstone participants that the church basically said, In our heart of hearts, we’d probably like ‘one of our own’ to do this documentary, but nobody in-house can do it the same way you can, so do your best, and we’ll share everything we’ve got and give you what you need.
As one of the commenters at the symposium said, I could go to my local library and check out an ‘American Experience’ video for my mom about Eleanor Roosevelt or 9/11, or The Pope, but until the creation of this PBS program, I could never do the same for anything LDS-related. We’ve finally got a well-done documentary that I can point curious people to without worrying that the source of the documentary will bias their viewing.
Comment by LRC — April 28, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
“What we saw was not negative, but it does tell the truth, warts and all.”
And there’s the rub. Unless it is 100% positive in its portrayal of the church, I fear the more orthodox members will dismiss it out of hand. And that would be a shame, since “objective journalism” shouldn’t mean “anti-mormon”.
Comment by Phouchg — April 28, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
Including both good and bad is one thing. But look at this:
http://www.abc4.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoID=61146
“You’ve drunk the kool-aid”? oh THAT’S balanced.
Comment by anon — April 28, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
I sent a link to the PBS website to several of my LDS friends earlier today. One of them forwarded my email to her *clearly* paranoid mother, who promptly wrote me to tell me that she had been “warned about that show” in church and from her neighbors. She then accused me of advocating for organizations that teach things contrary to the LDS church. Yikes!
I guess my take is that I just don’t feel that we have anything to be afraid of. Hiding from our history and the truth doesn’t do anyone any favors in the long run.
Comment by Louise — April 29, 2007 @ 2:03 am
I watched that link you posted anon… just because the news station reporting on the documentary decides to be inflammatory and unbalanced doesn’t mean the documentary itself is like that. ABC 4 is a news station and news stations are notorious for inflaming everything for good ratings… how good would it be for their ratings to advertise that a new documentary was coming out that showed mormons in a balanced, favorable view? Everyone loves a controversy and so they of course stuck to the controversial points and made it sound like this was a total anti-mormon film. To really know, we have to watch it and see for ourselves. As the statement from the church says… “This is a film about the church, not its producers.” And how the church’s history and theology is presented will be in the hands of those who did the film… it’s an independent documentary as it was pointed out… so it’s not going to be a sugar coated Sunday School lesson. It was made ABOUT the church, not FOR the church. I am very interested to see how we are portrayed to the rest of America by someone who isn’t an anti-mormon or even a mormon even..but someone who has been referred to by other mormons as very fair and honest. The proof is in the pudding… {not the kool aid}.
Comment by Stephanie — April 29, 2007 @ 2:09 am
{not the kool aid}.
LOL!! I agree that our own opinion should be formed. That was one of the main resons I joined the church. It seemed to encourage you to use your brain a make your own choices.
Comment by Amy C. — April 29, 2007 @ 9:30 am
I’m planning to watch it.
Leaders out here have mentioned it and promoted it. No one has said anything along the lines of staying away from it, but they have cautioned that it’s not made by the church and that it features some people that who do not support the church and that therefore it might be uncomfortable for some people. Basically, we were warned not to expect sugar coating, which I think is a perfectly fair and reasonable warning to make.
Everyone around here is planning to watch it…if we can agree what time it starts! *Goes to check PBS web site.*
Comment by Marie — April 29, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
I am a member of a bishopric in Seattle. I just wanted to talk a little about the *warning* that was given about the documentary. We recieved a letter from the Quorum of the Twelve (not the First Presidency) about the documentary. The letter was not to be read to members of the church. It just said that the documentary was not produced by the Church, but the Church did cooperate fully with the filmmaker. The letter as said that the documentary features Church leaders, active and in-active members, and critics of the Church. We were not asked to avoid the documentary — nor were we to ask our ward members to avoid it. It was a warning that this documentary may result in members of our wards seeking answers and explanations to some of the things shown in the film. I saw it more as a heads-up and study the *warts* in our history so I can answer questions when they come up.
Anyway, I just thought a little clarification would be helpful.
Enjoy the show…it should be good.
Comment by anon — April 30, 2007 @ 12:47 am
It’s on KUED at 8 pm. I’m looking forward to it.
Comment by sare — April 30, 2007 @ 10:07 am
I took the letter from the Quorum of the 12 as a warning not to blindly invite our non-LDS neighbors over to watch the program with us.
Comment by JrL — April 30, 2007 @ 10:33 am
Here’s another article about it:
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5774484
Comment by anon — April 30, 2007 @ 10:44 am
And a surprisingly nice one from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/arts/television/30morm.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Comment by Joanne — April 30, 2007 @ 11:13 am
In this morning’s NY Times there is a review of the documentary. I thought it portrayed the church in a fairly positive light. Especially in the last paragraph.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/arts/television/30morm.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Comment by Louise — April 30, 2007 @ 11:15 am
We were told something similar to #9. They said the church did participate in parts of it, but the church did not produce it. Nothing specific about avoiding it or watching it.
I’m looking forward to it.
Comment by jjohnsen — April 30, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Terryl Givens is one of the interviewers; his son Nathaniel has a blog and he saw the film last night:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/arts/television/30morm.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Comment by Zina — April 30, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
Let’s try that again:
kiriath-arba.blogspot.com/
Comment by Zina — April 30, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
I think you can watch it online starting tomorrow, but I’m not sure
Comment by Meg — April 30, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
For those who missed it, the entire program will be on the PBS website tomorrow: http://www.pbs.org
I too was disturbed by Elder Oaks ending comment about never criticizing church leaders, even if the criticism is true. But he did say the same thing in the Church Ensign:
“In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not.”
- Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, “Criticism,” Ensign, Feb. 1987, page 68
Comment by Gema — April 30, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
Overall, the mormons was really well done. The parts talking about Joseph Smith reminded me a lot of Bushman’s book Rough Stone Rolling, I wonder if they used his material to tell the story.
Comment by roo — May 1, 2007 @ 12:12 am
The dancing part was awesome. The discussion of the eternal and godlike nature of our bodies and the video of ballroom dancing. What a cool portion of the documentary. I’ll bet the dance dept at BYU is cheering! (I told my husband that this is why I want our sons to be ballroom dancers
Comment by Jessawhy — May 1, 2007 @ 12:20 am
Don’t be sad Lisa. You can download it.
I was quite surprised by how fair it was. Parts were like my church history class with inclusions of the things they usually skip over.
I was a bit surprised that, as long as they were talking about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, they didn’t talk about the Utes and other tribes already present in Utah, and how the pioneers impacted them. Not one mention of the Walker War.
Comment by Day — May 1, 2007 @ 12:21 am
(Jessawhy, you should DEFINITELY have your sons be ballroom dancers. They get the same scholarships as football players at a lot of colleges, and dancing has a lot fewer injuries.)
Comment by Day — May 1, 2007 @ 12:26 am
missed the begining…look forward to seeing the rest of it online. it was fun to see kathleen flake–we were in the same ward for years during her graduate work before she headed off to vanderbilt. thanks for informing me of the series lisa…i hadn’t heard about it from anyone else and would have missed it. ♥
Comment by blue — May 1, 2007 @ 12:27 am
So how did everyone feel about the first half?
I LOVED the little bit they did about conflating the body and spirit (the fact that they felt compelled to offer an explanation for all the church dances was alone enough to crack me up, and then I really liked what they actually said as well). Plus, I never thought I’d hear my favorite Neitzche quote on a PBS special about Mormons. “I should only believe in a God who would know how to dance” indeed!
Their treatment of the MM massacre evinced a lack of anachronism which pleased me. The special was pretty even-handed by not soft-pedaling or only focusing on mistakes or/icky stuff in an absence of context.
I am a wee nervous about the “trailer” quote from Elder Oaks regarding criticism of church leaders and about the special regarding NOW’s response (I fear the anti-feminist backlash and the anti-mormon backlash complicating my happy little worldview).
Comment by Janet — May 1, 2007 @ 12:35 am
Yes, Janet, my favorite part was the dance portion. That was just beautiful. Terryl Givens was on the whole very pleasing to listen to. I really liked the art. I believe some of it was done by Trevor Southey. I thought the documentary was interesting, fairly accurate, and probably of interest to a wide spectrum of viewers. I’m really interested to hear Margaret Toscano tomorrow, as I believe she will address many of my concerns with Mormon feminism.
Comment by Bored in Vernal — May 1, 2007 @ 12:43 am
if you watched this as an active member of the church and you came away impressed and talking about the clips on “dancing” then you amaze me and remind me why those of us fortunate enough not to live in Utah should be very happy. that was the very least significant part of the entire thing. it has nothing to do with BYU ballroom dancing. please….
Comment by you must be kidding — May 1, 2007 @ 12:52 am
#27 - I haven’t watched the documentary, but I think it is significant from the standpoint that most conservative US religious movements look down on dancing, so it’s interesting to explore the reasons the LDS church doesn’t. Not that it’s the most important thing about the documentary (which again, I haven’t watched), but I can see why it would be included.
Comment by Quimby — May 1, 2007 @ 12:55 am
I forgot to watch it! I can’t believe I forgot to watch it. I’m pulling my hair out! Ahhhhhhh!
Comment by fMhLisa — May 1, 2007 @ 1:03 am
my mind is racing after watching the show….
beginning with the ending-Elder Oaks statement about criticizing leaders. that bothers me. and confuses me. never mind the fact i have a mental illness to wrangle with, now i’m thinking i’m about to have a crisis of faith. i didn’t hear these stories before i got baptized. i didn’t know it’s wrong to criticize church leaders.
what if Brigham Young ok’d the MMM???? i’m reaaallll sorry-but i’d have to criticize someone who told me to massacre people.i feel like crying, i feel panicky and paranoid now.
and the polygamy thing-i thought we were supposed to follow the laws of the land. why was Brigham Young willing to go against the laws of the land and only later it seemed that the Church “gave in” to pressures from the US govt. and banned polygamy. i’m just feeling alot of inconsistencies here.
Was the Manifesto really a revelation….did Heavenly Father look upon the situation and sigh, and say something like…well ok, i’ll tell you guys to stop since the Govt is giving you such a hard time?? what the heck?
i want to know what to read that is the HONEST truth. i am feeling angry, like i’ve been duped. i don’t feel like i’ll make it to the Celestial kingdom at all anymore. i’m feeling really sad.
i feel my only True Friend is my Savior.
i wish i could go to sleep and not wake up, then at least i wouldn’t be surrounded by all these scholars, intellectuals, anti-mormans, mormons who aren’t active b/c of this or that….at least i’d be safe. it’s as if i’m in a whirlwind with an unlimited number of opinions and stories swirling about me and i’m being thrown up against walls of doubt, confusion, and fear.
Comment by Nita — May 1, 2007 @ 1:15 am
First of all, I stumbled across your blog looking for reaction to tonight’s documentary. I thought that it was pretty good.
Nita, I just wanted to try and answer some of your questions, if I can.
As a historian, I have spent some time studying about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I’ll try and tell you about the conclusions that I’ve come up with that seems independently consistent with what the Spirit indicates is true.
Brigham Young did NOT order the massacre done. The statements by Will Bagley (the guy that said it was Young’s fault)
to the contrary are his own personal views, and he has an axe to grind with the Church for whatever reason. I’ve read his book. He’s just the latest in a long line of writers who have tried to pin the whole debacle on the Church as an organization for whatever reason. The evidence is very circumstatial to suggest that he ordered it. Two facts, I believe will suffice.
First off, the massacre happened near Cedar City, which, if you are unfamiliar with UT geography, is in the SW corner of Utah, near the Nevada border. It’s something like 250 miles from Salt Lake to there. There is no way with the technology they had then in the Utah Territory (no phones, telegraphs, or anything like that) that Young could have coordinated an attack with Lee and his people in southern Utah while the train was moving southward. Lee’s superiors dispatched a rider to Salt Lake to ask Young what to do (and he said spare them by the way), and he made it there and back again in 3 days (returning to Cedar City after the massacre). The travel time is simply too great.
Any statements that anti-Mormon people make that Brigham Young said this or that appearing to condone the massacre are victim to the power of suggestion. It may appear that that is what they said. On the other hand, if you examine the full context it is in, it has quite a different meaning, or it is quite ambiguous what they meant.
In regards to the Manifesto, if you look in the back of the Doctrine and Covenants after the “Official Declaration 1″ (which is the Manifesto) there is a page and a half of small print. In there, Wilford Woodruff makes the statement that he would have , if the Lord had not told him to do what he did, he would have kept on fighting against the government no matter what, until the end, if needs be. To me, that doesn’t seem that he bowed to government pressure making a statement like that.
The twelfth article of faith states that we believe in honoring and sustaining the law. However, when that law conflicts with the laws of God, as the polygamy thing did, then we are to obey the laws of God. That was why they resisted the U.S. government.
Finally, there is a difference between criticizing a leader and disagreeing with them. When you disagree, that is a thought thing. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and to worship what they may. Hence, you can disagree with something a leader says, but still be okay in the Church. An example of this would be Harry Reid. He’s the Senate Majority Leader. As such, he is a high ranking official in the Democratic Party. As such, he gives at least a tacit approval of abortion (because that is something that the Democrats support in their party), something the church has clearly come out and given its opposition to (except in certain circumstances). There is nothing wrong with that. That is why he is still a member and hasn’t been excommunicated for.
Criticism is different. That implies action. You are telling something to someone else. That something else may lead another person to lose their testimony and to leave the church, jeopardizing their salvation. Back to the example, if Harry Reid came out and said that the Church leaders are wrong on the whole abortion thing, and every single one of them is going to hell unless they choose to be pro-choice. That’s different. He may be excommunicated for something like that. I hope my example helps and isn’t too utterly confusing.
Furthermore, we shouldn’t criticize our leaders because we are really criticizing our Lord and Savior (our leaders speak for the Lord, thus it is like we are critcizing Him).
We could sit here and explain things all day, and we wouldn’t get anywhere, but have sore eyes from reading our computer screens all the time. However, the only way that you are going to really know for sure is to pray and ask God if His Church is true. If you seek out your own answers, God will answer and you will know the truth. When you have that testimony, then it really doesn’t matter what the anti-Mormons, intellectuals with an axe to grind, or inactive people say. You will know it is true and that is all that matters.
I’m sorry for the length of this post. I just felt compelled to make a stab at answering Nita’s questions and try and help to put her doubts to rest. If i missed anything, feel free to add on to that.
Cheers!!
Matt
Comment by Turbo — May 1, 2007 @ 3:24 am
Lisa - you can watch it on PBS.com - they’re streaming it
Comment by Rebecca — May 1, 2007 @ 5:56 am
Nita, you darling. I had some of the same questions as I watched the program… I looked at my husband repeatedly for confirmation… “Is this true? That can’t be true…” you get the point. If you want to read something that is the honest truth, then get out your Book of Mormon. Also, if you go to PBS.com you can read the full interviews that they used for the show. President Hinckley’s nearly brought me to tears, I think it might help to calm you.
Don’t despair, and don’t lose faith. The Church is true, even if its members aren’t perfect. The history of the Church may have “warts”, but there are also people who have agendas, who try to exaggerate and make things seem worse than they were.
You say that you’re in a whirlwind with unlimited numbers of opinions surrounding you… there is only one that matters: Heavenly Father’s.
I know what it feels like to be pulled in several directions, and I know what it feels like to want to hide under the covers and never leave, and it may sound trite, but do you know what helps me? I pray. Ask your HF to confirm your testimony, to send you comfort, and you’ll be fine.
Best wishes from Ohio,
Megan
Comment by Megan — May 1, 2007 @ 7:01 am
Nita,
I think a very lot of the people here have been through experiences like yours. Everyone’s journey through it is unique and so I can’t tell you where the journey will take you. But I can tell you, that even though my faith is less broad now than it was before I knew these things. I feel like it’s a thousand times deeper now.
We should do a category to highlight our posts about reconciling difficult history (or doctrine or culture) and faith. Maybe I should post your question as a new post? I bet there are a lot of people feeling what you are right now.
Comment by fMhLisa — May 1, 2007 @ 8:18 am
A few posts dealing with reconciling faith and history, that I can think of off the top of my head.
Here’s my post on Emma, Joseph, Polygamy and Lies. And the unexcepted lesson Becky learned. Another follow-up to Enigma by me.
Comment by fMhLisa — May 1, 2007 @ 8:30 am
Nita-
The organization of the church is of the earth, and therefor, flawed. The leaders of the church are human, and in being so, are imperfect. The Gospel and its doctrine, are from the Lord, and perfect.
This is how I keep it together in my own mind. I hope it helps you.
Comment by just call me Cassandra... — May 1, 2007 @ 8:47 am
I watched some of it. It was a pretty accurate history of the torso of the church but they (as usual) cut the head off. We need to give up on expecting a history of the transcendence of the Restoration from third parties.
Comment by Al_Miller — May 1, 2007 @ 9:11 am
We need to give up on expecting a history of the transcendence of the Restoration from third parties.
I honestly can’t say that I’ll have to give that up since I never had the expectation in the first place. It’s not really a non-believers place, is it? And why would you expect it to be so?
That said, it would be nice, wouldn’t it? To have the real history, whole, with the transendence too. But the torso and the head seem always to be segregated. It’s a pity.
Comment by fMhLisa — May 1, 2007 @ 9:37 am
Nor I. What I find is that good bad or indifferent there is so little substance in a secular history of the church that it isn’t really worth the time or energy. For instance Richard Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling was meticulously reseached and “balanced” and all that but it was boring and tedious. For all that matters, Wilford Woodruff was by far the greater historian.
Comment by Al_Miller — May 1, 2007 @ 10:55 am
Al–tediousness is somewhat subjective. I’ll admit that Rough Stone Rolling wasn’t a popcorn-muncher, but then, I’m just glad to have a treatment of church history from a faithful mormon that isn’t simple popcorn. Heh.
You Must Be Kidding: No no, the dance thing wasn’t cool because BYU has a kick-arse dance team. It was cool because it dealt with the renegade contention that the body can augment the spirit and vice versa. Not exactly Augustine or even St. Paul. Doctrinally, it’s the most unique thing about Mormonism which the documentary dealt with. Polygamy is not unique and neither are ginormous scandals, etc. Plus that section was especially well-written and quoted a Neitzche in way he almost never gets quoted (as in, not a grumbly misanthrope).
I suppose I’d have responded differently to the documentary if I hadn’t already been thoroughly familiar with the troubling stuff already. (I was a mess when I first found out about Mountain Meadows, or Joseph’s secret marriages which he hid from Emma.)
Comment by Janet — May 1, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Janet, what’s really really cool is that Terryl Givens was AD LIBBING the dance part. The whole thing was just eloquence, not scripted, certainly not written by Helen or Jane.
Comment by anon — May 1, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
Boring and tedious? Huh. RSR is fabulous. It should be required reading for all members. Why do Mormons tend to shirk from good, well-researched scholarship? Do we fear our history? Why pretend that we’re perfect?
So far I think that the documentary has been terrific. I’ve told all my friends about it. I’m looking forward to tonight.
Comment by Lupita — May 1, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
BTW, Terryl Givens was absolutely fab. Makes me want to go back to graduate school (okay, not really).
Comment by Lupita — May 1, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
(crying)…..
thank you to everyone who responded to me. i was afraid i’d get yelled at-i read my post later and felt it sounded a bit insane.
i knelt in prayer last night and just told Heavenly Father and my Savior how much i loved Them and asked Them to please guide me each day, for Them to show me Their Truth, not anyone else’s….i do know the Gospel is true and perfect. i cannot deny my testimony, for i have felt it so strongly for many years and cannot deny the Spirit i have felt while in the Temple. All the ugly stuff just vanishes for me when i think of the glorious experiences i have had in the Temple.
i think i reacted so strongly b/c of the MMM incident, mainly.
i sometimes live in a fantasy world, where i try to believe that no member in the Church is ever going to make a serious mistake. of course, that’s not realistic. i dreamt last night about the people at Haun’s mill and at MM. i don’t deal well with violence at all-i have PTSD from past experiences, and to think that Church members were involved in murder really freaked me out. but like i said, no body is perfect. i also calmed down and tried to realize the time, the atmosphere, and the heated memories that the people involved in MMM must have had. i was thinking that they must’ve been pretty hypervigilant about anyone passing through as potential persecutors. don’t know if what i’m saying is true, its just what i got from what was said last night. i know for myself if i’d been through persecutions like the early members had, i’d be pretty on edge too.
As far as Joseph Smith, i think i have had him on a pedestal for many years….i thought he was perfect. did he truly hide his marriages from Emma?
i have been reading “Church History in the Fullness of Times”, and i recall the brethren being upset about the Lord’s command to take other wives. Maybe Joseph was afraid Emma would divorce him or be totally ticked, finding out that he had been commanded to marry other women. i know i probably would’ve been.
i guess i’m just trying to realize these people were just people, that they had normal human feelings and i can’t imagine the major traumas and changes they experienced. the ones i have gone thru in my own life have been bad enough….i am trying to see them from a different point of view.
people in the Old and New Testaments and BoM made mistakes too. i don’t know why i have this fantasy about modern day members. i’m just weird i guess!!
my Bishop keeps reminding me that the Church is a hospital for sick people,that if we were all perfect, we wouldn’t need the Gospel or the Atonement.He helps me keep things in perspective when i panic. i am sure he and i will be discussing all of this!
(((hugs)))) to anyone who likes to hug! and thanks again. your posts helped me to calm down.
Comment by Nita — May 1, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
i forgot a question i had-
Was it a command from the Lord to President Woodruff to ban polygamy, in order for the Utah territory to be admitted to the United States? I wonder what would’ve happened if the LDS had just continued on with the practice?
my elementary understanding of the purpose of men having plural wives, as i’ve read in the scriptures, was to populate the earth with righteous posterity. is that correct?
the statements someone made last night about Joseph Smith’s sex drive were a bit bizarre to me….of course, later my crazy mind got to thinking about that…..What if that were true???
so, when the Savior returns, and the Govt. is His and not man’s , then everything will be ok, right- even polygamy…and it will be understood as a Divine, Eternal institution?
i do hope my questions make some kind of sense. please be patient with me!!
thanks,
nita
Comment by Nita — May 1, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
Dear Megan,
thank you so much for your sweet response. i kept looking at a beautiful painting of our Savior that i have last night and just tried to imagine myself in His safe embrace, knowing that He would never lie to me or lead me astray. And you’re right, Heavenly Father’s opinion is the only one that counts.
Today is my day to work at the Family History Center and i feel less depressed and anxious about everything.
i am going to make plans to attend the Temple asap. when i feel depressed, i isolate and that’s dangerous.
Thank you for your comforting words.
Nita
Comment by Nita — May 1, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Nita,
These are questions that scholars and historians are debating even today. Listening to the debates is fun if one has the constitution for it. I know for a fact you’d get various views from General Authorities on some of these questions. “What if’s” make interesting tangents, but really aren’t healthy when your knees are so wobbley.
Keep reading, keep praying and hang on. The answers will come in time.
Comment by Utopia — May 1, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Nita - according to Mormon Enigma, Joseph didn’t tell Emma for several years, and it’s estimated he had married 16 others in that time. (I think - I don’t have M.E. to hand). Lisa’s already pointed you to some good stuff here, and I think it’s important to realise that expecting perfection in our leaders and in the church as a whole is unrealistic (you could also see my post entitled ‘Infallible Leaders?’). Humans are fallible, and therefore a church run by humans is also open to that fallibility.
Good luck in your journey!
Comment by Rebecca — May 1, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
As a non-Mormon who respects your religion, let me ask this. Non-Mormons often find the story of the finding and translating of the Book of Mormon hard to swallow. As a Mormon, could you keep your faith without believing in that history? Are there Mormons who disbelieve that history but keep their faith? Thanks.
Comment by Cora — May 1, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
Cora–
It’s like this for me.
I’ve had spiritual experiences that were undeniably answers to my prayers, and also answers to questions. One of those spiritual experiences I’ve had is confirmation that the Book of Mormon is a true book, translated by Joseph Smith. If I deny that experience (or any that I’ve had) suddenly, I’m on shaky ground as far as, not only LDS doctrine is concerned, but also the existence of Christ, His rising from the tomb, and the existence of God.
So in my case, no. It’s a piece of my faith, the belief in the Book of Mormon, in conjunction with the Bible and all other prophecies by God’s prophets.
Comment by sare — May 1, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
Nita–
Well, we did for a while. Post-manifesto polygamy is one of those topics which can cause all sorts of angst. I would not exist without it, though, so hmmm.
Don’t feel bad about having questions or feeling torn up about them. Most of us have been there and re-visit the territory now and then. I wish I had time today to really address the things you’ve asked about, but right now I’ll have to settle for telling you that lots of us have been there and come out on the other side with love of God and even our flawed predecessors intact.
Cora–
Yeah, I know a number of people who consider themselves believing Mormons but who don’t believe portions of the originary story. And I believe their belief (the blog By Common Consent recently had a post on “cafeteria Mormonism” which might interest you, since most religious people “pick and choose” to some extent. You can also read about various levels of engagement with belief in *Sunstone.* I believe the whole shebang, though–it’s no more ridiculous than believing a virgin conceived or a dead man ceased to be dead
Comment by Janet — May 1, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
#31 - this is interesting.
#40 - Janet, what do you think Paul is communicating?
#49 - I have never heard of anyone in this category.
Comment by Todd Wood — May 1, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
#40
Cora, as Janet says, there are all kinds of people with varying levels of belief. I however, doubt that anyone can truly be converted heart and soul if they don’t have a basic testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the calling of Joseph Smith.
For me, the truthfulness of the gospel stands or falls on the Book of Mormon, the cornerstone of our religion.
Comment by Patti — May 1, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
Oops, the above is supposed to be referencing #48
Comment by Patti — May 1, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
42. Boring and tedious because a history of the Church that isn’t a history of its transcendence is as interesting and relevant as a history of the Shakers no matter how scholarly, witty, or anything else.
The secular history of plural marriage is a bit spicy in the beginning but it was a dud as it played out. But the spiritual history of plural marriage and the development of a people around its practice and the end of its practice as they list to obey a prophet is fascinating.
Comment by Al_Miller — May 1, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
I don’t believe any scripture, including the Book of Mormon, to be a 100% accurate, literal history of actual events. That doesn’t mean I don’t find them to be of worth, or that I don’t believe in Joseph Smith’s mission, or that I don’t think God wants us to learn from the scriptures, or that I think they’re “made up.” But I just don’t care if archaeology or genetics support the Book of Mormon or Bible because I think their spiritual truths are what matter, not any supposed historical account.
Comment by Bro. Jones — May 1, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
After reading the justifications on this website and other Mormon websites, I have to ask. Please be honest. If the Church was not true, would you want to know? Would it even matter?
Comment by mary — May 1, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
Joseph Smith was just a man and capable of mistakes? Really? Do you really believe that Joseph Smith believed he was just a man? Didn’t he believe that no man would get to heaven but through him? Was he just delusional?
Comment by doug — May 1, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
Janet (in, um, #25, I think) — The Utah NOW program is not related to feminism. NOW isn’t National Organization for Women in this case, it’s Utah NOW as in Utah TODAY or Utah HOTNEWS or Utah WETHINKWECANGETANAUDIENCEBYPIGGYBACKINGONTHOSEOTHERSHOWS. Relax, and enjoy!
Comment by Ardis Parshall — May 1, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
mary/Cora - There is no way you can prove or disprove issues of faith. If you choose to belive in any religion, you must choose to believe in things that don’t make sense and can’t be proven by science. I believe the church is true. I believe the Book of Mormon is scripture, and that it was translated the way our history teaches us it was translated. I also believe that a virgin gave birth to a son who was killed and came back to life. I know it is irrational. But I cannot deny it.
From time to time, people will try to prove or disprove the Book of Mormon is true, using archeological evidence. For those who choose to believe, no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince us. For those who choose not to believe, no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince them. In the end, it comes down to taking that glorious leap of faith and believing in something you cannot see, but hope is true.
Comment by Quimby — May 1, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
Ardis–LOL!!!!! That’s really funny. I was feeling *exhausted* at the thought that a local NOW chapter was trying to neurotically pick apart the documentary to prove how deluded we LDS faithful women (especially the ones who audaciously call ourselves “feminists”) are. Heh.
Todd–I don’t know what Paul *meant* to communicate, but his writings often communicate (to me) a discomfort w/bodily things, a sort of cognitive dissonance. On the other hand, he uses a fantastic controlling metaphor of the body to describe the necessity of diverse roles and skills within the organized church. I cannot see Paul celebrating sensuality as a potential connection to spirituality, however.
Mary–Of course I’d want to know. If the church weren’t divinely inspired I’d drink coffee, get a 10% raise (or give that money to other charities of my choice) and become a unitarian and take longer naps on Sunday. I’d ask you to be honest about your motivations for asking–do you *hope* we’ll all say it doesn’t matter to us? Do you think most religious people would want to know if their belief was unfounded? Would I want to know if Jesus had just been a really smart fellow and not God’s son? Sure. But I’m reasonably sure he was what he claimed to be, even though it sounds quite “out there.”
Doug–”just a man” is a weird phrase in this context. Prophets are mortal, and mortals are flawed. Someone who claims to believe (s)he is a prophet and proclaims personal perfection in the absence of Christ’s atonement easily discludes themselves from prophetic running by virtue of the statement. Joseph taught that we need Christ. He did not teach himself as a replacement, although he did have an (ahem) healthy ego. But my faith isn’t based on Joseph Smith anyhow; it’s based on Jesus Christ, of whom Joseph testified.
Comment by Janet — May 1, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
I’d go ahead and take Joseph off the pedestal. A great man, and I can’t wait to meet him, but I’d reserve the pedestal for Deity.
Comment by David — May 1, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
well if you think about it. JS believed that no church contained the fullness of the gospel until he restored it on this earth, and How can we achieve celestial glory without the fullness of the gospel, so it follows that without Joseph Smith, no man would get to heaven.
I am guessing that you are not a member of the LDS church, so one of the basic beliefs that we hold is that you cannot achieve the highest level of glory, the “Celestial Kingdom”, without preforming certain temple ordinances, and taking certain covenants. Joseph Smith told us how to perform these things after receiving revelation from the Lord. I think that he was probably told that “no man could enter heaven without him”, and misinterpreted that to mean all must be sealed to him, resulting in “dynastic sealings”. This practice was ended very quickly, and I believe that the Lord set them straight and reiterated his meaning so that we, mere mortals, would better understand.
p.s. I am not the biggest church history buff here and I might have some of my facts wrong. Feel free, anyone who knows better, to correct me if I am wrong….
Comment by just call me Cassandra... — May 1, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
cora… I have a hard time with the ‘technicalities’ of the book of mormon, things like the translation process, physical geography, DNA testing, archeological evidence, etc… But what is most important to me, what overshadows all those other things is the fact that there are powerful things in the book that have helped me to feel closer to God.
I tend not to buy into the idea that “if the Book of Mormon is not what we say it is than the Church is a fraud” (paraphrasing here!) my thinking is more along the lines of: the Book of Mormon has some powerful teachings, and it is a part of a church that has a powerful influence for good in the world.
sorry if I am rambling, I am putting my thoughts on this into words for the first time here…
Comment by G — May 1, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
I would agree with the Church that, generally, the documentary is respectful. I thought Terryl Givens was overquoted in the first hour (thank you, Ms Whitney), and Ken Verdoia was not interrupted anywhere near enough in the second hour.
The sensational stuff (to the world), FLDS & MMM, were, yes, way overdone (I’d agree with Terryl Givens on his post documentary commentary on that).
Not every distracting or misleading thing was necessarily just spoken, either. The picture they showed, purportedly of an angel, when speaking of the angel Moroni helped to convey the “weird” view too many Gentiles (& “feminist Mormons—which, to me, is also as big an oxy-Mormon as a ‘gay Mormon’), as well as the 3-pix/profile painting of a young Joseph Smith (supposedly) both lent an air that Mormons are strange, like those gawdy things old aunts or great aunts who wore perfume far too strong and gagging, and had gawdy looking objects in their home, which one especially notices when they are young. They scream out— This is too uncomfortably strange to me!!!
One does notice, though, that Helen Whitney interjected Pres. Hinckley to (again, supposedly) balance and correct who really is “Mormon” and isn’t, and other similar things – believing truly that the Book of Mormon was translated from Gold Plates delivered to Joseph Smith by a REAL angel from God.
I’m looking forward to what the world (sometimes) takes as balance, the view of Zion by those from Zion, those who left Zion for Babylon, and those who have always remained in Babylon (without subtitles, that identify upfront who is who).
Historians of Mormonism who have a seemingly acquired lisp, for example, (whom I expect we will see some of tonight in the 2nd 2 hours) as thoughtful and gentle as they may sound and come across to many, still, give me the heebeegeebees. (Yes, I am mildly homophobic. Okay, so its more than a merely mild level of homophobia)!
And, if Sodomites don’t have a home in Zion, then, what shall we do? What shall we do? My nightmare is that they will be not only allowed to stay, but invited to bring their ‘friends’, and make friends with current residents of Zion, and will turn Zion into Sodom.
And, heaven help us, if we find that Mormons have been baptizing Jews without the permission of living Jews. (My money is on how angry those dead Jews are going to be toward the living ones preventing it)! – After all, if our religion is true, baptism would be a good thing! And, if it is not, what does it matter? If any modern-day Druids want to put a hex on my ancestors, or take it off, let them have at it!
I hope that Ken Verdoia isn’t given too much of tonight’s show again. Terryl Givens I enjoy, and even understand. I know what Ken Verdoia’s take on Mormonism is, and I don’t need him to regurgitate that some more, like some Seagull something that was distasteful, really, to him.
I hope to hear what your takes are on the Frontline portion. I suppose last night, the Pharisees were given a bit more time than the Sadducees. Skeptical Sadducees will probably get more “equal time” tonight!
I also wonder how many ’saints’ will ultimately leave the Church because of this documentary, and how many converts it might also ultimately bring in (& how many more anti-Mormons will be “born”)
Comment by DMP — May 1, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
dmp
that was one odd post.
Comment by anon — May 1, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
Cora,
If I told you that men once landed on the moon, would you have a true concept of history if you did not accept that story?
May I suggest that you invite some missionaries to your home. Explain to them that you aren’t sure you want to join the (LDS) Church, but you want some help in understanding the Book of Mormon.
Read it. Consider what it teaches, both in parts of it where sermons are given. As well as in “hints” it gives here and there in presenting things.
Ask yourself as you read it a question like, “Could a man NOT empowered by God have written the doctrine, the revelation, this story that promotes keeping all of God’s commandments, that advocates people doing right to one another, pushes people to contemplate their standing before their Maker, etc?”
If all of it seems either too fantastic, too miraculous, then consider how you and I are kept alive on this whirling little blue ball called earth. If it seems too different, too unfamiliar, too strange to what you are use to, read the story (again, if you’ve read it before), about Naaman, the head military man from Syria at that time, who came to leprosy to receive a cure from a prophet in the nation of Israel. Consider how unexpected his remedy (to cure leprosy) from what he expected this man of God to do to him. And what he then did, and the results. For a refresher, look this story up in 2 Kings 5 (in the Old, or, as I like to call it, the “First” Testament in the BIBLE). Compare Naaman’s expectations on how a cure of leprosy should happen with what your expectations of how God might reveal his will to mankind in our time might somewhat correlate.
Comment by DMP — May 1, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
I’ll take that as either an insult, a compliment, a “not sure”, or any or all of the above
Comment by DMP — May 1, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
Rather,
…who came to Elisha to be cured of leprosy
(5th paragraph of mine in my last post, end of 5th line down).
Comment by DMP — May 1, 2007 @ 8:58 pm
Y’know, I was on a world religion panel a couple of weeks ago at my university and we were posed a very similar question to the one asked earlier in this thread. We were asked “if you found out your religion wasn’t true, would you leave?”
One of my fellow panelists asked the audience member why he asked. “Well,” he said, “when the moderator asked you why you practice your faith, not one of you said ‘because it’s true.’”
Needless to say, it was quite a sobering moment.
Throughout the night’s discussion, the other five panelists and I found that we tended to give very similar answers, no matter what the question was. So whoever spoke first would soon receive a chorus of “dittos” from the rest of us on the panel.For this question, the general consensus that all six of us panelists reached was:
1) Yes, we would leave.
2) But we would not feel that we wasted our time practicing our “false” religions because we knew that we were better people for it.
3) If we did leave, it would be to find truth elsewhere, because truth can be found everywhere.
Another panelist–a retired Catholic bishop– added that much of religion boils down to personal choice. We can choose to believe in Joseph Smith/Marian apparitions/Mohammed’s writing/the triple goddess/whatever, and we can choose not to believe. Sometimes that’s all we can do. The scriptures say that faith=hope in the unseen. Much of our religion and many others are unseen. I can never see what really happened during the First Vision, or the first meeting of the Church, or at the Garden of Gethsemene. Since I can’t, I can only hope. And you’d better believe that I will hope with all my might until the bitter end, because I love God and the Gospel too much to not believe.
I posed this question on my blog. One reader summed up my thoughts pretty well. She said the only way she could know it wasn’t true is if God showed up and told her so. Thus, she’s going to stick it out. I think, as others have pointed out, that it’s far too difficult to prove/disprove matters of faith, especially when we are so chronogically removed from Biblical times and other key events of Christianity. All I can do is hope. So hope I will.
P.S. In case anyone was wondering, the panel consisted of a Mennonite, a retired Catholic bishop, an Orthodox Jew, a non-denominational Christian, a Muslim, and myself.
Comment by Marie — May 1, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
DMP–I’m not sure how to read you. Are you serious with the homophobia running rampant in your post? I mean, the gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone, right? The lisping “sodomites” aren’t going to try and convert you to their orientation–and if they’re coming to church, chances are they’re trying to be celibate anyhow. Surely you’re not saying you honestly wish for a huge portion of God’s children to just go away? I really, really hope that’s not what you’re suggesting. (BTW, I know plenty of straight folks who lisp and gay folks who articulate so clearly they could be anchormen–although my hairdresser can lisp like it’s an Olympic event.)
Then again, maybe I’m missing something in your tone, because this evening has consisted of, among other things, a small house fire resulting from a friend circuit in the swamp cooler switch. So I’m frazzled beyond reason. I hope I’m just misreading you.
On other fronts, I do like your “whirring ball called earth” bit. The miracles we take for utter granted can cause serious pause, even on a night you’ve set your house on fire accidentally. Again.
Comment by Janet — May 1, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
Make that “fried circuit.” It was NOT friendly. Stupid electrical fire. Now I’ll be too chicken to sleep with the air on.
Comment by Janet — May 1, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
A few years ago I watched a beautiful documentary called “Lost Tribes” about gay Mormons. Specifically it was about Sue Ann Post, an ex-Mormon lesbian comedian, and her journey to a convention in Salt Lake that united gay Mormons and ex-Mormons. It was sad. Here were all these beautiful people who (for the most part) longed to be active and serve the Lord, but felt they couldn’t do that without being dishonest to themselves. DMP, I’m sorry you can’t look past the outward appearance to the beautiful person within. You are missing out on some tremondous opportunities for friendship and growth.
Comment by Quimby — May 1, 2007 @ 9:50 pm
Janet, I’m so sorry to hear about your house fire - and so close to when you welcome your new baby! I hope damage was minimal and easily fixable.
Comment by Quimby — May 1, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
To DMP: seriously, lay off on the anti-gay comments. They are people, fellow brothers and sisters, not “sodomites”–your little comments add nothing to the discussion.
Comment by Natasha — May 1, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
I felt like the major tone of the show was dark and eerie. Were they unable to get copyright information of church art pieces? Also, I felt that they portrayed the Mormons’ as very-anti American, and conveniently forgot to mention the Mormon Battalion and the men that left their families to go and fight in the war against Mexico.
Comment by Stephanie — May 1, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
Stephanie–just curious, since I didn’t get the vibe you did: can you share a few more details that made you feel the show was dark and eerie? As for your question about copyright, the church cooperated in the making of the documentary so I imagine that’s how they got the images. There wasn’t anything untoward like secret cameras in briefcases or anything :).
I might be overstating, but I believe the church populace DID go through a rather anti-American period. That’s fairly understandable, really, when you consider that the federal gov’t looked the other way while the MO state gov’t went about killing us, etc. etc.until we had to go to the frickin inhospitable desert (which is now so frickin’ lovely!). It’s really interesting when you look at stuff like the Mormon Battalion and the *immense* faith and forgiveness those men must have had to fight for a government which had in many ways betrayed them. The MO gov’t only officially apologized for the nasty stuff of the 19th c. when we were living there 10 years ago.
I wonder if the impression you got came in part from their liberal use of music in minor keys. I loved the music, but it did strike me as a little weird that so much of it was in “sad” keys.
Comment by Janet — May 1, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
Stephanie–so far (half-way through) tonight’s installment seems more critical and eerie to me, but that could stem from the fact that my own discomfort with tonight’s topics is far more weighty than my discomfort with the older issues.
Comment by Janet — May 1, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
Janet, interesting you bring up what happened in MO. On Monday I was speaking with the church’s lawyer for this Area, and he said words to the extent of, Mormons were their own worst enemies in MO; they were at least partially responsible for things going so badly there. I’d never heard a member of the church put it so bluntly. I think you’re right, there was a lot of anti-Americanism in the early days of the church. There’s Missouri, there’s the US Army invading Salt Lake, etc. I think the early Saints and the governments (both state and federal) fed on each other’s distrust until it became almost a paranoia.
Comment by Quimby — May 1, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
LOVED IT. Intellectuals in crisis, gays, women and the priesthood, women and unreasonable pressures, ERA, vaults in mountains, assimilation, excommunications, missions, welfare, retention issues, blacks and the priesthood, temple work, eternal nature of families….did she miss anything?? I haven’t watched anything that intriguing in ages. I think Helen Whitney accomplished an astonishing work.
Minor concern–family of eleven homeschooled kids in Colorado? No offense to them (I’m sure they’re terrific people) but was that supposed to portray a typical LDS family? Is that what your family is like?
Best line–from female convert (I’m paraphrasing here), “Genealogy? I didn’t even like my family!”
This is the Mormon church that I recognize. I know this is horrible but I did feel like puffing my chest out a little when they highlighted LDS Katrina relief efforts, the sacrifices of missionaries, and anything that Harold Bloom said. I am a tiny part but a part nonetheless of a fabulously complex community.
See what a little PBS can give you? I’m feeling quite wonderfully optimistic
Comment by Lupita — May 1, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
WOW! Tonight 2nd episode of “The Mormons” (the PBS American Experience & Frontline co-production) was FAR BETTER than I feared it might have been. It was much better, I thought, than last night. My children also commented on how they didn’t dwell on anyone thing tonight, negatively, too long, like they did the MMM and the FLDS last night.
Any gentile that watched it, that was not braced to be or remain prejudiced, should have seen what the Church’s PR Dept could have never done themselves in a millennium! A religion that not only looks from one eternity (premortal existence) to eternity (postmortal existence), but is both practically concerned with what happens very much in the “in between” (mortality).
The Terryl Givens quotes tonight were even better than last night’s, and Harold Bloom’s take on Mormonism’s conquering death (for an agnostic Jew, that’s pretty good), were great.
Whitney (or Barnes?) seemed to weave tonight’s vignettes together as if they were Church Relief Society presidents (though they are not even members). And, speaking of Relief Society, I’m trying to remember if they even touched upon that either night? (Someone help me here).
Perhaps, tonight’s Frontline episode did more to show the LDS Church “behond & besides polygamy”. (I wonder if Jacob’s nearer descendants ever had to explain the plural marriages their ancestors contracted)? From family home evening, family prayer, marriages at temples, to genealogy and baptisms for the dead, to families, faith, Sister Stevenson and or many frank, funny but forthcoming quotes (”…some white boy, a dead angel, and gold plates…”), and the impact the most read verse in the Book of Mormon had and still has on her! Powerful stuff! Wouldn’t you agree?
Oh, me, of little faith! One tiny excerpt about the Jewish holocaust victims being victimized twice (once by Hitler, twice by proxy), that Marlin K. Jensen so genuinely conveyed the Church’s reassurances on. (For also being a Democrat and a lawyer, he seems to have a pretty good shot at C-3! —TIC)
Glad we bought a clean new videotape and captured it.
Now, watch as all the Pharisees and Sadducees across the nation and around the world castigate it for being too favorable towards “The Mormons”. No. A REAL piece must show and convey MUCH MORE DIRT (they will say) than this piece did!
Again, “objectivity” is when (according to the dissenters, detractors and critics) you see it the way “they” do. (If you don’t have anything good to say about The Mormons, then come sit by me–and tell me all about it), they will say.
Inasmuch as men (including wo-men) do good (including & especially Helen Whitney now), they shall in no wise lose their reward!
(I think I’d like to see the original 6-hour version she had before she edited down to this 4-hour version). Let’s see if she’ll sell that version too!?!
Comment by DMP — May 1, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
Anyone else feel like sending Harold Bloom a bundt cake? God bless the fellow :).
Comment by Janet — May 2, 2007 @ 12:01 am
DMP–can I ask how old your children are? i was wondering how younger folks would respond to it (young teens, say) since they often see things a little on the black/white side. Sounds like yours understood nuance. Are they older? Or was I just a really nutty teenager? (Well, yes, but for other reasons).
Comment by Janet — May 2, 2007 @ 12:04 am
Quimby (73 - unless the timestamp gremlins strike) - that Sue Ann Post documentary “Lost Tribes” was really very beautiful and touching. I’ve seen the book in the ABC Shop a couple times and almost bought it. And it was a marvellous illustration of the fact that one can’t just put all GLBT people into one basket: at the Affirmations conference there were those who wanted to continue their involvement with the LDS Church, those who weren’t sure, and those who wanted nothing more to do with the LDS Church, or any other church.
Comment by Adelheid — May 2, 2007 @ 12:08 am
I did attend one Affirmation event when the LDS Safe Space Coalition emerged. It was the most spiritual event that I had experienced in a long time.
It is not enough to say “my heart goes out to them” and continue to ignore the evidence regarding homosexuality. That is negligent, especially as this continues to be a matter of life and death for many Mormon families.
If we perceive the gospel in a way that denies nature with destructive consequences then we are not understanding the gospel properly.
The sad thing is that the more we believe, the more we are vulnerable to this problem. Homosexuals are, by the way, only the most exposed victims. To varying degrees, our denial of biology also affects the status of women and the well being of straight teenagers.
Comment by Hellmut — May 2, 2007 @ 12:49 am
Hey, I’m no-mo and never will be (unless you’re allowing espresso sippers with gay boyfriends in tow…but I digress). I wanted to express that I came away from the show with a complicated respect…thankful that someone’s gone out there and redone the massacre history better than Krakauer…I didn’t find Joseph or the Angel creepy at all (but then I’m a weirdo myself)…I was impressed, again, at how much the religion practices listening to the Spirit, and say “bravo” and good for you all, the world needs this right now.
Comment by pele — May 2, 2007 @ 2:21 am
[…] Feminist Mormon Housewives “The Mormons” on Frontline […]
Pingback by PBS The Mormons--A Compendium « Messenger and Advocate — May 2, 2007 @ 7:09 am
I loved it.
The hardest bits to me involved Margeret Toscano’s ex-communication. It was evident in her sorrow that their was a great love of the gospel. That spoke volumes to me.
I thought it was fair and balanced. It countered every negative with a positive and ended the discussion with the positive. The overall feeling I received from watching it was much like Lupitas. I was excited to be a part of this church, warts and all, and I had my strongest testifying moment with my DH.
Loved It.
Also, I want to be in Sister Betsy’s ward. People praising during testimony meeting and singing gospel music with flavor and enthusiasm. Alas, I live in a very white bread ward in Idaho…
It was neat how the filmmakers showed a contrast between Sister Betsy and the homeschooled family in Colorado. You couldn’t get any two examples that were further apart on the spectrum, yet, they were talking about their faith in the same way. It was inspiring to whitness that diversity within the church, and an ecxellent artistic interpretation of such from the filmmakers.
DM
I’m glad you turned out not to be a nutto… you had me worried there for a moment. I would suggest that if you care or risk criticizing people, that you try to do it in a kinder, more benevolent tone, reflecting your obvious, well intentioned, Christian beliefs.
Comment by just call me Cassandra... — May 2, 2007 @ 7:15 am
Janet…
I don’t know why last nights program would hit close to home. They were tslking about Mormon intellectuals…
Comment by just call me Cassandra... — May 2, 2007 @ 7:50 am
Mary (57)
You ask that as if it’s an all-or-nothing proposition. In my mind, more than enough of what we believe is true and verifiable. Not all of what I have been taught has borne out to be accurate, but definitely enough, allowing for truckloads of human error.
And the most basic propositions of our faith about the reality of Jesus Christ are impossible on so many levels, but they are completely true and personally verifiable.
I have read the Book of Mormon probably in the area of 25-30 times in my life, and each time I read, I come across elements that I question, where I wonder if they came from some prophetic exigesis on the part of Joseph Smith. But I come across other passages that I am certain are divinely inspired. And I do believe it to be historically accurate in light of the testimonies of its witnesses, and in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Comment by Dan E. — May 2, 2007 @ 8:57 am
My children still at home range from age 7 to 26. The youngest, of course, wasn’t much interested in it. Our 11-year old might have watched a little. My daughters, 13 (almost 14), 16, 18, and 20, all watched all of it, as did my 26-year old son.
They all have been and are taught somewhat in the learning of their father. We all read the scriptures together every Sunday. It took us about 4-1/2 years to get through the ‘First’ (Old) Testament. We’re in Acts right now in the NT. We read through the BoM together before doing the First Testament, though some of us also read the BoM in 2005, and others read it on their own, of course, still.
I have long worked on teaching my children the basics, as well as tutoring them so that they might catch the nuances. Of course, their ability to do so is affected by my effort, as well as the native intelligence of each individual, and their own interest in any given thing, and/or lack thereof.
Regarding the “intellectual” close to home thing, I found Elder Oaks’ comment helpful. Obedience, I have found, is not who is right and who is wrong, but who is in charge. David, when Saul pursued him, wrongly, gave us the ultimate example. When Saul was seeking David’s life, and David cut off the hem of Saul’s skirt, David wept over doing that to the “Lord’s anointed”.
I try to “straighten out” those above me, as much as I can influence them, by “teaching correct principles” when and where I can, and always “esteeming (my) brother as (my)self”. I try to leave the rest to the Lord. As a watchman upon the tower (Ezekiel), I take seriously my obligation to sound the warning cry. However, I will leave to the Lord the judgement of Priesthood or other authorities who heed not that appropriate sounding. And, I try hard not to steady the ark. My attempts are given as suggestions or ideas if given directly, or general “lessons learned” if speaking to a congregation or class. The prophets “couching” of their warnings in certain language, as even the Savior did, sometimes, was perhaps done in a way to keep others from directly accusing them of challenging authority, while they did it nonetheless.
However, with that said, my view is generally that many so-called “intellectuals” in the Church don’t have sufficient faith that either God knows what he is talking about, or is able to fulfill his own word—which, they do, not wisely, and to their peril, and that of the whole Church, if they repent not.
“You tell that ‘fox’…” is a quote from the Savior of the world. He also said things like, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine…”, and, “…It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs…” to a non-Israelite who sought him to heal her child.
Your view of being “Christian”, it is obvious, does NOT include ever saying things in the way that the person of whom all are called “Christian” is taken from did, at appropriate times.
It is important to be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” on one hand. It is also equally important, at other times, to “call a spade a shovel”. If we forever fawn to the world, may we not forget He who taught not to offend, nevertheless necessarily offended (those who needed to be pricked, to attempt to arouse them from their comatose sleep, heading to spiritual death). Few likely heeded his insults, but that is why, I am sure, those words were given. As well, also, to thereby warn away disciples, should they ever be tempted to take on “…the leaven of the pharisees”.
In other words, if we always treat those with kindest who are living quite contrary to what they should, might not our kindness, thereby, be more cruel ultimately? Mrs Toscano should have and should take that “warning” both before and after her excommunication. She did not. She has not yet repented. It is important not to let the body die from cancer. If thine eye offend thee (be cancerous), as hard as the medicine may seem, it must be “plucked out”. The body, the Church, has many maladies in it that arise. They must be dealt with, if they will not heal, to save the rest of the body!
I love and even have great sympathy for those who have fallen into error. But I will not risk the whole body for a single member.
Comment by DMP — May 2, 2007 @ 10:08 am
The only thing I would have added was a small explanation on the WOW and garments. It’s one of the questions I get asked most, even if I am a lapsed Mormon. It would have been nice to see the garments seen in the same religious vein as a yarmulka or vestments, rather than magic underwear.
Comment by Becky..Absent Minded Housewife — May 2, 2007 @ 10:22 am
92 I agree. Those were two major omissions I was watching for last night.
Comment by claire — May 2, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
I’m so surprised at some of the negative reactions to the art– for the most part, I really enjoyed the pieces they showed– and head and shoulders above some of the things I saw in a Deseret Book recently. Seriously, going in there left me a little concerned about the state of LDS art (some of it actually gave me the giggles.)– but I loved the artists they chose for the documentary. J Kirk Richards’ works are lovely– and they’ve been featured in the Ensign.
Comment by smbfox — May 2, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
Could I have the definition of ‘nutto’ please? Just wondering if it applies…
Comment by Lupita — May 2, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
I just have one comment about faith with an example. Native Americans are not decedents of Israel. DNA has proved that they are decedents of Asia. You cannot have faith that something is true when it is proven wrong. The earth revolves around the sun. I cannot have “faith” that the sun revolves around the earth because it has been proven that it does not.
Comment by doug — May 2, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
doug (96),
DNA hasn’t proven anything with regards to the Book of Mormon, positive or negative. Please go away.
Comment by Dan E. — May 2, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Dan E, Tsk tsk. That was rude!!
Comment by lulubelle — May 2, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
The whole DNA thing to me is a moot point. We have records (in the BOM) of one or two (actually, three isn’t it?) groups of people from various places who are lead across the ocean to the promised land. Who knows how many more there were that we don’t know about? And what about the bearing strait? I have full confidence that N.A. ancestry is probably a nice mixture of a lot of different places. And remember the variance in island cultures around the area of S. America and polynesia, as well.
Not that it matters.
Comment by sare — May 2, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Adelheid #84 - Don’t you love the ABC shop? I was actually a bit wary of “Lost Tribes” but I thought it was beautiful and moving. Can’t wait to see “The Mormons”; do you think it’ll be on SBS or ABC?
Comment by Quimby — May 2, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
Yeah, the DNA issue doesn’t prove that the BOM didn’t happen, but it does prove that Native Americans are not from Israel. And we’ve all been taught in church that Native Americans are descendants of the Lamanites. So if the prophets have taught us that, and they have, it still shows something’s up. What exactly, I’m not sure. But something.
Comment by Kerri — May 2, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
re DNA: it is just an impossible proposition to prove the BoM false or true with DNA. for several reasons. i highly recommend reading this http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_and_DNA_evidence
before letting someone shake your faith. it’s strange to see so many non-scientists voice such strong opinions about what genetics tells us about the BoM. i do happen to know a thing or two about this area, and i’ll just say that if you take the time to look into it, you’ll find no reason to doubt.
Comment by james — May 2, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
DMP said:
I think this comment is neither fair nor accurate, at least with respect to myself and the great majority of my fellow “dissenters, detractors and critics.” For example, you can check out my reviews of the program at my blog and see that I praise producer Helen Whitney for producing an excellent documentary. I specifically praise some of the segments that portrayed positive aspects of the church and its members. I do not think the documentary would have been a valuable contribution to Mormon Studies had it been entirely critical of the church.
Incidentally, my reviews of discussions on the program across the Bloggernacle, the DAMU, the PBS site, and Deseret News site, reveal that while a few “critics” of the church thought the documentary was too easy or soft on the church, most thought it was quite fair and objective. On the other hand, you will not need to search far for comments from devout Mormons who are sharply critical of the program for not looking and sounding like somethin produced at 50 South Temple.
Nita:
I was moved by your initial reaction. There are many people who responded similarly when first learning that the church was not all they had been taught it was and that there was much more to the story. Some of these people come to a deeper appreciation for the Mormon faith; some become disenchanted but remain in the church even though they no longer believe literally in what is taught in the correlated materials; still others discover that without a strong conviction in the literal truth of the church’s approved version of its history, there is nothing sufficiently compelling in the social and cultural aspects of the church to justify continuing activity.
Comment by Equality — May 3, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Quimby #100 - I’m thinking SBS, in the 7.30pm Saturday slot, if they can managed to easily break each two hour segment into a one hour segment. Shown over a month. SBS seems to get more of the PBS docos, whereas ABC gets the BBC stable.
And yes, the ABC shop is a dangerous, dangerous place. I always walk out of there with a much lighter purse…
Comment by Adelheid — May 3, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
I am a non-Member and I saw the PBS doc the other day. I’ve been interested because I heard a lot of Mormons were upset about the content and so I thought I’d try to find what some people are saying–this site is one I found. One thing I’d like to say is I’m confused why some are afraid of discussing any bad history for the church. Its all about what sort of attitude you approach things and instead of oh my gosh its them against us, why not approach this is a missionary opportunity or a chance to educate yourselves about how people perceive your church and help them learn the correct way? I have been so shocked by the many comments I’ve heard across blog land giving the impression that “we’re the victims” and we must avoid all negativity about our church. Doesn’t that bring the risk of turning ignorant? Again–I’ll repeat what I’ve said before. Its about attitude and what you do with the information. Are you going to play a poor me or use it as a way to embrace people with love? Isn’t that what your church is supposedly about?
Comment by Non-Member — May 7, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
Non-member:
I haven’t finished watching the PBS special (saw Monday night’s; haven’t watched Tuesday’s yet). All the same, though, I’d like to take a stab at answering your questions.
Yes, the Church is about love and learning. The Doctrine and Covenants teaches that “the glory of God is intelligence.” The PBS special (the first episode, at least; again, haven’t seen the second part) was pretty accurate. There were a few misses, and there were other things that I thought were a little unclear (such as who all the commentors were–they usually said “author” or “professor” with no additional insight as to their areas of expertise). Overall, though, I think Helen Whitney did a pretty good job.
That said, though, let’s remember about your call to use this as a teaching moment: that would be the IDEAL thing to do. The LDS Church, like so many other organizations, has many noble ideals but is filled with less than perfect people to carry them out. Yes, you are right: we should use negative moments to teach others. But in the spur of the moment, sometimes that’s just plain HARD.
Obviously, I can’t speak for everyone, but I do know that I’m not the only Mormon on the planet who has had to put up with negativity. I’ve been told by close friends that I’m going to hell. I’ve had people ask what I believe, seeming sincere, then turning around and telling me what they “know” I believe, their knowledge usually being utterly and completely false. Often times I can think of calm, rational, loving, intelligent things to say after the fact. But more often than not, when those hurtful things are said, the tears usually come first, not the reason. Please note that I’m not only referring to times when people have said false things. My dad is very antagonistic towards the Church–even though he is *technically* a member. I’ve been crying all my life when I’ve heard him berate the Church because it’s something that’s so dear to me. Remember that when you tread on emotional ground, you can’t be surprised when you get emotional responses.
Also, one person–can’t remember who–said in Monday’s episode that the LDS Church does not have the benefit of a “time buffer” like the rest of the Christian world does. It’s still new. We have always been in the public eye. Thus, we as a church have had not had as much time to digest, review, and respond to some of the less-pleasant periods in our history.
All the same, though, even though our history is somewhat new, there’s still a lot we don’t know and probably never will, especially in regards to polygamy. How many wives did Joseph Smith really have? Did Emma really deny polygamy? Was Joseph Smith III really ordained by his father as the next leader of the Church? Did the Church know about said ordination when Brigham Young took over? There’s evidence here, there’s evidence there, emotions still run high, both sides can be argued. Ultimately, in some matters there’s nothing left to do but pick a side and stick with it. It all boils down to “I believe” or “I don’t believe.” I have come to accept the necessity of making a leap of faith, but find that it makes teaching extremely difficult. I’ll refer again to my earlier statement of emotional ground producing emotional responses.
Overall, I’d say you’re right, we shouldn’t be afraid of our past. It’s complicated, but beautiful. But please try to understand why some people might not be ready to make that leap of faith just yet. Walking by faith is a hard thing to do.
Oh, and not all Mormons hated the program. I thought it was great. =)
Comment by Marie — May 8, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
My attitudes must be incompatible with the hosts of this blog. Once again, my comments were deleted. Hmmmm.
I guess I’ll just move along.
Comment by Trueheart — May 9, 2007 @ 11:38 am