"The Mormons" documentary

[Faster Master St. Pastor]

I just heard about this today during seminary, and managed to catch the second part tonight. Overall I was looking forward to it, and hoping that for once it would be an unbiased report. I was dissappointed however, and now I want you guys to put your two bits in. What made me angry about this was that it would mix truths and things that invited the spirit, for me at least, with things that were completely off the wall and downright lies. I'll admit though, that wasn't even what got me the most angry. Instead it was the fact that they had individuals who were excommunicated from the church explaining how and why things are the way they are. What also bugged me was people who had left the church not explaining why, or going into any detail that might have incriminated them and not the church in any way. My overall opinion was that the documentary was a thinly veiled attack on the church and its belief. They rarely if ever had actually representatives of the church, and always seemed to show it as some big faceless organization.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Feel free to agree or dispute what I've said if you think I'm crazy, it wouldn't be the first time.

[The Lost One]

I found the second half to be better than the first half.  My grips about the first half was that they spent a lot of time covering the Mountain Meadow Massacrer and modern polygamy.  The section on polygamy was particularly annoying because after mentioning that Mormons no longer practice polygamy, there was a long segment on modern polygamy, implying that Mormons still practice polygamy.

Also, I was also annoyed how confusing it was to determine if a speaking was a critic or supporter of Mormonism.  I personally like to know a persons background conviction so that I can consider it as part of the context for their remarks. Its a little confusing to hear an anti-Mormon talk about church history in negative ways and give flagrant anti-Mormon remarks and have the TV title vaguely describes the person as a "Historian" and then have a devote Mormon give rebuttal type comments and then see the more descriptive TV title of "LDS Church Historian".

The second half was much better, with the only negative being the strong implication that the church hates intellectuals, which is not case.  The church heavily encourages education and intellectual thoughts. What it discourages are those people who hold to doctrines that conflict or are contrary to church teachings that then try to force those conflicting doctrines on the church as a whole. The church's doctrine is not shaped through academic debate, and that position was presenting, in my opinion, as being simply anti-intellectual or close-minding.

On the positive side, the second half gave a lot of good personal story that I like. In particular, the story during the missionary section and in discussing family and temples were very touching.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Was there a "Mormons don't tolerate homosexuals" section? We were expecting at least half an hour of that. But we watched House instead.

It bugged me that in the first part when they talked about the Expositor press being destroyed, the footage they showed was of the Book of Commandments press being destroyed. Yet no mention that Mormon presses were ever destroyed.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I didn't see the first half, I was sick in bed, but on the whole, I thought the second half was relatively balanced. To an outsider who doesn't understand spiritual things in the same way that LDS people do, these were valid criticisms. I do wish they would have given a chance to respond to the criticisms, and in that way it was slanted. But you have to remember that their goal was not remotely to give anyone a spiritual experience, or a positive view of the church.

Also, I'm moving this to the TV and Movies section, since it was about a TV presentation.

[House of Mustard]

Here's just a general question I have about intellectualism, etc.:  In the documentary, it showed various people getting excommunicated for being outspoken on feminist issues (such as giving women the priesthood) or criticizing the prophet--and these people seemed very upset that they were being disciplined by the church.  So, my question is: if you don't believe such fundamental aspects of LDS doctrine, why do you want to stay in the church anyway?  If you publically speak out saying that the prophet is wrong, then it would stand to reason you think the church isn't true, right?

Is it merely that they don't want to be cultural outcasts?  Or do they believe that the church could somehow still be true even if the prophet was false?

[Sigyn]

I thought this was a balanced outsider's view.  I wasn't offended by it, though I did think that some of the things the excommunicants said were funny.  In particular, when the one homosexual man they spoke to said, "Infidelity occurred."  I've never heard someone use quite such a passive phrase to say that he committed adultery.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

HoM, the church has changed major practices at least twice in the past, so I imagine critics think certain practices could change in the future. Both major changes as described in the Official Declarations were preceded by decades of criticism, so there could appear to be precedent. Take the most recent one; were there faithful members of the church before 1978 who thought something should change about who was given the priesthood? I don't know for sure, but I assume there were. And I assume they still thought the church was true. But I haven't read into it to see if anyone was excommunicated for being outspoken about it.

[House of Mustard]

Ah...  Good point, Ookla.  I hadn't thought of that.

[Faster Master St. Pastor]

I thought this was a balanced outsider's view.  I wasn't offended by it, though I did think that some of the things the excommunicants said were funny.  In particular, when the one homosexual man they spoke to said, "Infidelity occurred."  I've never heard someone use quite such a passive phrase to say that he committed adultery.

Actually the parts that had him, Trever Southy by the way, were interesting to me because my dad was friends with him. We even have an original drawing of his in our hallway that he drew for my grandparents to thank them for having such a cool kid.

The reason that I started getting frustrated was because of the uplifting side of this documentary. I was watching and feeling the spirit and was totally into it, and they they would just throw in comments or switch to people who had been excommunicated and the spirit would immediately leave. I don't like having my emotions jerked around like that and it occurred more than once, enough that I just grew too fed up with it not to be angry.

[Skar]

I enjoyed it overall.  I've always wondered whether I would have come to the LDS church if I had grown up without it.  After watching this I have to say I think I would have.  I mean good heavens, how many religions claim that humans can progress forever.  How many have a plan that takes into account even the people that die without ever hearing of the relevant spiritual doctrine and then goes out and starts collecting names, putting them on computer and doing their work at a breakneck pace.  How many would have the conviction to say, "If Joe Smith was not a prophet then we're wrong, if he was we're right."? I just think all of that is awesome and watching this documentary allowed me to see it from an outsider's perspective more than I ever have, and it was still cool.

As for the excommunicants.  I think one of the LDS guys pointed out the relevant response. The church, as a matter of long-standing policy, NEVER makes public the proceedings of a church court. Period.  So only one side of any of those stories is ever heard outside the court itself.

I was watching and feeling the spirit and was totally into it, and they they would just throw in comments or switch to people who had been excommunicated and the spirit would immediately leave. I don't like having my emotions jerked around like that

Good point.  Outsiders won't like it either.  The spirit testifies of truth to those who are listening to it and those people who are not members of the church but are sincerely in search of the truth will notice the shock of the spirit's departure much like you did.

[The Lost One]

So I went to the PBS website and found the interviews. After reading some of the interviews, I really think too many essential comments were left out at the expense of too much non-essential (irrelevant or misleading) material.  Therefore, I think the comments on the website under the interview section should be read.

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_3_frontlineamericanexperiencethemormons_2007-05-02

Also, the church has given its response to the program.

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=3968c436af942110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

The Church's response is very interesting. It's more or less how I felt, so it makes me feel good that the Church's official position is much like mine.

For those who saw the first part, how was the Mountain Meadow Massacre handled? We talked about it in my Church History class at the Y, but I know that there are those out there with a *very* difficult take than my conclusions. Is it worth it for me to watch it on their site to get that info?

[House of Mustard]

The good thing about how they handled the MMM was that they gave several different opinions, making it very obvious that there is no historical evidence on which to definitively decide the question.  They interviewed one woman (I can't remember who) and she said "After my extensive study, I can come to no other conclusion but that Brigham Young was involved and gave the order."  And then they cut to another woman (Historian Kathleen Flake) who said "After my extensive study, I can come to no other conclusion but that Brigham Young had absolutely no involvement."  And so on.