A child’s curiosity and natural desire to learn are like a tiny flame, easily extinguished unless it’s protected and given fuel. This book will help you as a parent both protect that flame of curiosity and supply it with the fuel necessary to make it burn bright throughout your child’s life. Let’s ignite our children’s natural love of learning!
June 1st, 2007
Professor Responds to PBS’ “The Mormons”
The following is a letter written to PBS by Thomas E. Sherry, an LDS educator. Much of what Sherry says echoes my own thoughts on the many inaccuracies and piss-poor portrayal of what our religion is all about. Give it a read!
Response to PBS from LDS professor
To: PBS – Frontline & American Experience
Reply: “The Mormons”
From: Thomas E. Sherry, Ed.D
Dear PBS,
I was disturbed and disappointed in the imbalanced portrayal of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which you aired on April 30 and May 1, 2007. I wish to state some of my disgust with your method and message. My comments, of course, represent my own views and I am not speaking in any way as an official representative of the LDS Church.
Nevertheless, I do have some qualifications: I am an adult convert to the LDS Church; my masters and doctoral degrees included a minor in religious studies; I have been an LDS Religious Educator for 34 years, the last 28 of those at Eastern Washington University, Pennsylvania State University, Brigham Young University, and Oregon State University. I teach World Religions, Bible and Christian History, LDS History and Doctrine. I serve as adjunct faculty of the OSU History Department, and on the Boards of the Holocaust Memorial Committee and Religious Advisors Association at OSU (the latter is a coordinating body of the 28 religious groups which function on the campus of Oregon State University).
My experience and education have contributed to the sense that your producers had just accomplished one of the most seriously skewed programs I’ve ever seen. When I view “anti-mormon” films and literature, at least they are overt in their mission and purpose; yours, however, was a program from which viewers expect fairness and balance but which delivered just the opposite — a sort of “wolf in sheep’s clothing” experience. You described a church that I do not recognize, which did not portray my beliefs, and almost wholly missed the mark for accurate journalism.
My family has been staunch and consistent supporters of PBS both in time, devotion, and money — this program causes me to re-evaluate the respect we have held for you and our future financial support. If on a subject of which I know much, you present such an imbalanced representation, what does that mean for so many other programs for which I know little? That is a disturbing thought.
Before going further, I wish to recognize the admirable portrayal of certain topics: The international welfare and humanitarian aid efforts of the Church; the conversion story of the former drug addict; and, your sensitive treatment of the challenges of homosexual lifestyle and Church doctrine & practice regarding such. Thank you for those elements.
PBS Purpose and Vision
For days after the program I sincerely wondered just how the mission and purpose of your presentation had developed. Had it begun ostensibly with the intent to broadly “explore” Mormonism or was it driven by a darker mission? Regardless of the original intent, the show felt like the producers at some point progressively digressed from a balanced exploration to an intent to “expose the under-belly of Mormonism.” In an interesting comment from one of my university students, he said that he (a new convert) had invited his non-LDS roommates to watch the show with him. During the show he felt terrible and wondered what “damage” he’d done by so inviting them. But afterward, they turned to him and said; “I thought we were going to learn something about your Church in this program but this was just a rehash of all the crap we hear constantly — we didn’t learn anything new.” By the way, the most uniform observation I heard from students was that from the first minutes of the program, they knew this would be a bad experience — it felt dark, ugly, and ominous.
Did the producers and interviewers just become enamored with all the controversy and forget their journalistic responsibility? It’s a baffle to me. But the program evidenced a production that seemed intent on: 1) “Knocking Mormonism down a notch or two;” 2) Tipping the “great American religion” off its pedestal (if it ever were on one); and, 3) portraying Mormon history and doctrine as cultic, deceitful and secretive, absurd, and outlandishly weird.
What follows is some comment on areas in which I feel you did a disservice and left viewers with skewed and erroneous impressions:
Imbalance
Krister Stendall, former Dean of Religion at Harvard University and Episcopal bishop of Stockholm, Sweden, has stated 3 rules which guide his participation on interfaith discussion and exploration of other religions. The first two are: 1) “If you’re going to ask the question as to what others believe, ask them — not their critics, not their enemies because what one tradition says of another is usually a breach of the 9th commandment — “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” It is important that we do not picture the other person’s faith in a manner they do not recognize as true; 2) “If you’re going to compare, don’t compare your bests with their worsts. Most think of their own tradition as it is at its best and they use caricatures of the others.” In the case of your program, it was not so much one religious view opposing another, it was the slick and sophisticated portrayal of the “intellectual and dissident” view verses the “un-intellectual and blindly obedient” Mormon mainstream and leadership — an unfortunate and mistaken dichotomy.
Regarding Stendall’s rules, PBS somehow decided to give a time ratio of approximately 10-1 to non-LDS commentators and those who are bitter former members with an axe to grind (several of whom I know personally). Do those persons have a legitimate story to tell and a right to tell it — of course. But those persons were given the overwhelming amount of time and when time was given to the few LDS commentators — particularly in part 1 — it was in short and awkward clips with little context and sometimes so weird and irrelevant that you wondered why PBS even included the clip.
For example, with an almost dismissive manner you trivialized the Book of Mormon by numerous references to a strange and magical translation story, DNA accusations of unreliability, and Antebellum American context for book which you portrayed as very human and very flawed. No matter that the book is among the most widely sold books in the world, that millions of converts trace their conversions to the text, and that intelligent people actually believe it. No, the best you could come up with on a positive note was a non-LDS “poet” commenting on how he really enjoyed the Book of Mormon as a quaint self expose of Joseph Smith and hot button issues in his culture. Additionally, Terryl Givens (a respected author) was given the bulk of his time on the first night to an exploration of Mormon “dance” as theology — what’s up with that? Weird, yes; representative, no. So was that the modus operandi of PBS — to emphasize “weird?” Did Givens misrepresent us? No, but the relevance of that portion to LDS history and theology was so insignificant and strained, and the presentation so mystical that it effectively conveyed strangeness — a seemingly central intent of the producers. And that relatively irrelevant portion was given more time than any other issue from LDS commentators in program 1 — a shameful misappropriation of time.
Mystical strangeness was the hallmark of nearly every piece of art, shadowy background, and eerie music selections which dominated the show and exercised such an oppressive feeling. Did you want to portray Joseph Smith and LDS belief as demented and strange-perhaps even evil? Even the voice intonation and script of the main commentator added to the “secret, strange, and oppressive” aura of the show which focused on the sensational and eschewed the compelling and easy to understand story of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its international growth.
As such, the expose was masterfully crafted if what PBS wanted to emphasize was “strange, secret, and oppressive.” Watching the show was akin to reading one of the tabloids on the news stand — titillating but unreliable and misrepresentative. Is that what the producers sought to accomplish? If not, one would ask where the art loved by Latter-day Saints was; where was the light, cheery and faith filled art, music, and landscape which so represents us and is produced 100-1 over that which was chosen by the producers? Where were the pictures of Joseph Smith that looked normal? And where were the devoted, faith filled “normal” every-day Latter-day Saints in the show — particularly in Part 1? By the millions, they are the real story of the Latter-day Saints. Where were the intellectuals, scientists, and eminent public servants who believe? Apparently including such would have worked against the purposes of PBS.
Doesn’t it seem rather contrary to logic to assume that anyone who believes in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its doctrine is ignorant, oppressed, or mentally incapable to discern “the real story” astutely “uncovered” by PBS? That’s the message your program conveyed. Yes, you did give attention to Mitt Romney and Harry Reid, but the context made no effort to cast them as reasonably intelligent disciples — rather, it was to explore whether a Mormon could be elected to any significant office given the strangeness of this religion.
Balance in the Issues
In Part 1 (Monday evening), you took roughly the first 100 years of LDS Church history. HALF of that program was reduced to 2 events — plural marriage and the Mountain Meadows massacre. The rest was devoted largely to your view of how strange, mysterious, and weird Joseph Smith apparently was. Was that the best you could do for 100 years of history, accomplishment, and contribution?
1) Mountain Meadows — no question about it, this is the darkest piece of LDS history with despicable acts by members and local leaders — thank you for including Elder Dallin H. Oaks comment on it. Among historians in and out of the LDS Church, there is significant challenge and varied interpretation in print on this subject and you covered NONE of the debate except a brief statement by one LDS historian who said he was satisfied that blame did not lay in the office of Brigham Young. But he had maybe 3 seconds, compared to 20 minutes by critic historians. The truth is, the most debatable aspect of this story is the knowledge and responsibility of Brigham Young. You gave that debate almost no time, not even mentioning it as a legitimate point of disagreement among qualified historians.
After allowing critics to lambaste Church responsibility for the event you feature a preposterous summary statement as proof that the murderous edict came from Brigham Young — “Young was governor of the territory and nothing happened without his knowledge.” What a silly statement. The Utah territory was a big chunk of land (encompassing current Nevada, Utah, and parts of Wyoming and Colorado), and pre-dated telegraph services at the time (Mountain Meadows was a 3-day hard ride from SLC). Just how did Brigham Young magically control and know “everything” going on in the territory? And how about the indisputable historical record that a rider was sent to Young to get advice on the pending crisis but could not have arrived, conferred, and returned before the massacre had occurred?
On a related matter, consider the restrained position of Brigham Young regarding not harming any individual from the invading forces of the United States Army who were heading into the valley? He did direct harassment and the capture of supply wagons; he did prepare members to once again leave their homes in the valley and to burn them if necessary to give the army no benefit from arriving in SLC. But it is well known that with all the skirmishes and threat, no direction was ever given to contest by firearms the invasion. Doesn’t that seem a little contrary to Brigham Young then turning around and ordering the deaths of men, women, and children in an immigrating pioneer train? So where was the balance in the PBS report on this issue? You strongly accused Young and others of “running out of town” federal officials sent to govern Utah. But where was the coverage of those same officials acting illegally and mistreating the saints? Again, that was a balance you seemed uninterested in covering.
2) Plural Marriage — here again, where were the first-hand journal records of this policy and practice being a blessing to people, a trial of faith that in the end strengthened their testimony of Joseph Smith’s inspiration in the matter and of the Lord’s hand in this? No where to be found. But by far the greatest disservice done in the PBS report and other writings on this subject was to cast it as a sex-crazed policy of a lunatic gone mad with power — as though this practice was invented by Joseph Smith. Did you check into this interpretation — or was it just the sensational and pejorative that you were interested in?
Point One: Plural marriage was a common Bible practice. COMMON — not exceptional and weird to Bible peoples. All Bible believers, both Jewish and Christian must wrestle with that. And Jesus himself held up as the quintessential prophets and people of faith those who practiced plural marriage (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc.). The Savior even went so far as to liken himself to the great Moses and heaven to Abrahams’ bosom. Sounds like Jesus didn’t have a problem with the practice. But did you mention that? Of course not — it didn’t seem to fit in your production purposes. After all, that would make plural marriage in modern times a restoration of lauded biblical precedent instead of a weird invention of Joseph Smith — not a message you apparently wanted to risk conveying. Latter-day Saints do not apologize for following the Lord’s direction on this matter. We have nothing to hide. I may personally never wish to participate in the practice but it is not a source of embarrassment.
Point Two: Did you look into the history of this with Joseph Smith? Do you know that while studying the Bible he came across the plural marriages of these early venerated prophets and was in such shock that he went to the Lord in prayer to ask how in the world such a practice could be acceptable? And to his dismay and disgust, he was answered by the Lord — but not with an answer he could have ever imagined. In our publicly accessible scriptures (Doctrine and Covenants 132) the Lord answers by saying that He would tell Joseph Smith the answer, but once He did, Joseph would be asked to live the same law.
This is among the best known and accessible of historical records on the subject but was never mentioned by you. And what a surprise — none of the critics mentioned it either!
Point Three: You erroneously portrayed plural marriage as an LDS requirement to enter heaven. That is how many fundamentalist polygamists think (you gave a lot of coverage to them!). But that has never been the doctrine of the LDS Church. Celestial marriage is a practice whereby two worthy individuals enter a marriage covenant and have it sealed by one having priesthood authority — period. That policy includes monogamous and plural marriages but the latter does not overshadow the former. You altogether failed to make this distinction in your show even though you devoted 40 minutes to the subject. And where were the respected LDS voices on the beauty of this belief? No where to be found in your skewed representation.
3) Missionary Service — In night two, you devoted a fair amount of time to a subject which deserves it — the amazing missionary program of the Church. But what was the dominant message you conveyed? It was that LDS missionaries are mindless automatons doing what they cannot choose not to do — no choice, no choice, no choice — “you go, you go, you just go,” was the repeated message. And then to make things worse, 3 of the 4 voices you gave time to were missionaries who apparently went under real or imagined duress and subsequently abandoned the LDS Church. What a disservice — skewed and bigoted, flawed and incomplete. You portrayed such service, the LDS culture which encourages it, and the Church program which sponsors it as oppressive, mechanical, and regimented to the point of intellectual and emotional pain. It was Jesus that “commanded” (yes, commanded — not lightly “suggested”) that disciples go into all the world and preach repentance, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, baptism, and enduring in obedience to the gospel — “Mormons” didn’t make that up.
Over the years, I have worked with hundreds of young men and women and older couples who were preparing and did serve missions. In my experience less than 1% have any such feelings which you portrayed as “normal.” They deeply desired to serve, they saved and sacrificed to serve, and they count the time as the best years of their lives. Where was that message in your presentation? You did give the positive some time but there again, it was minor compared to the negative interpretation. I can again, only surmise that the overwhelmingly positive experience of hundreds of thousands of individuals was of little interest to you — you had a purpose and that overwhelming set of evidence did not fit within your purposes so you largely left it out.
To your credit however, you did give liberal time to the story of one woman convert and how the gospel had blessed her. Also, you allowed Marlin K. Jensen to tell his mission experience. Thank you for doing that.
4) The LDS Church is secretively rich and power hungry — I think you would have done well to return to the public record on this and how President Gordon B. Hinckley has repeatedly summarized in public interviews the wealth of the Church. Most of that wealth is in income consuming, not income producing ventures — the bulk of which are chapels and other worship and welfare structures and land.
To the amazing credit and faithfulness of members, many do fully observe the Law of Tithing and pay 10% of their income to the Church — we don’t look at that as a suppressive burden. But again, that’s a biblical precedence of which we again follow in our day whereas you portrayed it as a mysterious coupe accomplished by secretive power hungry church leaders. “They have devious plans and bilk their members so they can exercise power over them to get personal gain and insure that no one questions their practices” — was the ridiculous mystique purveyed by critics. It’s just plain wrong on its face, wrong in fact, and wrong in interpretation but none of that deterred the producers.
For many years I have been part of and witness to the extraordinary auditing practices of the Church to insure that all sacred funds are handled legally and appropriately — I can assure you that it is done in minute detail. In addition, the Church hires non-LDS auditing services to assess its handling of these funds and to make an annual public statement. While the individual expenditures are not public record, those expenditures are publicly audited (a requirement by the Federal government for “non-profit” organizations).
I am grateful for the law of tithing, that as members we can share the blessings granted us and elevate our brothers and sisters around the world both in and out of LDS membership. Tithing monies allows the work to go forward throughout the world and those few leaders (very few by comparison), who do receive a living stipend receive very little. They are poorer than if they held normal jobs in the world and anyone who portrays the leaders as accessing income from tithing funds to live luxuriously is mistaken. Those who publicly portray this message are ill-informed or downright dishonest.
You did equally poorly on the portrayal of temples and their purposes, on Church disciplinary councils, and governance. I am very familiar with these issues and you did not portray an honest and balanced perspective.
Again and again your cast and backdrops were intended to convey strangeness, weirdness, thoughtless obedience, and extreme authoritarianism on the part of LDS leaders and the membership. You portrayed little respect, a great deal of antagonism, and a general avoidance of the grandness of the Church and its doctrines. One wonders just how the LDS Church could be growing at all given your abysmal assessment. Was that irony lost on you? Or do you simply explain it by adjudging LDS members and converts to be from the poor and downtrodden, the uneducated and desperate and hence largely unknowledgeable and indiscriminate?
I could go on with other subjects but I hope I have adequately made the point. I’m sorry that you chose to do the show you did. I think you have done a serious disservice to the viewing public and to the reputation of PBS. I believe that viewers were left with erroneous ideas and impressions and the responsibility for that lies directly on your shoulders.
—Thomas E. Sherry, May 8, 2007
20 Responses to “Professor Responds to PBS’ “The Mormons””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.
Yep – that about sums it up.
I’m very familiar with anti-Mormon media and “The Mormons” was by far one of the most elaborate, methodical hit pieces in the history of anti-Mormonism.
What’s more shocking than the film are all the members who liked it. Even a member of my stake presidency said he thought it was a “fair portrayal”. Frankly, I think he was duped.
Connor,
Thanks for posting that letter. I was highly anticipating the films when they were mentioned in church and on the church’s news show. However, when I saw them I was so disapointed I couldn’t believe it. I think this letter sums up how I feel as well. As a filmmaker myself, I couldn’t get over how they were using completely unqualified interviewees to comment on issues they had no business talking about. For example, they kept going back to that Toscano lady to comment on the temple and the idea of celestial marraige. Excuse me? What the heck does she have to do with that? Wasn’t her bit part finished once you moved on from how supposedly unfair and unbiased the church judicial process is? The whole thing was extremely poor filmmaking, unless of course their objective was to deceive and present an untrue version of reality.
Time and time again I saw photos/paintings in that show that I had never seen before. Families portrayed as though all of us are home schooled, play the piano and always play and sing guitar around the dinner table.
The paintings were the most bothersome though. Dark. dreary. almost spooky. I’ve still never seen most of them anywhere else but in that show.
Powerful letter… thank you for posting it ( how did you get it, any way? I don’t think you mention it… )
One small quip, though:
On plural marriage, the good professor says:
I’m afraid many church historians and scholars would disagree. The idea that plural marriage was necessary for salvation is a prevalent one among people who practiced it then and now… whether official doctrine or not (and I tend to think it was), is only one part of the puzzle — in the folk religion of those who practice(d) it, plural marriage most certainly is essential to salvation.
This ratio is frankly – even grossly – inaccurate. It is also telling that he seems to see no difference between the latter two groups.
This is also inaccurate. Givens’s single longest face time was his description of his ancestors’ experiences at Haun’s Mill. He also commented extensively on other issues; it seems Sherry believes GIvens offered little of value with thoughts about the worth of temple sealings, or the power of Joseph Smith’s revelations, or the value of the Book of Mormon.
One of these three things is not (necessarily) like the others. If Sherry believes that light, cheery, and faith filled always go hand in hand, I’m not sure what to tell him. Personally, my own experiences with faith have been anything but light and cheery. Beautiful, wrenching, profound, yes, but hardly light and cheery. These two words are among the last I would use to describe the sort of art that has spiritually moved me the most. Is, say, the Book of Moroni light and cheery? Or Zurbaran’s St Francis at Prayer? Or the Gospel of Mark, or Handel’s Messiah? Light and cheery. Good heavens.
I think perhaps that Whitney’s aesthetic offended Sherry; personally, I thought it was dead on. She finds Joseph Smith romantic, mysterious, and compelling; she selected her art and music to illustrate this. Nothing wrong with that – certainly better than depicting Joseph as a clownish conman, which would have been another option for a non-believer like Whitney. She found meaning in his life, and illustrated it.
I’m glad she did not use the art we as Mormons are so familiar with – some of it’s not bad, but I think we’ve become desensitized to it. It does not move us any more in the way good art should. Her selections (most of which, by the way, were the works of LDS artists like J. Kirk Richards) helped me to come at the Mormon story with fresh eyes, and to see the sheer power of its narratives and history.
It might be strange and ‘magical’ but it’s also frankly accurate. Check out Russell M. Nelson’s article in the June 1993 Ensign. You’ll see the same points Whitney makes. Heck, the guy she got to talk about seerstones is Dan Peterson, BYU faculty and editor of the FARMS Review. Not much more orthodox than that.
In the same paragraph as this quotation Sherry acknowledges that Whitney did present the issue as a point of disagreement. Frankly, I thought Whitney’s coverage was fair – ti closely followed the work of Juanita Brooks, an LDS historian whose book numerous believing BYU historians have acknowledged as the single best work on the event. Sherry seems to be contradicting himself.
I do think Sherry has a legitimate point about the amount of time spent on the Massacre. But, frankly, it’s one of the two things – the other being polygamy – that your average American Protestant might know about Mormonism and would be curious about. I appreciate Whitney’s balanced coverage.
Sherry seems to be confusing the opinions offered by Whitney’s interviewees with the opinions of PBS. Further, it appears he turned off the TV immediately after Ken Clark claimed this; it was almost instantly disputed by the next interviewee – historian Kathleen Flake. Sherry does not seem to realize that multiple points of view were offered in the documentary.
As Silus Grok notes, this is frankly inaccurate. I’m unclear on what Sherry means by ‘heaven.’
Apparently Sherry does not realize that these words were uttered by a missionary.
And of course Elder Jensen had as much time as Tal Bachman did. Again, perhaps Sherry does not realize that Whitney sought multiple points of view.
Those words were never uttered in the documentary. Perhaps Sherry could provide accurate evidence, rather than broad generalizations.
Indeed. Perhaps Sherry missed the extensive coverage of the Church’s humanitarian efforts in Part I of the documentary.
Again, particular evidence would be useful. Perhaps Sherry missed the heartfelt testimonies of Mormons like Betty Stevenson or James Dalrymple on the power of the gospel to unite his family again after death. Heck, even the three ex-Mormons Whitney interviewed about the temple – Freeman, Toscano, and Southey – used words like “sweetness” and “deep[ly] spiritual” and “sheer beauty” – to describe it. And that’s before Elder Jensen and Givens start describing its theology.
I’m really baffled that anybody could take this documentary as a hit piece.
Yes, It’s worthwhile reading, and the criticisms of Dr. Sherry are certainly valid. I believe that criticism should be heeded in the spirit in which it’s given. I also believe that in the end, God and time will be the judge of the truth. I try not to be interested in “correcting” the opinions of others.
Personally, I feel rather nonplussed about the program. It doesn’t change my beliefs, and it probably won’t really change the beliefs of other devoted members of the LDS church either. In the end, the church and it’s people will go on living, and it’s “work will move forward” without pause.
I don’t think it is practical to ask any documentarist or historian to be 100% unbiased ( “The Mormons” is not exactly a shining example though…..) The lens of the camera (or that of history,) only sees in the direction it is pointed. I only hope that those behind the camera are honest about their own personal opinions. The history of the LDS church is a subject that, by it’s very nature, defies objectivity.
I actually found the artwork on the program to be rather inspiring. I thought the contemporary painting of Joseph Smith was particularly touching. I like seeing religious artwork that is different from the drab, sentimental, reproducible stuff that you’re likely to find in the “Ensign”.
As a side note; It’s interesting to me that no portraits or images of Joseph Smith jr. exist, that were done during his lifetime. The earliest painting, (I believe,) is one of Joseph and Hyrum, (hanging in the Church History Museum,) which was done at least a decade after their deaths. (some speculate that it was modeled after his son, Joseph III)……. I could be wrong about all this…..No one really knows for sure what he looked like….
Anyway….
~J.W.
Matt B
Thanks for the rebuttal to Sherry.
I share your opinion and am also baffled that any member could take such offense. Who really expected Whitney to get everything right anyway? None other than Bruce R. McKonkie couldn’t even get it 100% correct when he first wrote “Mormon Doctrine” (more accuratelty titled “McKonkie Doctrine”). There were many changes and corrections between the first and second editions of that book. So Whitney should be held to a higher standard? On balance, I think she did a superb job and should be thanked.
I’ve had several conversations with nonmembers about the program and the issues it addressed- all of them positive. I have not yet found a single person who was turned off of the church by the program, except some members of the church like Sherry.
I’m afraid many church historians and scholars would disagree. The idea that plural marriage was necessary for salvation
My understanding is that in that day it was preached that the doctrine needed to be accepted, not necessarily lived. Since not everyone was commanded to live it, it would seem inconsistent to require something that only some people were asked to live.
BY said this:
“It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at lest [sic] in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order….”
Not everyone had to LIVE it but they were asked to uphold in in belief. I think there is a difference between that and saying that polygamy itself was necessary for salvation. That would make our commandments insufficient to save us, and that seems inconsistent with what I understand of God, who says that “and all things are given them which are expedient unto man.” The gospel we know is sufficient to save us. We are expected to accept prophetic guidance of our time, and I think THAT is the principle underlying what the leaders preached back then — an acceptance of prophetic teachings.
Incidentally, I had mixed feelings about the program. I thought there were some great moments, but there were things that I think could deepen misunderstanding rather than help dispel it (which was supposedly one of Whitney’s purposes).
What I did like about it is that we had leaders interviewed (I’ve mentioned before that I think the transcript with Elder Holland should be required reading!) and opened up some discussion which sometimes can be a good thing. But I do wish there had been more information from people who actually are faithful members, not just “experts” on the religion. Different documentaries have different purposes, and given what she declared as her purpose, I would have liked to see more from our point of view and not by those who have no faith in what we believe.
I agree that the documentary was not done in a way that promoted the church in a favorable light. But, aren’t we used to this? It really doesn’t matter what was said correctly or what wasn’t. It’s all about living our lives so that we can be spiritually in tune and examples of what the Gospel of Jesus Christ can do for those who will but accept it. ” By their fruits ye shall know them.” No matter what, the advisary is going to twist and turn the truth but I can absolutely assure you that it’s the Holy Spirit of God that influences and converts people. Not TV shows…
I didn’t watch these programs, but I was curious to hear what his comment was. I watched the section online and didn’t see any LDS commentary. Did they take his quote out of the online version?
nevermind, it was in the following section…
No, the closest thing to an official statement is at LDS.org, where it’s refered to as “this serious treatment of a serious subject is a welcome change. ”
If Whitney wanted to write an expose, there is plenty of material available. I thought she did a great job. I won’t rebut Sherry’s letter point by point. I’ll simply say he’s over reacting.
I got a copy of this letter forward to me via email. I think it is a horrible overreaction. Have we been so conditioned by church videos, seminary, and cleansed history that we need to react to a balanced portrayal as if it is the work of Satan?
Connor, I’ll note that you listed several objections over at Mormon Mentality all of which various commenters addressed completely. I’ll also note that you didn’t respond after you complaints were answered.
Connor, I’ll note that you listed several objections over at Mormon Mentality all of which various commenters addressed completely. I’ll also note that you didn’t respond after you complaints were answered.
I didn’t go back to read what was written by successive commenters. I stand by my opinion that this documentary was anything but balanced, as you seem to believe…
Connor,
I’m with Silus, Matt, and arJ. Sherry’s comments and complaints are baffling and bizzare. There may be legitimate criticisms of the documentary, but if he raised any, they were overwhelmed by inaccuracies in his complaints. Come on–10 to 1 time given to anti- and non-Mormons? If he considers Givens anti-Mormon, maybe, but then I have to dismiss him out of hand. Not only was it at least balanced, if not tipped toward faithful viewpoints, but the faithful historian/commentator almost invariably got the last word. (And give me a break–part one was almost the Teryl Givens show, and he argues that Dr. Givens only commented on dance–a beautiful section BTW.)
His complaints seem to be picking at nits. But nits that weren’t even there.
I didn’t go back to read what was written by successive commenters. I stand by my opinion that this documentary was anything but balanced, as you seem to believe…
So you’re saying that even though most of your concerns about the first two hours were immediately shown to be misplaced that you don’t care and standing by your opinion is more important to you than being correct(ed)? 🙂
A family member ran into Elder Jensen the other day, discussed the documentary with him, and came away certain that Elder Jensen liked the program.
I’ve got nits to pick with it but overall it was excellent and provided what struck me as being slightly on the positive side of balanced. It certainly could have been an attack piece and it wasn’t.
Honestly the parts that put the Church in the worst light to me were comments made by Elder Oaks and President Packer.
As a professional of history, and long time researcher of Utah and Mormon history, I am surprised at how little Mormon’s (and yes I am one) actually know about their own faith. The problem with the letter duplicated in this post is that EVERY complaint she has about the PBS programme centers around a part of the program that SHE DOESN’T LIKE, but which happens to be historical fact.
Just because we are LDS does not mean we are required to stick our heads in the sand.
There ARE strange, unexplainable tenets to our church. There are elements of what we are taught that don’t hold up to scrutiny. But men make mistakes in speaking/writing te word of God.
Perhaps we are becoming too proud.
Debra
Debra,
As the author noted, he was writing about the imbalanced portrayal. Certainly true things can be discussed in negative, biased, and unfair ways so as to convince or persuade the viewer to believe a certain thing about the subject, while still presenting a shred of truth about it. Satan uses this tactic all the time, blending in his fallacies with truth so as to make them more appetizing and alluring. Nobody will fall for a lie, but if you twist something just enough, they go for it.
Becoming too proud? I think not. Rather, I think that we are sick of years and years of unfair treatment in the press, negative bias in media, and an inaccurate understanding of basic doctrines, history, and practices. I would hope that a student of LDS history such as yourself would understand that our lot as always been one of misunderstanding and inaccurate representation. This documentary is no different.
There has been so much time and money wasted on arguing over religion instead of living it. Let people print what they want. Apply Alma 14:11…