Helen Whitney’s “The Mormons” four months later
Nearly four months have passed since the airing of the PBS American Experience four-hour documentary The Mormons on May 1, 2007 (video here). I’ve found discussion about the documentary, and discussion in reaction to the documentary, to be more fascinating than the documentary itself, which I personally found excruciatingly slow paced and unexciting.
Earlier this month, UTAH Now with Doug Fabrizio rebroadcast a one-hour show called ‘Viewing the Mormons’ dealing with the reaction and responses of the documentary (listen to audio – watch video).
Here is a quick name list of speakers. This list is not exactly chronological since the Roundtable discussion punctuates the interview segments, which is a nice feature.
Interviews:
Helen Whitney (03:28)
Ken Verdoia and Terryl Givens (22:50)
Elder Marlin K. Jensen (45:05)
Roundtable discussion:
Jack Newell
Elizabeth Sewell
Bob Goldberg
Robert Millet
I will choose one observation Terryl Givens gives that I feel is worth highlighting about the nature of Mormon history (35:40):
“There is a long tradition to overcome though, for the first two or three generations of the church, the only people who were interested in Mormon history were those who defended and believed it, and those who attacked it. And so the church culture was formed in an environment in which the only kind of writing about church history that was done was apologetic writing. Suddenly Mormonism becomes this global phenomenon, threatens to become the next new world religion, suddenly it arouses a lot of interest, and Mormons are having to learn, ‘oh, we need to be able to participate in a wider dialogue,’ and I think we’re in many ways still in the process of learning how to do that.”
sideblog – delicious
- Why Everyone Needs Theology
- Organizing the Doctrine and Covenants Lessons: Or, Why the Topical Approach Doesn’t Work
- Doctrine & Covenants in 2013: Introduction
- Studying the Doctrines of the Gospel in the D&C; and Church History this year by Jeffrey Marsh: A response
- The Pedagogy of Sunday School (part 1)
- The Burden of Church History and its implications for Mormon History
- Relief Society Lesson: The Life and Ministry of Lorenzo Snow
- How the Early Church Made Peace with Prosperity
- Its a Destructive Life: A Critique of George Bailey
- A Reply to Nate Oman’s Reply to my Reply to His Post on Liberal Mormons and Prophetic Power or Long Live the Bloggernacle
- Another Surreply: Nate Oman responds to critiques
- Mormons and Gays
- Another Liberal Mormon’s Response to Nate Oman
- New Church Website on Same-Sex Attraction Offers Love, Understanding and Hope
- Previewing 2013: A Look Forward to Exciting Books in Mormon History
I found it to be very a very well balanced critique of the PBS special with , thankfully, none of the knee jerk reaction from anyone blaming PBS or the filmmaker of being “anti”. I don’t have many comments, because I thought most all the reactions of the people interviewed were valid. An aside with one comment of the filmmaker I noticed, she didn’t know what the Immaculate Conception is in the Catholic church, but that is neither here nor there.
One person commented that they thought the show dropped the ball on LDS theology. When watching the show I thought that it did height light important points. Much that was left out, if dwelt upon, may have led to more accusations of being “anti LDS”. The theological points mentioned on the KUED show were hard to follow if you didn’t know the chronology of the church. In that respect , I do agree it was a shortcoming.
To add “Ken Burns” style readings from contemporaries, as one suggested, would have been nice, but to do that would have made it needful to extend the length of the whole show and also there would have been much debate as to what quotes were used and which ones omitted. Kind of a wash there.
One person thought it was wrong for it to be stated that Joseph Smith was the “Alpha and Omega” of the Mormon church in that it is first and foremost based on faith in Jesus Christ. Personally, I agree with the position that J. Smith really does hold that position. It is on his word alone that his visions, his ability to translate ancient plates, that the plates existed at all, and the revelations to deviate from existing Christian belief are predicated. All that happened, good or ill, to the followers of his teachings, rest on Smiths shoulders. He is the ultimate cause of the triumphs and the tribulations of the LDS church.
It was interesting that it was the intellectual, well read and respected LDS member who was interviewed on the PBS show, that complained that the show seemed to indicate that they were in short supply in the Mormon church. The PBS program raised an issue which is real. It may not be as much of an issue today as it was some years ago, but it is still not easy for members to present information that is contrary to official church teaching.
Was too much time spent on Mountain Meadows and Polygamy? Both those things had to come up. To omit them completely would be a disservice to the history of the LDS church. To slight them once they are brought up, I think, would be equally a disservice. Time was needed for both those issues, and I thought they were covered fairly. That polygamy didn’t “stop on a dime” when it officially ended in the church was fair to bring up, but I’m not sure if the connection to modern splinter groups (i.e. Warren Jeffs) were presented at the right time. I don’t think it was done in a malicious manner, but I would have saved it for a portion on the modern LDS church and highlighted some of the major splits.
The comment that LDS are not a “theology driven people” was interesting. I have a lot of tangents in my head from that statement, but I think I’ll let it slide for now.
I found Jensen to be a good spokesman for the LDS Church and to, specifically, it’s members. He was not talking to me. That doesn’t mean I think he was all wrong, but what he said and how he said it seemed directed to members who may have been a little un-nerved by some of the show. I did find him very likeable anyway. Does the LDS church rise and fall on it’s history? All churches do to some extent, and yes, all have areas of the past that they are loath to bring up. However, with the LDS church, the past is always a threat to it’s fundamental position. The PBS show, and this interview show, didn’t bring up the origins of the Book of Mormon in respect to what we know today of the history of the Americas. Other churches don’t have that kind of time bomb ticking in their past.
I wasn’t, and I don’t think whoever made the statement originally, had any intent of infering that LDS members worship Joseph Smith. The use of the term was not mine, I was just quoting it. But I have stated myself many times over the years that (specifically the Book of Mormon) those things unique to the LDS church begin and end with Joseph Smith. That is all I believe was implied. I do take note that it can be taken another way, and thank you for pointing that out.
Russ, I agree that for sure, the LDS Church has it’s beginnings with Joseph Smith, so it is fine to state that. The problem with the specific phrase “The Alpha and Omega” is that it is how Christ describes himself in the scriptures. Most Christians recognize it as coming from the Book of Revelation in chapters 1, 21, 22:23 where the Lord says, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” Even in LDS scriptures, the Book of Mormon the term “Alpha and Omega” is used to describe Christ and even in the D&C “Alpha and Omega” is how Christ describes himself in numerous passages. So, while I agree you can’t talk about the beginnings of LDS history without Joseph Smith, church history certainly didn’t end with Joseph Smith, and to say he is “Alpha and Omega” only perpetuates the stereotype that Mormons “worship” Joseph Smith as God and not Jesus. And many people believe that and might continue to believe that even if an LDS person says “No, I don’t worship Joseph Smith, I worship Christ.” But as was stated before, for a documentary with the avowed purpose to break down stereotypes, it wasn’t helpful to use the title reserved for Christ and apply it to Joseph Smith from the very beginning of the documentary. I think that is what bothered Millet and others.
I’m not entirely certain how I’d like to respond here. I’ll give it a go, however.
I finally got down to watching the PBS documentary yesterday. Then I did a bunch of blog searching for responses from others on the documentary.
I was concerned, primarily, that I left the documentary and didn’t feel a negative response concerning mormons or Mormonism whatsoever, yet in reading blogs of LDS members, most seemed to feel that the documentary didn’t give Mormonism a fair shake. Many were upset that Mountain Meadows and Polygamy were given “so much time.”
I guess my biggest question would be.. from an LDS point of view, which portions, clips…from the documentary…were untrue? Why does discussing the negative portions of a history lead to doing that being bigotry?
To Sara,
My impression of the original show was that it was fair. Before I saw it several LDS friends who had seen it seemed OK with it with minor criticism. However, a few days after the original broad cast there were at least two very critical letters by LDS members who thought they were “anti” and that the filmaker and PBS were purposely trying to show the LDS church in a bad light. Those got around and then more and more members saw it through the “anti”-perspective of those letters. Some members who hadn’t seen the show at all began discribing it from the critical position of those letters. I still believe it is a worth while program for people wondering about the origins of the Mormon faith. It seemed to be all about impressions and nothing to do with the factual content of the show.