Mormons and non-Mormons, what did you think about the PBS special tonight about the Mormon church?

Answer 1

I think people will believe what they want about the religion regardless of the insights a piece like this can bring.

The part I found interesting is the continued debate over the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I don't find the people involved in that incident too terribly responsible or malicious nor do I find their actions surprising. Would any of us have responded any differently? In fact, I think most of us would not have waited until we were driven to a desert wasteland with a salt lake before we started to fight back. I think most of us would have fought back when we were driven out of our homes in New York, or Ohio, or burned out in Illinois or when the Governor of Illinois (I think it was) issued the extermination order on the Mormons. I think most of us would have fought back long before the events in Utah. Was that wagon train from Arkansas really just a little 'ol bunch of innocents on their way to greener pastures? If so, why were they in central Utah? Was there not a better trail to travel that would have allowed them to avoid the Mormons? The fact that they went right into the middle of the territory makes me think they had other motives, regardless of the stated composition of their party. I find it very hard to believe that a group of people (Mormons) who had been literal pacificists up to that point just turned into wild murderers so suddenly. Something happened. We will likely never know the entire story, but it seems there is obviously more to it than what the limited historical accounts reveal. I would imagine too that there may have been a cover up by the Mormon settlers, since the President of the United States at the same time had sent 20% of the US Cavalry to Utah. It seems that is a much bigger story that the Arkansas wagon train. What was the military going to do with all of those troops? Unless they were planning on killing or "exterminating" the Mormons, why would they have sent so many troops? I think the tension must have been enormous. As the Mormons see it they are supposed to be living in a free country protected by a constitution, but at that time, the constitution does very little, in fact virtually nothing, to protect them under any laws. I don't claim to have the answers to these questions, but the show was interesting.

Answer 2

It was alright. I thought it was funny though the people that they showed so much of the interviews from though. An english professor, a poet, some other random people i can't remember. When did they become experts on mormon theology? I think it was a little more twisted than i expected to be, but i was glad that they had some excerpts from actual LDS leaders and members that shined some light on where the church really stands. But i think some of them made some good points about things. But there are some other things that i felt were not portrayed correctly, but hey we all have freedom of speach!

Answer 3

I watched the first half hour...it was OK, some of the things I guess were "true" but it was mostly one man's opinion or what he had studied... so I guess that is hard to say if it's "fact" or not... It is more interesting when it's not "sided" and it seemed to be a little more 'anti-mormon' than neutral. Like one man described Joseph's restoration of the gospel as something that started out as a hoax or false that turned into something being believable for people so he just 'rolled with it' or something like that... I didn't agree with that but oh well.

Answer 4

as for it being one sided: its been a few hours since i watched it, but i only saw two people from our church, elder holland and someone else, i forgot. everyone else was not a member of the church, and they just had studied it for a long time. heck, they probabbly know it better than a lot of members. however, there was one guy who said he didn't agree with the religion, especially because it crosses with his religion (he was i think some sort of Evangalical preacher) and he said he didn't agree with it, but couldn't deny that it had a more than special influence.
and i know that influence is true because i have felt it, and anyone who just wants to know can feel it too.

and for those who were interviewed in it: these people have studied the mormon religion for tens of years, if not longer. they knew their information very well, and like i said earlier many did not agree, but they knew that it was special. that was the main theme that most presented when being interviewed.

it definitly wasn't one sided, and the people who were interviewed knew their material very well.
overall i thought it was great, and i am looking forward to the 2nd half of it tonight on pbs

Answer 5

A Non Mormon here.

A battle between 'separation of church and state' advocates and "freedom of religion' types, but I think I will withhold my final opinion till Tuesday night.

But it just did not seem to be as neutral as I thought it should be. and the complete list of financial contributors is still unavailable. ( I am sure T. Cruz and J.Travolta did not donate).

Mormon history seems a little like the Cherokee "Trail of Tears" and the Navajo "Long Walk".

( it was the Governor of Missouri that issued the "extermination" order)

Hey it took the Catholic Church about 1400 years to get its act together. And Muslims still haven't had their Reformation.

Answer 6

It develop into ok, yet not as precise as i might want to have cherished. It also neglected dissimilar the prime activities in Mormonism, even as spending way too a lot time on the evaluations of non-believers. Did they element out any of the finished prophecies that Joseph Smith gave that were for this reason fulfilled? Did they communicate about any of Brigham youthful's prophecies? Did they spend any time on the numerous astounding healings that Joseph Smith performed? Did they instruct how precise most of the revelations on early Christian rites and ideology grew to develop into out to be? Did they even instruct the info for the authenticity of the e book of Mormon? it type of appears like they omitted most of the forged stuff in order to analyze recommend-lively assumptions through faithless human beings.

Answer 7

I'm reminded of a response I read on Yahoo answers where the poster stated he/she wouldn't care if it was proven Joseph Smith was not a prophet, they'd still regard the church as true.

This looks much like the opinion of the mormon pioneers: they've been thru hell for their faith, and by god, no one's taking that away.

The contemporary church is on tonight - should be interesting. I especially liked Dallin Oakes remarks at the end: "No one should ever criticize church leaders - even if it's true.."

Amen.

Answer 8

It's not showing until 12 am in my area! :-( I am LDS and am looking forward to seeing it. From what I understand, the church allowed the historian who did the film access to all and any records. There is nothing to hide in the church and I think the more people see that and understanding comes from the more critical subjects, ignorance will be obliterated and people will have a clearer picture of what Latter-Day Saints are all about. I think it's good that people see if from a neutral source and that all sides are shown. I am very supportive of it because we have nothing to hide as a church!

Answer 9

It had one Mormon and 4 ex/non Mormons, very biased, after 30 mins. I had to stop watching, it was ridiculous

Answer 10

I don't need to watch it, I was born in Salt Lake City, Utah a sixth generation Mormon, pioneer stalk.
Why don't we all ask Adam to describe in detail the rituals that are performed in their temple when they go through the temple or maybe Adam could tell us all about the Dananites or how about the Mountain Meadow Massacre.