Members Of The Church Of Jesus christ Of Latter Day Saints Only?

Question

What did you think about that PBS special about 3 months ago? I personally didnt like it, but I wanted to see what other member thought of it!

Answer 1

To correctly understand the special and judge its neutrality, you have to first understand that it was not an advertisement of Mormonism, not an expose on Mormon beliefs, and not an introduction into the discussions.

It was a documentary. Just like all PBS documentaries, it focused on fact, history, and overall world effect. Also, it was not a documentary about "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", but was a documentary about "The Mormons," which includes the RLDS, the FLDS, the Bickertonites, the Kingstons, the AUB, etc.

In this light, it was extremely balanced. It was probably over-conservative in terms of respecting the Church and not talking too much about the Temple. This is a very good thing for the Church, but somewhat shortsighted in terms of journalistic duty to report the whole truth. That also shows great respect for the Church.

Also, I counted 7 out of the 13 people on the site listed under the "interviews" section who are Mormon. This doesn't count Dallin H. Oakes. It also doesn't count the girl who talked about her family and the influence of the temple in her life, the believing FLDS Mormons they interviewed, or the Father and Son who lost their wife/mother and talked about the resurrection/temple. It also doesn't cound D. Michael Quinn, who is still a believing and practicing Mormon (active Church attendance, lives principles including abstinance for gays) but just was excommunicated for a couple of historical articles that he wrote.

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/

There were 2 apostles (including Oakes, who isn't listed on the site), 1 president of the Seventy, the Prophet, and the chief apologetic historian at FARMS, Daniel E. Peterson. Even most of the non-mormons (Coe, Flake, Gordon, Tuscano) were very sympathetic to the Church.

What I appreciated is that with each controversial issue that people are afraid to talk about on Sunday (Joseph Smith's polygamy, Mountain Meadows, Ban on Black Priesthood, Treasure Hunting), the special offered both sides. The problem is, that when dealing with a documentary, you have to talk about what is, not what might be. History, which talks about what is/was, touches what can be confirmed with evidence. Apologetics, which talk about what might be, offer alternative explanations, all of which are plausible but none of which are confirmed truth, or else the issue would no longer exist, as is the case with the Salamander letter.

I thoroughly enjoyed both sessions of the series (I TiVo'd them both) and thought that they were very well done. While it would have been nice to see the series summarize the discussions and talk about how we believe in Christ, I recognize that such is not the goal of a neutral documentary. They did mention how the Temple points to Christ and how Joseph's revelations were all about restoring the true Christian faith. That is enough for people to understand that we are Christian. It also mentioned the Church as a "Christian religion," which is subjective in itself and may have offended some people of other Christian faiths.

Just remember, just because the special mentioned and explained difficult points for LDS people and the Church, that does not mean that it was lacking in neutrality. In my humble opinion, I think that if at all, it may have been slightly slanted in favor of the Church.

Answer 2

I cannot recall the name of the two-part series that showed on PBS, but it was about Mormonism. It had beautiful scenes and dramatic transitions, but I saw it as a distorted version of the truth initially when the introduction said that Joseph Smith claimed that he was the great "I am." That is far from the truth.

While interviews were made with some of the General Authorities, they were short in comparison with the exchanges made with the excommunicated or disfellowshipped persons of letters. The PBS special failed in one important aspect, and that was to reveal to the public that the Latter-day Saints preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that through Christ and obeying all His commandments, we can then return to the Father's presence.

Answer 3

Oh actually I remember a teacher telling me once that the church had said this on name respect and ettiquite: We can be called "Mormons" and it's okay. and we can say you are a "Mormon" and I am a "Mormon". "Mormonism" is also okay, because that is our "ism." we couldn't say we practice Latter-Day-Saintism, see? what they don't want us to call it is "the Mormon church" or "I am a part of the LDS Church." As for "LDS," because the whole acronym would be so long it would defeat the purpose, "LDS" alone is fine. By stating that we are LDS, we imply that we are latter day saints of the Church of Jesus Christ. It still is proper and shows respect. Even though many other names acceptable, of course the most respect would indeed be to state that we are members of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints." Or just "we belong to the Church of Jesus Christ" to simplify haha. hope that was understandable and that it helped! have a good night!

Answer 4

I didn't see it when it originally aired but I did watch it on PBS's website. I thought that they spent a surprising amount of time talking to non-Mormons or Ex-Mormons, rather than Church officials themselves. That was my biggest beef with it. It wasn't quite as 50/50 as I thought it would be. I do like the way they portrayed current Mormon lifestyle in the present-day. I thought that segment of the show was spot-on.

Overall, it was interesting, but there were some things I didn't like.

By the way, peeps, I don't think the person asking this question was meaning to be prejudiced.

Answer 5

I didn't see all of it. From what I saw it was okay, not great. I think that the people who made it did their best, but they relied heavily on outside sources for their information. I watched it with my father and he would point out inconsistencies with what the people on the show were saying.
They say that all press is good press, but that saying only works if the people who watch don't just blindly accept it as truth. I find it funny that people assume LDS people just accept their faith blindly. I know I haven't because every question I've had, I have asked someone and they have given me an answer. Maybe everyone else should get on the wagon and start asking questions. Then maybe people would realize that we don't practice polygamy anymore, we have a huge humanitarian organization, and we don't hate gays, catholics, protestants, and Jesus.

Answer 6

I did see it and it was interesting enough, but I did notice some inconsistencies. My parents (non-members) have yet to see it, I taped it for them. I had looked forward to seeing it since it had been mentioned in the Ensign. It wasn't as unbiased as I had hoped it would be but the person who was making the documentary at least tried to be unbiased.

Answer 7

I don't think it was as "unbiased" as they touted it to be. Namely because they interviewed roughly 10 non-LDS people and I think two or three members.

Oh, and Peepers, President Hinckley was the one who cooperated with the person who made the documentary. They were given unprecedented access to church documents and the opportunity to question anyone they wanted to about the Church. Guess they thought one GA was good enough.

Answer 8

I personally thought it was a balanced (maybe TOO balanced, if you know what I mean) representation...

They didn't really develop the character of Joseph Smith quite enough though, but maybe that's because everything we have on him is subjective one way or the other.

Oh well, we'll find out what he was really like when we get to the other side.

Answer 9

I wonder just how many GAs agreed to be interviewed. They normally do not give interviews or speak about anything church related other than conferences of other controlled venues. Although I'm sure Helen Whitney gave the invitation, it was possibly declined. What she did not do is state "President Hinckley did not respond to our request for an interview" which demonstrates some respect for him personally. Dallin Oakes is more outspoken anyway, but I think he represents a more extremist point of view.

The fact that many exmos consider it a 'whitewash' while many mormons consider it to be 'anti', I think Ms Whitney did an admirable job of presenting two sides of a controversial organization.

Answer 10

didn't see it