Varden on "The Mormons"

As always, Nate, you're well-researched and well-prepared. Thank you for this wealth of direct links to information on the reaction to the film.

We missed the 2nd night because of a school event with Robert and Jeremy, and we've had soccer the last two nights, so we haven't seen it yet, but look forward to watching it online.

I'm sympathetic with those with the courage to create works like this. My personal interview this past January in New York with Elise Soukup, the BYU alum who wrote the October 2005 Newsweek article about the Church, gave me some special sympathy to her courage in undertaking this effort. As a member and a BYU graduate of 2 years, she really struggled tackling difficult issues. For a couple of months afterward, she received tremendous criticism from both sides--and some really adamant and unfair criticism from some church members. Having listened to her, I could more deeply sense the courage it takes to become a public figure or take a stance on difficult issues.

The reality is that humanity is messy and difficult--we're all humans and history is just not as simple and organized as we sometimes imagine if all we know is the heading and the date of certain events.

I loved the New York Times opening sentence: "If your beliefs are any good, you needn’t be afraid to bring them out into the light. The proof: “The Mormons,” . . ." I would call this an extremely positive review.

Then the WSJ: "Compared to the average media portrait of other religious groups, e.g. evangelical Christians, the treatment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints couldn't be rosier."

With these kind of reviews, we'd better not complain too loudly. Even among the criticisms, I don't hear any complaints about pure factual or doctrinal errors--mostly just complaints about areas of emphasis, leaving things out, or the mood. What a relief and a change from much of the anti-LDS junk about the Church!

I liked Whitney's response to one complainant: "Look at the Internet, then go back and look at my film." Whereas her film delved into difficult and uncomfortable issues--at least they were well-researched and factual, unlike much of the other flaming writings about the Church. That's probably what the Church PR people find as a relief. The reality is, our Church history, like all other religions, involves some difficult challenges.

Having read the church's statement and having worked closely on both "behind-the scenes" and "public" statements about various announcements, I didn't read the church's statement as "very favorable." Positive, perhaps, but also expressing some disappointment, while relieved that it was at least well- researched. My perception is that the Church's PR people wisely understand (unlike some politicians) that bad-mouthing and complaining about the media does not improve the media's perception of us. When we're at least being treated seriously and respectfully, it's wise to be grateful.

I'll be very interested in the discussion tonight on KUED, if we can catch it after soccer game.

Thanks for the chance to discuss this.

Love,
Vard

Nathan on "The Mormons"-part 2

As you know, I really liked The Mormons documentary. I've found not
just the film itself very interesting but also the reaction and discussions that have ensued. Thought I'd share a few links I've found particularly interesting, in case you haven't already seen them.

Helen Whitney answered some questions about the film online at the Washington Post. She responded to some of the typical reactions people have had to the film. (How were the topics determined, why so much time on MMM and polygamy, why the dark imagery in the early church history, why so many interviews with non- and ex-Mormons, why was this or that left out, etc.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/04/27/DI2007042701597.html?hpid=sec-religion?
hpid=sec-religion

The Church published a very favorable response to the film. I imagine this came with some surprise to those who posted harsh comments about the film in the belief that they were defending the Church.

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=3968c436af942110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f4111
54963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD

Apparently the Church is trying to encourage discussion about the film and will be posting viewers' feedback to the Newsroom site, which it claims has experienced a 10-fold increase in daily traffic.

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jspvgnextoid=91b88ccde6e42110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=ae11627
d59eec010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD

The New York Times published a review that was very favorable of the Church members and leaders interviewed in the film. ("The tenets of the Mormon church may not be to everyone’s tastes, but the church members and leaders who speak in this program are admirably forthright about their religion’s history, strengths and challenges. It’s great to hear people who believe in something and can articulate it without sounding crazy or defensive.")

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/arts/television/30morm.html_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The Wall Street Journal also published a favorable review. ("But we already knew that [i.e., 'it's hell to be Mormon and gay'], and what's fresher here is the suggestion that the rest of us had better not judge Mormonism lest we be judged ourselves. Time and again, we're reminded that what sounds nutty or extreme to our ears may not
be. ... The timing of "The Mormons" -- with Harry Reid leading Democrats in the Senate and co-religionist Republican Mitt Romney running for his party's presidential nomination -- couldn't be better. Compared to the average media portrait of other religious groups, e.g. evangelical Christians, the treatment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints couldn't be rosier.")
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117762813529084022.htmlmod=at_leisure_main_editors_picks_days_only

KUED and KBYU will be doing a simulcast special on Utah NOW tonight at 8pm talking about the film and gauging the reaction Utahns had to it. It will be rebroadcast on Sunday at 11:30am.
http://www.kued.org/productions/utahnow/2007/04/may_4th_2007_utah_now_viewing.html

According to KEUD General Manager Larry Smith in the latest KEUD eNewsletter, the show had the biggest ratings success in more than 20 years for KUED. Of those watching television in Utah, about 30% (~140,000 households) were watching the show on either KUED or KBYU.

Nate on "The Mormons" part 1

Hi family,

We watched the first segment of the PBS special last night.

Personally I thought it was very good. It does spend two of the six segments on polygamy and the Mountain Meadows massacre, but in my opinion these topics are covered very fairly. I know some people have complained that the documentary spends so much time on these topics, but the intent of the documentary is to address misperceptions people have about Mormons, and these are two significant parts of our
history that people hear various things about and would naturally be curious to know about.

The segment on Mountain Meadows begins by explaining the difficult circumstances the Saints were in having been driven so many times from their homes, knowing that 20% of the U.S. Army was on its way to crush what they thought was a rebellion against the U.S. government, and knowing that the wagon train coming through Mountain Meadows was
on its way from Missouri and Arkansas, where Haun's Mill massacre occurred, the extermination order was issued, and Parly P. Pratt had just been murdered. Will Bagley, a non-Mormon historian who just published a book about Mountain Meadows, appears in the film giving what he admits is his personal opinion, based on his research, that Brigham Young secretly encouraged the massacre. The Church historian
Glen Leonard appears next countering that he does not believe Brigham Young encouraged it, but says the evidence is clear that he tried to cover it up. (Leonard will be publishing his own book on Mountain Meadows later this year.)

Given that September Dawn, Hollywood's version of the Mountain Meadows massacre, will come out June 22, this will be a topic that will generate a lot of interest. I don't think we could ask for a better source to point people toward for a balanced perspective than this PBS segment.

The polygamy segment started off with the fact that Joseph Smith instituted it secretly, much to the dismay of Emma, and began teaching it privately to other men like Brigham Young, who at first was so appalled by it that he wished he could trade places with a corpse (the film shows a photo of a funeral procession in what is
presumably old Nauvoo). The film shows several humorous time-period caricatures poking fun of the Mormon polygamists and discusses the misconceptions about it that survive to today. It quotes someone who points out the contrast between Mormons who married and cared for their multiple wives, and their hypocritical opponents who cheated on their spouses and accepted no responsibility for the women they took
as prostitutes. It talks about the stress the saints were under by the U.S. government to abandon polygamy, showing several prison photos, culminating finally in Wilford Woodruff's manifesto which, it says, was not worded like a typical revelation and not originally treated as a revelation. Eventually the Church became more firm in
its stance against polygamy and in the early 1900s worked openly with law enforcement to help end it. There is a clip of President Hinckley speaking about how we no longer practice polygamy and that those who do are excommunicated. The rest of the segment then takes a very sympathetic look at those who broke away from the Church on the
polygamy issue, showing photos of a crackdown in the 50s that resulted in backlash when the public saw how peaceful families were being torn apart, and showing a modern-day polygamist family that appears to be very normal and happy and convinced they are carrying on the true Celestial order established by Joseph Smith. The film also points out that LDS Mormons still establish polygamist relationships in temples when they remarry after a spouse dies.

Given that polygamy is such a prominent part of our history, it makes sense that the film would spend a lot of time on it. I thought the treatment was very fair and sympathetic.

It's kind of interesting, amusing, and embarrassing to read the online discussion at the PBS web site: http://www.pbs.org/mormons/talk/. Some people think the film is obviously skewed in favor of Mormons and some think it is obviously skewed against them. The most embarrassing entries are the ones that say the film is a pack of lies
and if you want the truth you should call the missionaries and pray about it, and close with testimony. ;-) As far as our small opinion group (consisting of me, Molly, Josh, Charity, and Molly's mom), we all agreed that the film was fair and generally positive in its portrayal of Mormons. A couple felt that there were some inaccuracies
and parts that were misleading, but overall was quite fair and sympathetic. I thought it was very well done. There are of course some things that would have been nice to have included (e.g., accounts of miracles, especially on the trek west; the crickets and seagulls; zion's camp; etc.) but she also could have dwelt on several other negative things as well. The fact that opinions on the discussion page are all over the map show the difficulty of handling a topic like this, and show that she did a pretty good job of being balanced.

If you were hoping the film would be propaganda that would motivate your neighbors to take the discussions, you'll be disappointed. But if you only expect fair and sympathetic context for the defining parts of our history, I think you'll agree that the film is quite good.

By the way, for those of you who weren't able to watch it, you can view the entire first half online at http://www.pbs.org/mormons/view/ . (I believe the second half will be available after it airs tonight.) It will also be available for purchase as a DVD on June 11.

I'm very interested to hear your reactions, and please don't feel intimidated if you disagree with mine.

Love,
Nate

Tawna's lonliness :)

So, uh, this is not part of the Vard and Becky family, but since I don't have a blog (yet), I'll just 'release' here. I AM MISSING MY HUSBAND. Very much so. I know I love him more than is imaginable while he's around, but I didn't realize how insanely much I'd miss him till he's gone! I started school Tuesday, and the two of us were up until 3:30am w/ me cutting his hair. I think it was a pretty good job, but I wasn't very awake to see the true revealing Wednesday morning. Yesterday (wednesday) was pretty dang hard for me- I cleaned most of my house, even vaccuumed (mom would be so proud!) but he never came home to see it. Today I've been fine, but tonight's been hard. The nights are really hard. Christian and his big teddy bear just don't quite match it for snuggles. I have teriffic neighbor friends who are being so good in trying to provide great company in his absence. They're wonderful people. Tonight, in fact, we watched 'One Night with the King' a movie about Esther. Interesting. Slightly (really) cheesy. But it has at least inspired me to re-read the Bible story. Anyways. I've got lots of plans for while Patrick's gone (i.e. refinishing a desk, making curtains, decorating mi casa, a hair cut) which will help speed the time. Im trying to be tough- and yes, I know 'Ill make it, and be just fine" but that doesn't make it any easier, people!

Okay, It's late. Im going to bed. alone. It's Fantastic! (quoting Nacho Libre here) (with extreme sarcasm)

I love you all.