Sustaind.org is sick. :( If you're a PHP programmer, can you help us upgrade Sustain'd and get it working again? If interested, email richard AT moregoodfoundation DOT org.
13
sustain!
Davis Bitton gave a talk a couple years ago about being a faithful LDS Historian and how his testimony is based not on the history of the Church, but the gospel itself. It's an excellent read on what tactics anti-Mormons use (some of which we saw in the PBS special last week) and what is needed to expose them for the fraudulent, biased half truths that they are.
comments
I watched the four hour series and found it very inspirational. I did not find anything in it to try or test my testimony, let alone make me lose my faith. But then again, to an average, uninformed LDS member (who knows nothing about Joseph Smith's plural marriages, for example), I can see how it might shake some people.
I am very tired of the "fraudulent half truth" angle here. For crying out loud, when was the last time a documentary made by nonmembers allowed so many members to bear pure testimony of the strength and power that has come into their lives through the Church. So it delved into "problematic" history and dwelt upon it. I don't understand 1)why this is surprising or newsworthy that coming from a nonbeliever perspective these things might be emphasized, and 2) why on Earth we have the right to demand the absence of such in treatment from media.
Yes, the power of the Gospel lies in Christ, in revelation, in the inspiration leading it, not in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. If a HISTORY documentary spends a lot of time on it is it really playing foul? I just don't get it. What on earth do we think we are entitled to.
We have to spread the testimony of the power of the gospel ourselves. In my estimation that is exactly what many of the members portrayed in the documentary did. It was powerful. It makes me cry that so many had their noses bent out of shape by it that they missed this one glorious fact.
Okay, rant out of my system, I will now step off of my soapbax.
How many non-LDS-savvy people who saw the documentary will really focus on the testimonies of members? How many will focus on controversial and (greatly exaggerated or plainly wrong) negative views?
Let's be honest here. If something is a half-truth, it is a half-truth, regardless of how much "pure testimony" padding you put around it. If something is inaccurate, it has to be pointed out. If something is controversial, BOTH sides of the issue must be presented.
By saying "pure testimony" padding, I don't mean to be disrespectful of those who shared those testimony, but rather I intend to shake off the poor arguments defending one-sided views presented as facts in that documentary. It just doesn't make sense, and, in fact, it is downright insulting to use sincerely expressed testimonies to "balance out" the crap in that documentary.
And further, I know this "testimony and crap balance out => OMG the fairnezz" excuse is tossed to-and-fro by those who want to point out their petty issues when it comes to LDS theology and history.
Doc, I don't intend to come on to you too strong (I can't say you're particularly unfair in your posts), but rather I want to make it clear that this is an old argument used by many NOM bloggers out there *cough*LDSLF*cough* to push their petty issues and yet come out as faithful-yet-honestly-concerned Captain Moronis. I don't buy it. In general, it's think it's a doubly-hypocritical act: they get to push their talking points (which are outrightly irreconciliable with true LDS doctrine) but as long as they put some fuzzy feeling mush, then they try to pass as the truly faithful Latter-Day Saints(TM). Of course, those who "follow the mass" (according to them) are not true and faithful because they don't criticiz...ehem, "ponder" things.
This was not made by a Mormon, or by anyone with a semblance of a testimony in the truthfulness of the gospel. The leadership of the Church implicitly trusted this nonbeliever to make this documentary, because they trusted in her "fairness". IMHO, she delivered on that trust. She communicated what we wanted her to communicate, that there are very, very powerful spiritual payoffs in Mormonism.
She included all the historian perspective junk that would have been included anyway, and everyone would have moaned and groaned just as much as they are now, and she would still have included the faithful historians pinned down by the need to be seen as reputable historians to balance things out (and she did offer multiple points of view, none of which were presented as fact, on most all the subjects), but she also gave members a chance to speak for themselves in a positive enough light that many nonmembers question if the church or Mitt payed her off.
I really don't have much use for NOM labels, academic labels, true believer labels. My label is Child of God, Disciple of Christ, and Latter Day Saint. I am not pushing an agenda, I just think some people cant seem to see the forest from the trees. Tell me, why should PBS feel any duty to produce a glowing, LDS only point of view documentary about "the Mormons", because I really just don't get it.
My expectations were not another FHE family movie with fuzzy happy songs. I just don't like the fact that nowadays, presenting an issue from a "neutral" point of view means throwing two opposite views into the mix with the hope that somehow they will "average" out and we get fairnezz.
I think a fair exposition on a controversial issue will not be this, but rather it will present more evidence supporting both sides of an issue. It will also avoid sensationalism. I repeat it WILL also avoid sensationalism, because the more "sensational" side of the issue will always "win". Somehow people will pay more attention to the strange fish in the school or to the loudest mouth in the crowd. Sensationalism simply implies bad reporting, and the hope of "averaging" out sides of the issue will not happen.
My impression is that the documentary did not go beyond sensationalism, and the lasting impression will be a weird one. That is not a fair and balanced presentation, regardless of the motivation or non-motivation of the presenter.