I’m embarrassed to say that I’ve always imagined MHA as a more substantive, but also more boring, version of the Sunstone Symposium. Your post convinces me otherwise. I’m sorry I missed this.

Aaron B

Thanks DKL – perhaps I should sign up and go – it sounds like a fascinating experience.

My favorite things about MHA:

FRIENDS!!! Much funner than papers — which I can read. But I love Jonathan Stapley and Kris Wright and Steven (can’t remember his last name) and I even finally got to meet DKL — who is far more intimidating in person than he is online. And listening to Ardis Parsall’s WONDERFUL paper was a joy. That was one which required her particular style, and I’m so glad I got to attend. I missed Saturday’s sessions because I’m on the road with my family now, but I love MHA. (And I only listed some of the Bloggers — probably omitting several I fully intended to include. Listing the rest of my friends would simply be name dropping. But honestly, I am SO GRATEFUL to count such fine scholars/writers/historians as my friends. NEXT YEAR IN SACRAMENTO!!

DKL:

I was interested to hear that Helen Whitney had presented. As one who really appreciated the documentary, I have been sad to see some overreactions by faithful Latter-day Saints at the documentary.

In speaking with another attendee of the conference over the weekend (I was not able to attend myself), I discussed this issue with him. It seems that one problem might be that Helen Whitney was unwilling to accept the idea that there might indeed have been problems with the documentary? Did you get that sense from her presentation and from the Q&A? I mean, did she dismiss LDS concerns about aspects of her work incredulously, creating the impression that she felt she had created a work of perfection?

Although I find much of the criticism that some Latter-day Saints are levelling at the documentary to be misplaced, I still think that some points are valid and that she would do well to acknowledge weaknesses in her presentation and editing, and in her choice as to substance on such issues. Particularly it seems hard to believe that she believes that the documentary can really shatter stereotypes when it states in the opening few minutes that Joseph Smith is the Mormons’ Alpha & Omega. This implicitly states that Jesus Christ is not the Mormons’ Alpha & Omega, which is simply false and reinforces well-worn stereotypes about Latter-day Saints not “really” being Christian and worshipping Joseph Smith, neither of which is true.

If Latter-day Saints are not “really” Christians, then it is because we do not recite trinitarian creeds, not because we worship Joseph Smith as our Alpha & Omega rather than Jesus Christ. If we must accept the definition of “Christian” as including only those who recite trinitarian creeds, then that excludes us — but let’s at least get that right instead of obfuscating by making it seem that we worship Joseph Smith. Latter-day Saints use the term “Alpha & Omega” the same way that creedal Christians use it, as it is used in the Book of Revelation.

One criticism levelled by many Latter-day Saints that is valid is that the documentary did little to publish the fact that our church is all about Jesus Christ. In fact, the documentary gave no information relating to this idea. This is perhaps the key to what many Latter-day Saints found objectionable. Latter-day Saints already know they’re weird. Further, they know other people think they’re weird. What a lot of other people don’t know about the Church is the central role of Jesus Christ in our worship, devotion, and daily lives. The documentary did little to hint at this aspect of being a Latter-day Saint.

At a recent stake conference meeting I heard Richard Bushman say that the film provided an “outsider’s view” of the Mormon Church and that if we understand that, it makes sense. To an outsider, the most prominent characteristics (and maybe interesting) aspects of the church are polygamy, the Mountain Meadows massacre, excommunication, the issue of race and the priesthood – things like this. To us, in our past two (maybe three) generations, these are things that have had next to zero impact on our daily lives. While they are a part of our history, many members rarely think about them all that much until an outsider brings these topics up (at work, in casual conversations, etc.).

He suggested that we should not try to debate these topics and that we should not try to dismiss or excuse them either – but simply acknowledge that they are a part of our history. He then made some practical and perhaps very powerful counsel regarding how we should deal with questions that arise from the “outsider perspective” so to speak.

Richard Bushman said that during the next years we will have a major opportunity to share information about the Church with others. He suggested that we need to have two testimonies. One is the traditional testimony of “I know the Church is true, I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet, I know the Book of Mormon is true, etc. and etc. The second testimony, however, is more of an individual testimony – a testimony where each of us looks within ourselves and at our lives and determines what it is that means the most about the church, what we like about the church – how it is has had a major positive influence on us. That way, if someone comes up to you or me, we will be prepared to talk about the Church in a positive way. One example he said is that a person might talk about the positive aspects a Church health code (the Word of Wisdom) has had on one’s life. Or perhaps the idea that there is a community of like-minded friendly Mormon people almost anywhere we go. Perhaps I should say that Richard Bushman’s wife also spoke and shared some similar ideas – so with this last example I might be remembering something she said.

I thought this talk was so excellent – it dealt with the Mormons documentary from the vantage-point/perspective of someone who had been interviewed for many hours (though I think RB said that only a few minutes ended up in the documentary).

I actually approached RB and said to him that I thought his talk was extraordinary and it would be nice to have a version of it for the Bloggernacle. He didn’t seem overly enthused about the possibility – but having reviewed my memories of what he said, I still think it would be great if someone could persuade him to share his thoughts on this subject with us.

Peter, I was aware of the forty seconds or so you are referring to and it doesn’t really change my comment at all — do you really think it should? 40 seconds out of four hours — and presented as a matter of suspicion, i.e. with the following undertone: “the Mormons didn’t used to believe in Jesus but now they’re trying to make it look like they do, look, they made the name Jesus Christ bigger in the name of their Church and they changed the title of their religious book to include the word Jesus Christ. Those silly Mormons. What will they think of next.”

Now, despite my presentation of a concern held by many faithful Latter-day Saints who are critical of the documentary (this seems to be one of the main grievances and runs through many of the criticisms that I have heard and read since the documentary), I am not one who believes that Helen Whitney had a duty to publish our belief in Jesus Christ. She is not a missionary for our Church. She is interested in scandalous aspects of the history of the Church, such as the Mountain Meadows Massacre and Polygamy. Since that is her interest, she has every right to make those a large focus of the documentary. But in doing so, she necessarily moves away from any kind of reliable description of what being a Latter-day Saint means to Latter-day Saints. It also moves away from “shattering stereotypes” which she claimed was a goal of her documentary. That claim is inconsistent with some of the content of the documentary, so perhaps she should have resisted the urge to make that claim. Other worthy goals exist in making such a documentary, such as examining controversial aspects of a religious body’s history. She has achieved that goal and she did a great job. I am particularly glad that her work on the Mountain Meadows Massacre aired before September Dawn because unlike the latter, Helen Whitney presented an LDS view in addition to Will Bagley’s opinion about Brigham Young. Also, Whitney provided context that is really essential in a treatment of MMM. By contrast, September Dawn makes no mention whatsoever of the letter sent by Brigham Young instructing the Latter-day Saints to let the emigrants pass unmolested.

After seeing the reactions of many Latter-day Saints to the documentary, I must regretfully conclude that Whitney would have had to make a very different movie to impress the majority of Latter-day Saints. I think that is unfortunate. We need to realize that Whitney has no reason to portray Latter-day Saints in a good light and therefore simply cannot be called to task for omitting the Church’s overwhelming focus on Jesus Christ. Instead, we should appreciate the quality of the documentary, the breadth of the views and interviews presented, and simply forgive such stereotype reinforcing aspects of the documentary as the statement that Joseph Smith is the Mormons’ Alpha & Omega. Although this type of thing was inaccurate in the documentary (another example being the bizarre statement that the well-known grain silo on I-15 near SLC is for the end-times preceding the Second Coming), it comes in a product that is impressive, well-rounded, thoughtfully produced, and generally enjoyable.

Despite aspects of the documentary that made me feel uncomfortable either because I knew they were blatantly untrue, misleadingly inaccurate, or legitimate causes for embarassment (i.e. the description of the poor treatment of homosexuals among us), the documentary overall made me proud to be a Latter-day Saint. I know that we obey our leaders as representatives of God’s voice, so that theme in the documentary is not threatening to me and should not worry Latter-day Saints. We have chosen this faith so we need to own our obedience to prophets — it is nothing to be ashamed of even if it is weird against the backdrop of broader culture. Obedience to prophets always has been weird in the broader culture. Why do you think that no one except Lehi and his family and perhaps a few others listened to Jeremiah?

john f. #11:
It seems to me that those LDS who are complaining loudly (as well as those like yourself, who are complaining not as loudly) desired on some level that Whitney would present a correlated missionary film, rather than a documentary. It’s almost as if it comes as a surprise to these folks that it was *not* the job of Whitney and PBS to recruit new LDS members.

To say that Joseph Smith is the “alpha and omega” of Mormonism is not the same as saying he is “Alpha and Omega” (note the distinction in capitalization–it’s on purpose). Whitney used the phrase colloquially, and anyone without a persecution complex would recognize that she was pointing out the truth that without Joseph Smith, there would be no Mormonism. I watched the documentary, and it never entered my mind that she was saying Joseph Smith was an object of worship, or that he somehow supplanted Jesus. Rather, I was completely surprised to see LDS members make this complaint.

Also, Will Bagley is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Ergo, his interpretation of the evidence regarding the Mountain Meadows Massacre is, by definition, “an LDS view.” We may never know to what degree Brigham Young had foreknowledge (he was a prophet, right??) or involvement in the massacre, but we certainly know he was involved in a subsequent cover-up. The “not official” LDS-funded history by three LDS-employed historians is expected to be out by the end of this year, and we can compare one “LDS view” with another (no doubt correlated) “LDS view.” The fact that you don’t like Bagley’s conclusion doesn’t make his view “anti-LDS.”

I think it is very unfortunate that so many LDS have let their paranoid persecution complex rule in regard to this documentary. I think these individuals watched the documentary with the purpose of finding fault, because they expected to be persecuted. As a former member of the LDS church (by choice), I actually found the documentary VERY sensitive, and VERY moving.

Nick, please see the following from my comment # 11, with some additional gloss in square brackets and bold:

Although this type of thing was inaccurate in the documentary . . . it comes in a product that is impressive, well-rounded, thoughtfully produced, and generally enjoyable

and

We need to realize that Whitney has no reason to portray Latter-day Saints in a good light and therefore simply cannot be called to task for omitting the Church’s overwhelming focus on Jesus Christ. Instead, we should appreciate the quality of the documentary, the breadth of the views and interviews presented, and simply forgive such stereotype reinforcing aspects of the documentary as the statement that Joseph Smith is the Mormons’ Alpha & Omega [capitalization is not ascertainable in speech; as such it is not possible to know whether this comment as spoken by the narrator was capitalized or not, as you suggest is dispositive; the comment as made in the documentary was misleadingly inaccurate, in the most charitable reception of it].

and

Despite aspects of the documentary that made me feel uncomfortable either because I knew they were blatantly untrue [the documentary's claim that Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus visited the Americas during the three days between his crucifixion and resurrection], misleadingly inaccurate [Joseph Smith is the Mormons' Alpha & Omega], or legitimate causes for embarassment (i.e. the description of the poor treatment of homosexuals among us) [a further example might be Toscano's story of how her brother-in-law treated her after she was excommunicated for preaching against the Church], the documentary overall made me proud to be a Latter-day Saint.

and

I am not one who believes that Helen Whitney had a duty to publish our belief in Jesus Christ. She is not a missionary for our Church.

If I am allowed to quote myself so extensively, then perhaps these selections will reveal that Nick is not accurately arguing with me about this. It appears his real concern is that many faithful Latter-day Saints were irritated by Whitney’s documentary and have voiced criticisms of it. Apparently, at least one attendee of the MHA has told me that Whitney was unwilling to concede that some things could have or should have been handled or done differently. Whether one loved or hated the documentary, it is difficult to conceive of a scenario in which the documentary was really a perfect work as created.

I for one really liked the documentary but would be concerned if it is true that Whitney will not even acknowledge that the Joseph Smith Alpha & Omega comment wasn’t right or the stuff about the grain elevator or other such items.

I’m kind of curious about how many Mormons liked the documentary enough to buy it. I’m interested in purchasing it – I just have to run it by our family’s CEO when the time is right. I think I would be purchasing it for my own consumption, so to speak. It doesn’t strike me really as a missionary tool – though if someone is only casually interested in the Church, it could be worth sharing.

danithew:
I think if I listed examples, I’d annoy the heck out of people for the length of my post. Just please do this–do a Google search with “the alpha and omega of” in quotes, so you get that exact phrase that was used in the documentary. In other words, don’t just search for “alpha and omega,” as the documentary didn’t say “Joseph Smith is Alpha and Omega to the Mormons.” My own search for “the alpha and omega of” resulted in over 81,000 responses, describing everything from construction exhibitions to hedge funds. I think the colloquial use of this phrase is more common than you realize.

john f.:
I wouldn’t even say the use of “alpha and omega” here was “misleadingly inaccurate.” The most you can say is that it “could have been misinterpreted.” I will certainly admit that you can’t discern capitalization from speech. However, there is a big difference between saying “Joseph Smith is the a[A?]lpha and o[O?]mega of Mormonism,” versus “Joseph Smith is Alpha and Omega to the Mormons.” The documentary did the former, not the latter. It’s like saying “Rush Limbaugh is the alpha and omega of conservative politics.” Nobody would interpret that to mean that Rush Limbaugh is Jesus.

Randy B.:
Yes, Whitney could have chosen *better* wording. The fact that she was discussing a religious group led sensitive people, who were looking for persecution, to immediately interpret the “alpha and omega” reference as “Joseph replaces Jesus.”

danithew:
I think the documentary could be a “missionary tool” with the right kind of people. For some, the church-produced films and commercials are just too syrupy. While it’s not possible for me to have the perspective of a person who’s never encountered Mormonism, I’d like to think that the documentary would have piqued my interest. It presented Mormonism as a religion with baggage and challenges like every other religion, yet it also gave a strong sense that this religion had something compelling to offer to individuals and families.

“I’d like to think that the documentary would have piqued my interest. It presented Mormonism as a religion with baggage and challenges like every other religion, yet it also gave a strong sense that this religion had something compelling to offer to individuals and families.”

Amen. Last week on Austrian TV Tasha Oldham’s “The Smith Family” (2002 documentary on Mormon family that has to deal with husband’s infidelity, death and infection of his wife with HIV) was shown as part of a special on AIDS. A colleague at work mentioned it the following day saying she was impressed by the qualities the family displayed and we were able to talk about how much of what she saw might have had to do with the church.

Despite the edgy subject matter, it showed the intersection of religion and real life and led to a better missionary discussion than my other member missionary efforts in recent months.

Jim Faulconer’s presentation on post-modernism was excellent. Dr. Faulconer allows my objection that post-modernism isn’t any different from modernism, because he places post-modernism squarely within the tradition of modernism. As a result, I’ve never been more confused about post-modernism.

Jim sees postmodernism as a kind of recognition that modernism is the best we can do but sees that modernism claims to be able to do more. So it is a distrust towards those “goals” while simultaneously acknowledging we can’t escape the modernist trap. Just find different configurations of it.

I’m not sure I fully buy this, mind you. But then I’d come to the conclusion long ago that even using the term is perhaps unwise given its range of meanings and typically pejorative status.

Nick is right. The persecution complex is alive and well. How far back do we have to go to find a time where everyone would be thrilled that the worst thing we can say about the documentary is some poor word choice. Get over it. Even Al Sharpton publicly thinks we’re OK now.

Kyle M:
Yeah, but if Al Sharpton thinks LDS-ism is okay, you folks really DO have something to stress over! ;-)

danithew,
Let me put it this way, then. I would say that the church, as an organization, is extremely public relations conscious, and wishes to control the content and nature of information pertaining to itself. I would also say that many LDS members, if not most, have come to actually *expect* negative and/or inaccurate portrayals of the church by outsiders. These factors are both reflected in the “buzz” leading up to the airing of this documentary. You didn’t hear people (other than Helen Whitney)anticipating that it would give an accurate or kind portrayal. Instead, you heard many expressing worry about what kind of damage it might do.

Let’s all keep in mind that in the eyes of those who participate in an event, the reporters, journalists, and documentarians who cover it almost _never_ get the whole story right.

Every event or group/organization, no matter how big or small, that I’ve participated in has ever been accurately represented in the press or by television news. They _always_ misrepresent something, or leave out something that I thought was material.

I think this is mainly because journalists/etc do not become experts in the events they cover. They are always going to be outsiders. And they can’t afford the time needed to become truely informed of the subject. The time they do spend is more oriented to crafting the story/documentary.

I have to say that _every_ item I’ve ever read in the newspaper, of which I was personally acquainted, was misrepresented in some material degree.

That makes me wonder what percentage of those events/items that I’m not acquainted with are accurately reported.

One example was a week-long series of articles in the local Indianapolis newspaper about how our city sewers need to be re-done. The _main_ point is that we have combined storm and sanitary sewers, and the EPA wants us to have a sanitary sewer system separate from the storm sewer system that carries off rainwater. Yet the reporter failed to emphasize that, or to remind readers of it in the “summary introduction” that prefaced all articles after the first one.

The PBS “The Mormons” shows were a real eye-opener for a friend of mine who had previously trusted everything she had seen on PBS. It made her (finally) realize that everything else she had ever seen on PBS could also have been slanted, intentionally or not.

DKL,

You seriously don’t understand how the alpha and omega statement can be taken then wrong way? As I said in my running commentary, that term is reserved for diety. I think its unfortunate that it was included, but not a fatal flaw.

I think this error is made worse by the absence of a discussion of whether Mormons are Christians. I think this is what the documentary really lacked. Reasonable people can come down on either side of that debate, but I think so many have only heard one side or the other of it. If the program had devoted 15 minutes to that question then the alpha and omega thing wouldn’t be able to be seen as a mischaracterization.

Whether it can be taken the wrong way is beside the point. If we’re vetting the documentary for the mere possibility of misunderstanding, then we’re just furthering a spirit of contention.

I’m very happy that she didn’t address the issue of whether we’re Christian. Instead of making it sound like it was a matter of dispute, she goes right into the appearance of Jesus to Joseph. It does not portray our church accurately to characterize the Christian nature of our religion as something that reduces to a dispute between us and other Christian denominations. Nobody who thinks that Mormons aren’t Christians are going to be persuaded by Helen Whitney anyway. Our religion is what it is, and it is Christian. That’s what comes through in the documentary loud and clear.

Incidentally, a Mormon friend of mine who lives in Salt Lake City had a non-Mormon friend visiting while I was at the MHA conference. He took her to Temple Square and the visitor center there, and I met with them later that night to have a bite to eat with them. Her reaction to the visitors center was this: “Why was there hardly anything there about the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith? It was all about the New Testament and Jesus, which I know all about anyway. What are they trying to hide?”

We’re far too defensive about this, “Are we Christian?” question. Perhaps it’s appropriate to recall that our church experienced its greatest growth surge when bias against our church was much stronger than it is now.

DKL, in religious phraseology, especially among Christians, “Alpha & Omega” refers to Jesus Christ. Latter-day Saints use this term the same way that creedal Christians use it, as found in the New Testament. To say that Joseph Smith is the Mormons’ Alpha & Omega is a really clever way to imply that we don’t worship Jesus Christ.

As for your acquaintance’s observations following the Temple Square tour about how little emphasis was put on Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, I fully agree that we need to focus on Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon as those things that differentiate us from creedal Christians. That doesn’t mean that Joseph Smith gains the status of the Mormons’ Alpha & Omega.

john f. #37:
“To say that Joseph Smith is the Mormons’ Alpha & Omega is a really clever way to imply that we don’t worship Jesus Christ.”

Okay, so now you accuse Whitney of “really clever” anti-Mormonism. It’s one thing for you to insist, contrary to all evidence, that the phrase “alpha and omega” is strictly a religious reference to Jesus. It’s quite another for you to blatantly misrepresent what the documentary said. The documentary did not say “Joseph Smith is the Mormons’ Alpha and Omega.” The documentary said that Joseph Smith is the alpha and omega of Mormonism. There is a world of difference between the two, John, and I think you know that.

For that matter, “worship” of Jesus is a very modern innovation of LDS-ism. Not so many years ago, Elder Bruce R. McConkie had to speak at BYU to correct that false teaching. He made it clear that Mormonism teaches worship of Heavenly Father only, and that even scriptural references to worshiping Jesus referred only to reverence and respect. Now, of course, perhaps out of the desperate desire to be considered part of the “christian club,” LDS leaders frequently state that they “worship Christ.” Semantics? Maybe.

Nick Literski and Elder McConkie standing shoulder to shoulder to correct our doctrinal misunderstandings … what a strange image. Nick, I’m not sure that appealing to McConkie actually strengthens your point — his batting average is pretty low.

As to the offending phrase, it’s pretty well understood among active Christians (thinking of Evangelicals; I’m not sure other Christians read their Bible enough to make the connection) that “Alpha and Omega” refers to Christ, so applying that label to Joseph Smith within the first five minutes is at best a gaffe and would likely serve to confirm Christian animus against Mormons (if anyone besides Mormons was watching the series). But I don’t believe Whitney intended to convey the idea that Mormons aren’t Christians or don’t worship Jesus Christ, so I wouldn’t call it clever, just a poor choice of metaphor.

If we believe that someone else is in a group to which we belong, we will have positive views of them and give them preferential treatment.

This works because we build our self-esteem through belonging, and the presence of someone from an in-group reminds us of that belonging.

The opposite of in-group bias is out-group bias where, by inference, out-group people are viewed more negatively and given worse treatment.

In-group linguistic bias is where out-group people are described in abstract terms (which depersonifies them) when they conform to the out-group stereotype. Out-group people will be referred to in more specific, concrete terms when they act in unexpected ways. “Clever” being one such term.

How can one hear a lack of capitalization?

Yeah, I was probably being a tad snarky myself. My apologies. My own view pretty much parallels Dave’s – that it was an unfortunate but probably innocent mistake. The point though is that this intent can’t be communicated in the manner they intended. To draw an analogy, way back early on in the War on Terror Bush called it a crusade. I’m completely convinced he didn’t intend the connotations but that doesn’t mean he can simply discount the connotations.

re # 44, Nick wrote Taken from the actual transcript, here is the section that john f. finds offensive.

I am tempted to question the reliability of your research and writing, not based on your status in or out of the Church, but rather based on your apparent inability to comprehend that I am representing a central concern held by Latter-day Saints who disliked the documentary. In other words it’s not an issue of my finding something offensive.

Snarkiness aside, I understand by now that you simply cannot see how many Latter-day Saints would take umbrage at a statement in the first few minutes of a documentary about Mormons — a documentary meant to “shatter stereotypes” about Mormons — that Joseph Smith is the Alpha and Omega of Mormonism.

With regard to your personal reference to me, to repeat once more: I liked the documentary and was disappointed that many faithful Latter-day Saints were apparently highly critical of it.

In this discussion, however, I have revealed that despite the fact that I enjoyed and applaud the documentary, I find a few of the concerns brought up by faithful Latter-day Saints to be valid. The Joseph Smith/Alpha & Omega point was one of them. This has obviously angered you. Whether that should be a reason to discount it as a valid concern of Latter-day Saints remains to be seen.

Nick, in providing the direct quote, you have revealed that it is actually much closer to the way I was originally representing it. “He is the alpha & omega of the Latter-day Saints” as found in the transcript is much closer to “He is the Mormons’ Alpha and Omega”, which I was quoting, than “He is the alpha & omega of Mormonism” which you had gotten me to come around to using in my more recent comments here. Do you agree? Note the genetive in the actual quote relates to the people themselves and not the movement and also that “Latter-day Saints” is a synonym for “Mormons”.

john f.:
I’m not angry with you. I understand that you liked the documentary in general. I also understand that your opinion on this particular statement happens to mirror that of LDS who disliked the documentary.

I have merely tried to point out that your absolute insistance that the sentence could only be understood to mean that LDS worship Joseph Smith in the place of Jesus is unsupported by both common usage and context. While I fully understand that christians recognize “Alpha and Omega” as a reference to Jesus, I also believe that most adults in our society are culturally literate enough to know that this is not the only usage of the phrase, particularly when it is preceded by “the,” and followed by “of the (fill in the blank).”

I also understand, however, that when individuals hold strong beliefs, and when they perceive in general that they will be persecuted for holding those beliefs, they may be predisposed to interpret perfectly innocent statements or actions as persecution. In this case, the predisposition of many LDS was made rather clear by the public hand-wringing which led up to the broadcast. Many worried over what kind of treatment the LDS church would receive. Among those many, several stated in public forums their automatic assumption that the LDS church would be mistreated. Despite the official response from responsible adults at LDS church headquarters, this predisposition continues to rule the perception of some LDS members.

I actually wish that legitimate scholars would do a study of the perception of persecution among LDS members. In my own anecdotal observation and experience, the sense of persecution is actually an important–even valued–part of the LDS experience. For example, while even faithful LDS historians point out Mormon settlers in 1830s Missouri were not entirely innocent victims of religious persecution, many official sources continue to claim otherwise. In fact, some LDS sources go so far as to identify the persecution of LDS church members as evidence of LDS truth claims–a complete non sequitor, since members of other religious groups have also faced persecution. Further, the endurance of persecution is seen as a strength in itself. Images of faithful LDS pioneers, who’s faith endured in spite of terrible treatment by outsiders, are used to encourage modern LDS faithfulness. In some cases, perhaps this “ideal” leads LDS members to perceive persecution, allowing them to “endure” the same and further identify with the pioneer saints.

My simple point, John, is that many of those who were offended by this statement were predisposed to be offended by perceived “persecution.” This is not unique to LDS, of course. I’m fully aware that you could unintentionally make statements about groups I identify with, which would immediately set *me* on edge.

john f, you still haven’t said anything to convince me that your concern at a less-than-optimal phraseology might cause a misunderstanding is anything other than a pretty lightweight objection.

Fair enough — or perhaps the job of some non-Latter-day Saint who came away thinking that we worship Joseph Smith based solely on the documentary.

a random john, I do not think that it was near perfect, but I do think that the objection is pretty trivial. Furthermore, one shouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

At the MHA conference, one of the respondents to Helen Whitney said (jokingly) that he objected to the use of late-Beethoven string quartets as background music during the portion on dissidents. I can certainly understand that some people may not like these quartets — they’re not especially indicative of the standard quartet of the classical era, and they can be hard to listen to if you aren’t familiar with (say) Bartok’s quartets (from the mid-20th century).

At some point, objecting to ways that the documentary could have been better becomes futile.

Furthermore, one shouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

Now a balanced portrayal in the media is a gift horse? We’ve got some low standards.

I’m fine with the idea that journalist and documentarians covering Mormonism will be aware that their work will be scrutinized by Mormons. Obviously this scrutiny will run the gamut from worthwhile to trivial and hysterical to thoughtful. While it won’t change the work after it is out it might cause it to be a higher quality production to begin with. I don’t doubt that Whitney became aware of what would happen during production and it might have had a positive effect.

In any case, I think your meta-criticism is at least as useless as my criticism. :)

Nick: (#50) No problem. I still think that the context should have made it clear that Whitney was not claiming that LDS worship Joseph Smith.

I think the issue tends to be less worshipping Joseph Smith, although as I said that is an unfortunate connotation. Rather the issue is more about us treating Joseph Smith like God, which we simply don’t. Given the fact this is already a confusion in many conservative Christian minds I found the phrase extremely unfortunate. Perhaps Ms. Witney is ignorant of the kind of misinformation about Mormons held in certain communities so she didn’t understand why Mormons would be upset at this.

However I think saying Mormons shouldn’t be upset at it is a bit misplaced. What it all reminds me of was the guy using the word “niggardly” in a conversation with some African Americans. Now the word is Scandanavian and has absolutely no etymological connection to the Latin offensive word. However I think most people should quickly realize that similar sounds would lead to confusion.

While in individual speech I think we ought be quite forgiving and understanding, in terms of public discourse especially from an important media source has to be held to a higher standard.

Thanks, Nick. That’s my point exactly.

arj, Helen Whitney is our friend, because she gave a balanced portrayal. Is that a low bar? Perhaps. But she’s still done more for the public image of Mormonism than any living non-Mormon.

Clark: Isn’t that just the siege mentality in an other form?

No. It’s called being gracious. And I must admit, Mormons tend to be among the least gracious people I know. More than any other group of my acquaintance, Mormons tend to fixate on things that irritate them and then turn hateful about them.

The thing I like best about the MHA conference is how remarkably free it is of prototypical Mormons.