Like we didnt see THIS coming :) My mormon brother who has NOT seen the documentary but DID read this long winded reply from a fellow Mormon, sent this to me for my comments because I told him I HAD watched it. My reply is in the next post. (its long...)
LD
Dear PBS,
> I was disturbed and disappointed in the imbalanced
> portrayal of the Church of Jesus Christ of
> Latter-day Saints which you aired on April 30 and
> May 1, 2007. I wish to state some of my disgust
> with your method and message. My comments, of
> course, represent my own views and I am not speaking
> in any way as an official representative of the LDS
> Church. Nevertheless, I do have some
> qualifications: I am an adult convert to the LDS
> Church; my masters and doctoral degrees included a
> minor in religious studies; I have been an LDS
> Religious Educator for 34 years, the last 28 of
> those at Eastern Washington University, Pennsylvania
> State University, Brigham Young University, and
> Oregon State University. I teach World Religions,
> Bible and Christian History, LDS History and
> Doctrine. I serve as adjunct faculty of the OSU
> History Department, and on the Boards of the
> Holocaust Memorial Committee and Religious Ad visors
> Association at OSU (the la tter is a coordinating
> body of the 28 religious groups which function on
> the campus of Oregon State University). My
> experience and education have contributed to the
> sense that producers had just accomplished one of
> the most seriously skewed programs I've ever seen.
> When I view "anti-mormon" films and literature, at
> least they are overt in their mission and purpose;
> yours, however, was a program from which viewers
> expect fairness and balance but which delivered just
> the opposite * a sort of "wolf in sheep's' clothing"
> experience. You described a church that I do not
> recognize, which did not portray my beliefs, and
> almost wholly missed the mark for accurate
> journalism.
>
> My family has been staunch and consistent supporters
> of PBS both in time, devotion, and money * this
> program causes me to re-evaluate the respect we have
> held for you and our future financial support. If
> on a subject of which I know much, you present such
> an imbalanced representation, wha t does that mean
> for so many other programs for which I know little?
> That is a disturbing thought.
>
> Before going further, I wish to recognize the
> admirable portrayal of certain topics: The
> international welfare and humanitarian aid efforts
> of the Church; the conversion story of the former
> drug addict; and, your sensitive treatment of the
> challenges of homosexual lifestyle and Church
> doctrine & practice regarding such. Thank you for
> those elements.
>
> PBS Purpose and Vision For days after the program I
> sincerely wondered just how the mission and purpose
> of your presentation had developed. Had it begun
> ostensibly with the intent to broadly "explore"
> Mormonism or was it driven by a darker mission?
> Regardless of the original intent, the show felt
> like the producers at some point progressively
> digressed from a balanced exploration to an intent
> to "expose the under-belly of Mormonism." In an
> interesting comment from one of my university
> students, he said t hat he (a new convert) had
> invited his non-LDS roommates to watch the show with
> him. During the show he felt terrible and wondered
> what "damage" he'd done by so inviting them. But
> afterward, they turned to him and said; "I thought
> we were going to learn something about your Church
> in this program but this was just a rehash of all
> the crap we hear constantly * we didn't learn
> anything new." By the way, the most uniform
> observation I heard from students was that from the
> first minutes of the program, they knew this would
> be a bad experience * it felt dark, ugly, and
> ominous.Did the producers and interviewers just
> become enamored with all the controversy and forget
> their journalistic responsibility? It's a baffle
> to me. But the program evidenced a production that
> seemed intent on:
> 1) "Knocking Mormonism down a notch or two;"
> 2) Tipping the "great American religion" off its
> pedestal" (if it ever were on one); and,
> 3) portraying Mormon his tory and doctrine as
> cultic, deceitful and secretive, absurd, and
> outlandishly weird.
>
> What follows is some comment on areas in which I
> feel you did a disservice and left viewers with
> skewed and erroneous impressions:
> Imbalance Krister Stendall, former Dean of Religion
> at Harvard University and Episcopal bishop of
> Stockholm, Sweden, has stated 3 rules which guide
> his participation on interfaith discussion and
> exploration of other religions. The first two are:
> 1) "If you're going to ask the question as to what
> others believe, ask them * not their critics, not
> their enemies because what one tradition says of
> another is usually a breach of the 9th commandment *
> "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
> neighbour." It is important that we do not picture
> the other person's faith in a manner they do not
> recognize as true;
> 2) "If you're going to compare, don't compare your
> bests with their worsts. Most think of their own
> tradition as it is at its best and they use
> caricatures of the others." In the case of your
> program, it was not so much one religious view
> opposing another,
> it was the slick and sophisticated portrayal of the
> "intellectual and dissident" view verses the
> "un-intellectual and blindly obedient" Mormon
> mainstream and leadership * an unfortunate and
> mistaken dichotomy.Regarding Stendall's rules, PBS
> somehow decided to give a time ratio of
> approximately 10-1 to non-LDS commentators and those
> who are bitter former members with an axe to grind
> (several of whom I know personally). Do those
> persons have a legitimate story to tell and a right
> to tell it * of course. But those persons were given
> the overwhelming amount of time and when time was
> given to the few LDS commentators * particularly in
> part 1 -- it was in short and awkward clips with
> little context and sometimes so weird and irrelevant
> that you wondered why PBS even included the clip.For
> example, with an almost dismissive manner you
> trivialized the Book of Mormon by numerous
> references to a strange and magical translation
> story, DNA accusations of unreliability, and
> Antebellum American context for book which you
> portrayed as very human and very flawed. No matter
> that the book is among the most widely sold books in
> the world, that millions of converts trace their
> conversions to the text, and that intelligent people
> actually believe it. No, the best you could come up
> with on a positive note was a non-LDS "poet"
> commenting on how he really enjoyed the Book of
> Mormon as a quaint self expose of Joseph Smith and
> hot button issues in his culture. Additionally,
> Terryl Givens (a respected author) was given the
> bulk of his time on the first night to an
> exploration of Mormon "dance" as theology * what's
> up with that? Weird, yes; representative, no. So was
> that the modus operandi of PBS * to emphasize
> "weird?" Did Givens misrepresent us? No, but the
> relevance of that portion to LDS history and
> theology was so insi gnificant and strained, and the
> presentation so mystical that it effectively
> conveyed strangeness * a seemingly central intent of
> the producers. And that relatively irrelevant
> portion was given more time than any other issue
> from LDS commentators in program 1 * a shameful
> misappropriation of time.
>
> Mystical strangeness was the hallmark of nearly
> every piece of art, shadowy background, and eerie
> music selections which dominated the show and
> exercised such an oppressive feeling. Did you want
> to portray Joseph Smith and LDS belief as demented
> and strange*perhaps even evil? Even the voice
> intonation and script of the main commentator added
> to the "secret, strange, and oppressive" aura of the
> show which focused on the sensational and eschewed
> the compelling and easy to understand story of the
> Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its
> international growth.As such, the expose was
> masterfully crafted if what PBS wanted to emphasize
> was "strange, secret, an d oppressive." Watching
> the show was akin to reading one of the tabloids on
> the news stand * titillating but unreliable and
> misrepresentative. Is that what the producers sought
> to accomplish? If not, one would ask where the art
> loved by Latter-day Saints was; where was the light,
> cheery and faith filled art, music, and landscape
> which so represents us and is produced 100-1 over
> that which was chosen by the producers? Where were
> the pictures of Joseph Smith that looked normal? And
> where were the devoted, faith filled "normal"
> every-day Latter-day Saints in the show *
> particularly in Part 1? By the millions, they are
> the real story of the Latter-day Saints. Where were
> the intellectuals, scientists, and eminent public
> servants who believe? Apparently including such
> would have worked against the purposes of PBS.
> Doesn't it seem rather contrary to logic to assume
> that anyone who believes in the Church of Jesus
> Christ of Latter-day Saints and its doctrine is
> ignorant, oppressed, or mentally incapable to
> discern "the real story" astutely "uncovered" by
> PBS? That's the message your program conveyed.
> Yes, you did give attention to Mitt Romney and Harry
> Reid, but the context made no effort to cast them as
> reasonably intelligent disciples * rather, it was to
> explore whether a Mormon could be elected to any
> significant office given the strangeness of this
> religion.
>
> Balance in the Issues In Part 1 (Monday evening),
> you took roughly the first 100 years of LDS Church
> history. HALF of that program was reduced to 2
> events * plural marriage and the Mountain Meadows
> massacre. The rest was devoted largely to your view
> of how strange, mysterious, and weird Joseph Smith
> apparently was. Was that the best you could do for
> 100 years of history, accomplishment, and
> contribution?
>
> 1) Mountain Meadows * no question about it, this is
> the darkest piece of LDS history with despicable
> acts by members and local leaders * tha nk you for
> including Elder Dallin H. Oaks comment on it. Among
> historians in and out of the LDS Church, there is
> significant challenge and varied interpretation in
> print on this subject and you covered NONE of the
> debate except a brief statement by one LDS historian
> who said he was satisfied that blame did not lay in
> the office of Brigham Young. But he had maybe 3
> seconds, compared to 20 minutes by critic
> historians. The truth is, the most debatable aspect
> of this story is the knowledge and responsibility of
> Brigham Young. You gave that debate almost no time,
> not even mentioning it as a legitimate point of
> disagreement among qualified historians.After
> allowing critics to lambaste Church responsibility
> for the event you feature a preposterous summary
> statement as proof that the murderous edict came
> from Brigham Young * "Young was governor of the
> territory and nothing happened without his
> knowledge." What a silly statement. The Utah
> territory was a big c hunk of land (encompassing
> current Nevada, Utah, and parts of Wyoming and
> Colorado), and pre-dated telegraph services at the
> time (Mountain Meadows was a 3-day hard ride from
> SLC). Just how did Brigham Young magically control
> and know "everything" going on in the territory?
> And how about the indisputable historical record
> that a rider was sent to Young to get advice on the
> pending crisis but could not have arrived,
> conferred, and returned before the massacre had
> occurred?On a related matter, consider the
> restrained position of Brigham Young regarding not
> harming any individual from the invading forces of
> the United States Army who were heading into the
> valley? He did direct harassment and the capture of
> supply wagons; he did prepare members to once again
> leave their homes in the valley and to burn them if
> necessary to give the army no benefit from arriving
> in SLC. But it is well known that with all the
> skirmishes and threat, no direction was ever given
> to contest by firearms the invasion. Doesn't that
> seem a little contrary to Brigham Young then turning
> around and ordering the deaths of men, women, and
> children in an immigrating pioneer train? So where
> was the balance in the PBS report on this issue?
> You strongly accused Young and others of "running
> out of town" federal officials sent to govern Utah.
> But where was the coverage of those same officials
> acting illegally and mistreating the saints? Again,
> that was a balance you seemed uninterested in
> covering.
>
> 2) Plural Marriage * here again, where were the
> first-hand journal records of this policy and
> practice being a blessing to people, a trial of
> faith that in the end strengthened their testimony
> of Joseph Smith's inspiration in the matter and of
> the Lord's hand in this? No where to be found. But
> by far the greatest disservice done in the PBS
> report and other writings on this subject was to
> cast it as a sex-crazed policy of a lunatic gone mad
> with power * as though this practice was invented by
> Joseph Smith. Did you check into this interpretation
> * or was it just the sensational and pejorative that
> you were interested in?
> Point One: Plural marriage was a common Bible
> practice. COMMON * not exceptional and weird to
> Bible peoples. All Bible believers, both Jewish and
> Christian must wrestle with that. And Jesus himself
> held up as the quintessential prophets and people
> of faith those who practiced plural marriage
> (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc.). The Savior
> even went so far as to liken himself to the great
> Moses and heaven to Abrahams' bosom. Sounds like
> Jesus didn't have a problem with the practice. But
> did you mention that? Of course not * it didn't
> seem to fit in your production purposes. After all,
> that would make plural marriage in modern times a
> restoration of lauded biblical precedent instead of
> a weird invention of Joseph Smith * not a message
> you apparently wanted to r isk conveying. Latter-day
> Saints do not apologize for following the Lord's
> direction on this matter. We have nothing to hide.
> I may personally never wish to participate in the
> practice but it is not a source of
> embarrassment.Point Two: Did you look into the
> history of this with Joseph Smith? Do you know that
> while studying the Bible he came across the plural
> marriages of these early venerated prophets and was
> in such shock that he went to the Lord in prayer to
> ask how in the world such a practice could be
> acceptable? And to his dismay and disgust, he was
> answered by the Lord * but not with an answer he
> could have ever imagined. In our publicly
> accessible scriptures (Doctrine and Covenants 132)
> the Lord answers by saying that He would tell Joseph
> Smith the answer, but once He did, Joseph would be
> asked to live the same law. This is among the best
> known and accessible of historical records on the
> subject but was never mentioned by you. And what a
> surprise * none of the critics mentioned it
> either!Point Three: You erroneously portrayed
> plural marriage as an LDS requirement to enter
> heaven. That is how many fundamentalist polygamists
> think (you gave a lot of coverage to them!). But
> that has never been the doctrine of the LDS Church.
> Celestial marriage is a practice whereby two worthy
> individuals enter a marriage covenant and have it
> sealed by one having priesthood authority * period.
> That policy includes monogamous and plural marriages
> but the latter does not overshadow the former. You
> altogether failed to make this distinction in your
> show even though you devoted 40 minutes to the
> subject And where were the respected LDS voices on
> the beauty of this belief? No where to be found in
> your skewed representation.
>
> 3) Missionary Service * In night two, you devoted a
> fair amount of time to a subject which deserves it *
> the amazing missionary program of the Church. But
> what was t he dominant message you conveyed? It was
> that LDS missionaries are mindless automatons doing
> what they cannot choose not to do * no choice, no
> choice, no choice * "you go, you go, you just go,"
> was the repeated message. And then to make things
> worse, 3 of the 4 voices you gave time to were
> missionaries who apparently went under real or
> imagined duress and subsequently abandoned the LDS
> Church. What a disservice * skewed and bigoted,
> flawed and incomplete. You portrayed such service,
> the LDS culture which encourages it, and the Church
> program which sponsors it as oppressive, mechanical,
> and regimented to the point of intellectual and
> emotional pain. It was Jesus that "commanded" (yes,
> commanded * not lightly "suggested") that disciples
> go into all the world and preach repentance, faith
> in the Lord Jesus Christ, baptism, and enduring in
> obedience to the gospel * "Mormons" didn't make that
> up.Over the years, I have worked with hundreds of
> young men and wo men and older couples who were
> preparing and did serve missions. In my experience
> less than 1% have any such feelings which you
> portrayed as "normal." They deeply desired to
> serve, they saved and sacrificed to serve, and they
> count the time as the best years of their lives.
> Where was that message in your presentation? You
> did give the positive some time but there again, it
> was minor compared to the negative interpretation.
> I can again, only surmise that the overwhelmingly
> positive experience of hundreds of thousands of
> individuals was of little interest to you * you had
> a purpose and that overwhelming set of evidence did
> not fit within your purposes so you largely left it
> out.To your credit however, you did give liberal
> time to the story of one woman convert and how the
> gospel had blessed her. Also, you allowed Marlin K.
> Jensen to tell his mission experience. Thank you
> for doing that.
>
> 4) The LDS Church is secretively rich and power h
> ungry * I think you would have done well to return
> to the public record on this and how President
> Gordon B. Hinckley has repeatedly summarized in
> public interviews the wealth of the Church. Most of
> that wealth is in income consuming, not income
> producing ventures * the bulk of which are chapels
> and other worship and welfare structures and land.To
> the amazing credit and faithfulness of members, many
> do fully observe the Law of Tithing and pay 10% of
> their income to the Church * we don't look at that
> as a suppressive burden But again, that's a
> biblical precedence of which we again follow in our
> day whereas you portrayed it as a mysterious coupe
> accomplished by secretive power hungry church
> leaders. "They have devious plans and bilk their
> members so they can exercise power over them to get
> personal gain and insure that no one questions their
> practices" * was the ridiculous mystique purveyed by
> critics. It's just plain wrong on its face, wrong
> in fact, an d wrong in interpretation but none of
> that deterred the producers.
>
> For many years I have been part of and witness to
> the extraordinary auditing practices of the Church
> to insure that all sacred funds are handled legally
> and appropriately * I can assure you that it is done
> in minute detail. In addition, the Church hires
> non-LDS auditing services to assess its handling of
> these funds and to make an annual public statement.
> While the individual expenditures are not public
> record, those expenditures are publicly audited (a
> requirement by the Federal government for
> "non-profit" organizations).
>
> I am grateful for the law of tithing, that as
> members we can share the blessings granted us and
> elevate our brothers and sisters around the world
> both in and out of LDS membership. Tithing monies
> allows the work to go forward throughout the world
> and those few leaders (very few by comparison), who
> do receive a living stipend receive very little.
> They are poore r than if they held normal jobs in
> the world and anyone who portrays the leaders as
> accessing income from tithing funds to live
> luxuriously is mistaken. Those who publicly portray
> this message are ill-informed or downright
> dishonest.
>
> You did equally poorly on the portrayal of temples
> and their purposes, on Church disciplinary councils,
> and governance. I am very familiar with these
> issues and you did not portray an honest and
> balanced perspective. Again and again your cast and
> backdrops were intended to convey strangeness,
> weirdness, thoughtless obedience, and extreme
> authoritarianism on the part of LDS leaders and the
> membership. You portrayed little respect, a great
> deal of antagonism, and a general avoidance of the
> grandness of the Church and its doctrines. One
> wonders just how the LDS Church could be growing at
> all given your abysmal assessment. Was that irony
> lost on you? Or do you simply explain it by
> adjudging LDS members and c onverts to be from the
> poor and downtrodden, the uneducated and desperate
> and hence largely unknowledgeable and
> indiscriminate?
>
> I could go on with other subjects but I hope I have
> adequately made the point. I'm sorry that you chose
> to do the show you did. I think you have done a
> serious disservice to the viewing public and to the
> reputation of PBS. I believe that viewers were left
> with erroneous ideas and impressions and the
> responsibility for that lies directly on your
> shoulders.
>
> Thomas E. Sherry, May 8, 2007
>