Monday, April 30, 2007

Mormonism explained?

I'm looking forward to the four-hour PBS documentary on Mormonism tonight and tomorrow night. Watch it and then come back and discuss: fair/unfair, favorable/unfavorable, accurate/inaccurate. If there are any Baptist ministers in Texas who may have been in attendance at a pre-Sadie Hawkins dinner at McDonalds on 43rd and Thunderbird about fifteen years ago who are reading this, I'm particularly interested in your opinions.

The Church leaders officially seem to be optimistic, even though they haven't screened this yet.

{I wonder if Christopher Hitchens will make an appearance.}

27 comments:

Angela said...

Perhaps I am exposing my lameness by asking the question, but who is Chrisopher Hitchens?

AmyJune said...

I too am very interested to see what they will say about us on PBS tonight.

Brent said...

15 years ago. Wow, I feel old.

I actually missed the first night. I had been looking forward to it and ended up in a meeting at the church and forgot to record it. What were your thoughts?

Emily said...

It's tonight and tomorrow night. Probably on right this minute in Texas.

M&M said...

Hey Emily,

I am looking forward to this also. I am always interested to see how the church is portrayed. I Tivo'd it tonight, so I will let you know my thoughts after I see it.

Erica said...

Little disappointed...maybe tonight will be better. I don't like that they kept referring to that polygamy family as Mormon...it confuses people.

sarah said...

I watched for awhile last night, then got a little annoyed with the dark paintings of Joseph Smith and others. Actually I kept changing the channel, only to find nothing else on, so I was pulled back every 10 minutes or so. Finally just went to bed.

Abby said...

Some of those historians had it a little off, which is buggin because they come off so authoritative on the subject.

Christen said...

I was not too happy with it, I can say that the only time I had a good feeling about it was when clips of President Hinckley were shown or the very few times a general authority spoke.

I agree with Sarah the art was quite dark, I am so used to the artwork of our amazing LDS artists or other spiritual artists out there.

My stepfather said a lot of the content was from anti-lds literature, he would know he read it all during years of inactivity.

I have high hopes tonight will be better, but I know they will touch on same gender attraction, and will definitely be interesting.

Brent said...

Abby, would you mind pointing out some of the places where the historians were incorrect? I was unable to watch the first night but hope to catch it tonight and I'm interested in your perspective.

n said...

the pro-romney agenda at pbs will sadly be for naught..

AzĂșcar said...

The pro-Romney agenda at PBS: that's hilarious! I haven't read such a ridiculous comment in months, thanks for the laugh.

I can't stand Christopher Hitchens and now I like him even less. He's a tool.

It was an interesting night one. For those who aren't familiar with PBS, they usually re-run programming in the early morning hours. Check your listings and you should be able to catch the re-run of episode one if you missed it.

n buster said...

n, go pedal your anti-Mormonism someplace else. Either that, or get a real identity instead of hiding behind an anonymous entry.

I despise political operatives that disguise themselves. I also despise people who merely spread mis-information and hatred instead of adding positively to the debate and discourse. Ask yourself why you find it necessary to promote hate speech.

Emily said...

Whoa. So far there has only been one person here spreading hatred and adding negatively to the debate and it's not my brother N. Get over yourself. It's kind of an embarrassment to the anti-antiMormon cause.

Emily said...

Also, the "hiding behind an anonymous entry" bit is too, too rich.

Neil, do you think Romney's campaign is a goner, now that he's identified himself with Hubbard? Please elaborate.

Also, Steve said his views on last night's show were complex, and I feel the same way. Maybe I'll be better able to articulate them tomorrow.

n said...

so "n buster" is either the romney staffer who just got sacked for recommending battlefield earth (!) for the fav novel question to the guy who's major political roadblock is his association with non-mainstream religion or, um, a scientologist. which is it, buster?

Emily said...

Ah! I love you, n.

Neil and Diana said...

n buster, I think "I despise people who ..." qualifies as hate speech.

Jami said...

I watched the first 20 minutes, then I got bored. Maybe tonight will hold more interest for me. I agree w/ Christen very dark.

Emily said...

Steve thinks n buster is putting us on, that it's got to be someone who knows Neil who thinks he would appreciate the irony of the hate speech/anonymity facets of his comment. Neil, do you know any scientologists?

Neil and Diana said...

Em, what did you think of last night's program?

Nancy said...

I liked parts a lot. Like the humanitarian part about Katrina, and I really liked the story they followed about the amazing 11 kid, smart talented family with the girl with the terminal illness. I liked them, and overall I found it interesting, but struggled with some of the "history" that I felt was miskewed, I also really enjoyed the convert story of the lady who thought the church was LSD. She was great.

Brent said...

Nancy, Abby made a similar comment about some of the history being skewed. I was hoping you could give me some specific instances? As an "outsider" in this conversation (I am not Mormon), I genuinely want to understand from every angle.

sarah said...

emily, you have sparked some serious conversation here.

n buster is annoying and I agree, richly anonymous, hmmm.....

Adam said...

The PBS piece was interesting, but it struck me as being more about the sociology and psychology of Mormonism than LDS theology. Since those commenting were seemingly either committed or former LDS, it played like a see-saw of competing loyalties, like a stylized family feud with little new to offer. Who doesn’t know that Mormon’s value family and are very, very, very, very nice people? Any critic can deconstruct a religious movement, but you can’t spare the dirty work of evaluating theological arguments, whatever the outcome. Maybe that wasn’t the place. Maybe they did that in the other episode. Maybe I’m just bummed that the Mavericks are down 3-2 against the Warriors. Whatever the case, I thought the special was a well produced let-down.

sarah said...

Adam, nicely put.

Emily said...

Adam, I agree! Theology was not covered much at all. There was so so so much that went undiscussed. It was far from exhaustive, but I guess that wasn't the producer's intention.

Thanks for commenting, and what in the world is up with those Mavericks?!