メリディアン
日本語
日本後に翻訳して欲しい記事
ボランチア募集
Helen Whitney: Missing the Mark (About the PBS Documentary, The Mormons)
M E R I D I A N M A G A Z I N E
Helen Whitney: Missing the Mark
By Maurine Proctor
Those who would like to see this documentary can go to www.pbs.org and see it on
the Internet.
With the two-part, four hour documentary, The Mormons, Helen Whitney
unfortunately missed the mark and an opportunity. It is always easier to build
walls between people than tear them down, but unfortunately, the film whose
purpose, according to Whitney, was to undo stereotypes about Latter-day Saints,
seemed instead to petrify them.
Latter-day Saints wrote to Meridian saying they were dismayed after seeing Part
1, believing that people would carry away a negative bias against Mormons, and
though Part 2 was much better, the broad assessment was that the program as a
whole was a smooth assault upon the Church, interspersed with a few eloquent
moments from believers.
As members of our faith, we know what it is to have people make wrong-headed
assumptions about us because they think they know something disturbing about our
origins or beliefs. Typical is the question posed this week in the On Faith
Internet blog, a religious conversation between top thinkers and writers. The
question is “After 175 years of existence, is Mormonism entering the mainstream
of American religious life or are people still suspicious of it?” Syndicated
columnist Cal Thomas’s response to the question was typical of many. His was
column was titled, “Good people. Bizarre beliefs.”
When I read that, I thought, indeed Cal, and others who write similarly, we do
have bizarre beliefs — just like you — like Moses parting the Red Sea and
carrying stone tablets down from a mountain or Abraham being asked to sacrifice
his son. You can take the miracles or tenets of any faith system, dissect them
and pull them apart from their context, and they will be strange to an outsider.
To those who have not experienced it, miracles are strange; revelation is
strange. And don’t you think that secularists who want to wrench our nation away
from its Judeo-Christian foundings are already trying to cast all Christians as
not only odd, but oppressive and bigoted.
Media Perpetuates Misunderstanding
Certainly Helen Whitney was under a great deal of pressure as she produced this
documentary, and the final cut could never be pleasing to everybody. The
information at www.pbs.org is much more complete. And she does put on camera
some Latter-day Saints expressing their hope in the hereafter and their love of
the temple and the Lord. Latter-day Saints do not expect a film about them to
sound like General Conference or not to raise any questions. However, what is
missing from the portrait is often glaring.
The media sometimes perpetuate the suspicion people feel toward us. Just
recently, the mother of our 12-year-old daughter’s friend was in our home and
asked what we did for a living. When we mentioned that we were publisher and
editor of an Internet magazine for Latter-day Saints, she asked, “Do you write
about all the controversial stuff?” When we gave her a blank stare, she said,
“You know, Warren Jeffs, and all the polygamists.”
We assured her that Jeffs was not a Latter-day Saint, and she quickly changed
the subject. But we wondered how long this mother had entertained strange
notions about us. Had she ever wondered if it was OK for her daughter to play
with ours?
Fear and prejudice are the children of ignorance, and when we refuse or fail to
see people in their full-blown humanity or their sacred beliefs as something
more than foolish hoaxes, division instead of harmony is fostered.
Persecution is not a 21st century part of a Latter-day Saint’s life and many
people admire us for our faith, but we certainly know what it is to be
misunderstood. When our son was interviewing for graduate school three years
ago, the admissions interview became a difficult hurdle when the university
officer pointedly asked if our son had read Jon Krakauer’s Under the Banner of
Heaven, and how did he feel about religion and violence — as if there was a
religious litmus test to get into school.
Bringing religion into an interview for graduate school admissions is not only
illegal, it is unethical and un-American, but such moments, bred in
misunderstanding, are common in the lives of Latter-day Saints.
Of course, in this presidential season, we’ve seen the polls of the huge
percentage of citizens who say they would never vote for a Mormon. Can such
active prejudice be still spoken out loud in America? Apparently, it can be if
it is toward the Latter-day Saints — but it is the media that helps to feed that
fire.
Ironically, only a few hours after I saw The Mormons, I saw a documentary on the
Palestinians and Israelis. Its purpose was to put a human face on both sides, to
offer reconciliation by getting to know the hearts and minds of both. Certainly
pointed questions could have been thrown at each side, but the filmmaker just
let them tell their own stories and personal dreams. It was lovely, and I came
away with so much more appreciation for both peoples — their hope and their
pain. Their stories made them real. For me it was a real contrast to what I’d
seen the night before from Helen Whitney.
I know that some media have called the documentary a “rosy”, even reverential
picture of the Latter-day Saints. I only wonder what those journalists must have
thought before, if this was a step up.
Crafting a Documentary
As the producer, director and co-writer of this documentary, Whitney chose the
tone, who got airtime, and what they said. She chose to ignore certain topics
and highlight others. A documentary is truly the product of the sensibilities of
its creator and in many ways, though not entirely, Whitney portrayed our Church
and its history as violent, its leaders as rigidly authoritarian, and the people
as unthinking zealots clinging to a faith for which there is no evidence. No
wonder so many of our readers who have responded with their comments had
difficulty seeing themselves or their faith with clarity in the documentary.
Let us take, for example, her treatment of Joseph Smith. His history is
introduced in the beginning of the documentary with art that is dark and
foreboding, even frightening. The music is somber, minor. When Moroni is
described, the graphic is of a dark figure that looks almost evil.
We take our cues about Joseph’s character and experience immediately by sight
and sound; this is someone from the shadows. Then Whitney starts to build the
picture of a charlatan, a con man, one who started to tell a story, and then
even believed it himself. Her talking heads tell us that he invented revelations
to fit his sexual desires, that he became increasingly arrogant and imperial.
People only followed him because of his charisma or his uniquely American take
on religion. (That must have been some charisma that propelled people to sell
everything they owned, submit themselves to vicious persecution, and be driven
from one location to another.)
Whoa. Of course, we’ve heard all this before, from those who simply can’t
believe what happened to him and, therefore, are obligated to paint him as a
duplicitous scoundrel and seek to find what cracks in his character would lead
him to con so many others, even to their losing their lives. He is, after all, a
prophet who spoke to God, or a preposterous liar with a venal character.
In making a documentary, if Whitney allows so many to express the latter idea,
she is really obligated to explore the former. Too many important questions are
never asked or answered regarding Joseph. Lots of people were founding religions
in that period, but they sputtered and mostly came to nothing, while what Joseph
founded has grown to become an influential, flourishing worldwide Church.
How did that come to be from one so supposedly flawed and deceptive? Even if
commentators do not see him as a prophet, they surely must acknowledge that he
is a religious genius and count his accomplishments as remarkable. He brought
forth three books so profound that millions, even the highly educated, consider
them scripture. He elucidated theology and ideas so original that no one else
had ever expressed something similar, at least not in his contemporary world.
If he was not a prophet, one would have to acknowledge that he is at least
brilliant and fluent — especially given that he had very little formal
education. He influenced thousands in his time and millions after to uproot and
transform their lives in dedication to Jesus Christ. He tamed the land and built
cities and inspired men and women of great capacity to follow him. A fair
documentary would have to not only acknowledge this, but at least explore it.
How can you leave unanswered what he did and how that was accomplished? Whitney
interviewed plenty of people who undoubtedly could have explored the source of
his originality and influence — or at least marveled that it happened--but she
chose to leave them on the cutting room floor.
Why did we only hear the briefest snippet from Truman Madsen, a scholar on
Joseph and relatively little from Richard Bushman, his biographer? Why such
short moments from Elder Jeffrey R. Holland or President Boyd K. Packer, who
could have expressed their view of the prophet?
If Joseph Smith was a prophet, then proclaiming himself such and acting in that
way, was not bloated ego, but reality. If Joseph instigated polygamy, knowing
full well it would make himself and his people outcasts, perhaps it wasn’t
because of justification for sexual desires, but because he was really commanded
to. If the people who lived in Nauvoo, had just been driven from Missouri by
mobs who burned down their houses and crops, raped their women, and left people
to die of exposure, then perhaps it wasn’t just militancy to form a Nauvoo
legion, but self-defense.
What did his close associates say of Joseph, and why were they so loyal to him?
We hear no word of this. It would have been a more balanced approach to at least
hear some of their descriptions. Here’s Parley P. Pratt’s eloquent appraisal:
His countenance was ever mild, affable, beaming with intelligence and
benevolence; mingled with a look of interest and an unconscious smile, or
cheerfulness, and entirely free from all restraint or affectation of gravity;
and there was something connected with the serene and steady penetrating glance
of his eye, as if he would penetrate the deepest abyss of the human heart, gaze
into eternity, penetrate the heavens, and comprehend all worlds.
…He interested and edified, while, at the same time, he amused and entertained
his audience; and none listened to him that were ever weary with his discourse.
I have even known him to retain a congregation of willing and anxious listeners
for many hours together, in the midst of cold or sunshine, rain or wind, while
they were laughing at one moment and weeping the next. Even his most bitter
enemies were generally overcome, if he could once get their ears.
The Book of Mormon
The documentary also glossed over any sense of why people flocked to the gospel.
Suddenly in the film, we hear there are thousands that are following him,
without hearing any of their accounts of why they did.
It wasn’t because of Joseph Smith’s personality or charisma, as much as people
loved him. Most were baptized not ever having seen or met him. How fascinating
it would have been in the documentary to hear the actual words of those who
turned their back on their homes to join this movement or serve missions. Why
were such sacrifices worth it? Wilford Woodruff said, “The Spirit of God was
upon me like fire shut up in my bones, urging me forward to fill my mission to
England, and tarry no longer by the way.”
What is this that Wilford Woodruff is experiencing, this “fire shut up in my
bones?” Journals, where people express similar ideas abound among us. The
documentary did not suggest that such a thing happened to people.
The people felt this Spirit as they learned the gospel and read the Book of
Mormon. Parley P. Pratt described his experience when he first read the book:
After this I commenced its contents by course. I read all day; eating was a
burden, I had no desire for food; sleep was a burden when the night came, for I
preferred reading to sleep.
As I read, the spirit of the Lord was upon me, and I knew and comprehended that
the book was true, as plainly and manifestly as a man comprehends and knows that
he exists. My joy was now full, as it were, and I rejoiced sufficiently to more
than pay me for all the sorrows, sacrifices and toils of my life.
Everybody doesn’t have to feel this way about the Book of Mormon, but the
documentary should have at least portrayed the reality that many do. Instead the
Book of Mormon is breezily dismissed by Grant Palmer, an excommunicant, who
calls it a piece right out of the 19th century and an archaeologist who says
there is no evidence for it in Central America. Discussion ended.
Where is any mention of all the Mormon scholarship represented by FARMS? Why
couldn’t we hear from a Jack Welch describing the Hebraisms in the Book of
Mormon or the authentic Hebrew and Egyptian names? Why wasn’t Palmer’s comment
about the Book of Mormon and DNA countered with a FARMS comment like this:
In recent times, some critics have suggested that there is a simple way to
determine the validity of the Book of Mormon by the analysis and comparison of
Hebrew and Amerindian DNA. Some have even suggested that such studies have
already been done and that they showed no genetic relationship between the two
peoples. In reality, much research still needs to be done, but it seems unlikely
that such research could provide evidence for or against the Book of Mormon. We
do not know what ancient Israelite or Nephite/Lamanite DNA looked like and
modern Jewish populations may not reflect Israelite ancestry because of
intermarriage and conversion over the past few thousand years.
Not allowing discussion of the discoveries in the Book of Mormon that correlate
with ancient patterns that Joseph Smith could not have known is a telling
absence in the documentary. Viewers, who didn’t know, would consider it a fool’s
book.
Troublesome History?
Is our history troublesome? Let me quote Davis Bitton, assistant Church
Historian from 1972 to 1982. He asked: “Do all well-informed historians become
anti-Mormons?
The critics would have you believe that they are disinterested pursuers of the
truth. There they were, minding their own business, going about their
conscientious study of church history and — shock and dismay! — they came across
this, whatever this is, that blew them away. As hurtful as it is for them, they
can no longer believe in the church and, out of love for you, they now want to
help you see the light of day.
Let’s get one thing clear. There is nothing in church history that leads
inevitably to the conclusion that the church is false. There is nothing that
requires the conclusion that Joseph Smith was a fraud. How can I say this with
such confidence? For the simple reason that the historians who know most about
our church history have been and are faithful, committed members of the church.
Or, to restate the situation more precisely, there are faithful Latter-day Saint
historians who know as much about this subject as any anti-Mormon or as anyone
who writes on the subject from an outside perspective. With few exceptions, they
know much, much more. They have not been blown away. They have not gnashed their
teeth and abandoned their faith. To repeat, they have found nothing that forces
the extreme conclusion our enemies like to promote.
We need to reject the simple-minded, inaccurate picture that divides people into
two classes. On the one hand, according to our enemies, are the sincere seekers
of truth, full of goodness and charity. On the other hand, in their view, stand
the ignorant Mormons. Even faithful Mormon scholars must be ignorant. Otherwise
they are dishonest, playing their part in the conspiracy to deceive their
people. This is the anti-Mormon view of the situation.
Can we see how ridiculous this picture is? It is a travesty on both sides. Many
Latter-day Saints may not know their history in depth. But some of them know a
good deal. As for Latter-day Saint scholars, as a group they compare favorably
with any similar group of historians. It will not do to charge them with being
dishonest. I happen to know most of them and have no hesitation in rejecting a
smear of their character.
Belief in Christ
Finally, where is there any discussion that Latter-day Saints are Christians? At
one point in the documentary, scenes from the Hill Cumorah pageant are shown and
the narrator wrongly explains that Christ came to visit the Nephites during the
three days between his death and his resurrection. Other than that Christ is
very much absent from the program.
I mention these core issues: Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, our belief and
specific understanding of Christ, because if these are dismissed as cock-eyed
and flim-flam, everything else has no validity. Then as Latter-day Saints bear
their testimonies, however, few they are in the documentary, they appear to be
misguided or naïve. Nice, perhaps, certainly sincere, but essentially really
strange folks.
Our young daughter has a diverse set of friends. There’s Laura, who is Jewish,
whose parents met on a kibbutz in Israel. There’s Rashi, who goes back to India
for a month every summer to visit her grandparents. There’s Sabene, whose Korean
mother still can’t speak English. Our neighbor next door is a most lovely,
spiritual Catholic. I would like to see a documentary on each of their faiths,
because I’d like to know their context, understand their beliefs, climb inside
of their reality. I would like to know how things feel to them. I think they
feel the same about us too. Unfortunately, this was not that documentary,
however well meaning Helen Whitney intended to be.
Click here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.
________________________________________
© 2007 Meridian Magazine. All Rights Reserved.