... is not really new advice.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Notes on PBS documentary
Well, part 1 of last night's documentary is what they call "balanced". Translation: Faithful LDS and church critics both hate it equally. Here are my brief thoughts. They're by no means comprehensive, this is just what I was able to jot down as I tried to watch my kids and the documentary at the same time.
Kudos to Elders Oaks and Holland, Terry Givens, Dan Petersen.
Will Bagley claimed Joseph didn't get around to adding God and Jesus to his 1st vision account until 1838. Will Bagley is full of hogwash. Both JS and Oliver claimed to see the Father as early as 1834. Missionaries were teaching it as early as 1832.
Brother Terry Givens is a great LDS scholar and quite articulate. It's a pity he looks like a wormy guy with a moist, limp handshake.
Richard Mouw rocks. He is a non-lds friend of the mormons. We would be wise to listen to what he says, as he represents the thoughts and concerns of non-lds Christians quite well. The church had him speak in the tabernacle once. He understands charity.
The bios of some of the people we saw interviewed: http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/
Eye openers to some of the critics:
* Yes, mobs of Missourians really were the bad guys, and no, we really didn't deserve any of that.
* Yes, the highest levels of the church do acknowledge the MMM happened.
Eye openers to some of the faithful:
* Yes, Joseph really did put a seer stone in a hat to translate.
* Yes, the MMM happened.
PBS and non-religious folks just can't for the life of them accept the possibility that God or revelation could be real. So they grab at the only explanation that makes sense to them - Joseph was a charismatic fraud with persuasive powers bordering on hypnotic. Don't mention the 3 and 8 witnesses. Don't grapple with the church flourishing after his death. For pete's sake, don't mention any of the thousands of personal conversion stories by people who never met Joseph. The hundreds of eye witness accounts to miracles at Kirtland HAD to be mass delusion - nothing else is possible, right?
"Brigham Young was upset that God never talked to him" - another Will Bagley stinker. I don't think you can find a smart church critic that agrees with that one.
They stuck out a statistic that 20 to 30% of the membership practiced Polygamy, but didn't say where they got it, and didn't mention there are a wide range of estimates, starting around 2%.
If you make documentaries, you want to hold people's attention. So, you do things like this:
* Use the darkest, most melodramatic, borderline demonic Moroni painting you can find.
* When talking about MMM, make sure you only use the photo of Brigham Young that looks like he's chewing nails. You lose your audience if you show the pictures of him looking calm or peaceful.
* When you talk about Joseph being killed, make sure you do not include his quote "I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men.” That just takes the oomph out of the picture you're trying to paint.
* Devote lots of time to current polygamist groups, because they're in the news.
There was no new ground broken here, no new criticism, no new way of painting pictures when sources disagree. Part II will be interesting.
Rob
Kudos to Elders Oaks and Holland, Terry Givens, Dan Petersen.
Will Bagley claimed Joseph didn't get around to adding God and Jesus to his 1st vision account until 1838. Will Bagley is full of hogwash. Both JS and Oliver claimed to see the Father as early as 1834. Missionaries were teaching it as early as 1832.
Brother Terry Givens is a great LDS scholar and quite articulate. It's a pity he looks like a wormy guy with a moist, limp handshake.
Richard Mouw rocks. He is a non-lds friend of the mormons. We would be wise to listen to what he says, as he represents the thoughts and concerns of non-lds Christians quite well. The church had him speak in the tabernacle once. He understands charity.
The bios of some of the people we saw interviewed: http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/
Eye openers to some of the critics:
* Yes, mobs of Missourians really were the bad guys, and no, we really didn't deserve any of that.
* Yes, the highest levels of the church do acknowledge the MMM happened.
Eye openers to some of the faithful:
* Yes, Joseph really did put a seer stone in a hat to translate.
* Yes, the MMM happened.
PBS and non-religious folks just can't for the life of them accept the possibility that God or revelation could be real. So they grab at the only explanation that makes sense to them - Joseph was a charismatic fraud with persuasive powers bordering on hypnotic. Don't mention the 3 and 8 witnesses. Don't grapple with the church flourishing after his death. For pete's sake, don't mention any of the thousands of personal conversion stories by people who never met Joseph. The hundreds of eye witness accounts to miracles at Kirtland HAD to be mass delusion - nothing else is possible, right?
"Brigham Young was upset that God never talked to him" - another Will Bagley stinker. I don't think you can find a smart church critic that agrees with that one.
They stuck out a statistic that 20 to 30% of the membership practiced Polygamy, but didn't say where they got it, and didn't mention there are a wide range of estimates, starting around 2%.
If you make documentaries, you want to hold people's attention. So, you do things like this:
* Use the darkest, most melodramatic, borderline demonic Moroni painting you can find.
* When talking about MMM, make sure you only use the photo of Brigham Young that looks like he's chewing nails. You lose your audience if you show the pictures of him looking calm or peaceful.
* When you talk about Joseph being killed, make sure you do not include his quote "I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men.” That just takes the oomph out of the picture you're trying to paint.
* Devote lots of time to current polygamist groups, because they're in the news.
There was no new ground broken here, no new criticism, no new way of painting pictures when sources disagree. Part II will be interesting.
Rob
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)