There's a preview for the upcoming American Experience on the Mormons. Here's the link.
I'm a bit discouraged from the lack of any recognizable church representation. At least recognizable to me. Does anyone know who the various individuals in the shown clips are? My guess is academics (possibly from BYU, but more likely not) rather than official representatives of the church, but I don't really know.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Good grief, what's with the ominous music? It sounds like the preview for Jaws.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I like that ominous music...
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: There's a preview for the upcoming American Experience on the Mormons. Here's the link.
I'm a bit discouraged from the lack of any recognizable church representation. At least recognizable to me. Does anyone know who the various individuals in the shown clips are? My guess is academics (possibly from BYU, but more likely not) rather than official representatives of the church, but I don't really know.
There's not a lot of church representation, because the church didn't endorse it.
quote:However, some raised concern about what they feel is a disproportionate amount of time given to topics that are not central to the Church’s faith. For instance, polygamy comes in for extensive treatment in the first program, including substantial attention to present-day polygamous groups that have nothing to do with today’s Church. The time devoted to portrayals of modern fundamentalist polygamy seems inconsistent with the filmmaker's stated purposes of getting inside the LDS experience, and of exploding, rather than reinforcing, stereotypes.
That's annoying. It spends a huge amount time on people who have been excommunicated?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I guess Mormons are going to be spending a lot of time trying to tear down the stereotypes this was supposed to handle. I know one thing, this film is going to cool the church from participating in future project of the same kind.
However, I am not surprised one bit. Can't really explain why other than the way the media treats religious people.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
I'm holding out hope that the net result will still be positive.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
A bunch of people from variousMormon blogs were interviewed for this.
From the second link:
quote:The scuttlebutt is that Helen showed the documentary to PBS (aka the big sponsor) and was told it was too positive; she was asked to re-edit.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
Wow, great blogs kat. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thanks. MattB showed them to me.
Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
I think the trailer covers what seems to be of most interest to people who are not LDS. It does seem a bit incongruous to those people who are members because we focus so much on the spiritual aspect while those outside the church just want to point out what makes us so different. I think it is difficult to make any kind of documentary without any kind of bias or slant, but I trust PBS to at least be as factual as possible.
The thing that left me feeling at odds were some of the pictures and stuff they used. For example, where in the world did they come up with that picture as they were talking about the angel Joseph Smith saw? It was all dark and weird. Why wouldn't they use an LDS interpretation of artwork of the event if they are really trying to get at the way we view our religion?
But whatever, I'm sure there are things about it that will make me feel uncomfortable because the negative (and often untrue) stereotypes will definitely be brought up and perhaps perpetuated. That is frustrating to me, but it is good for people to at least get an idea of what we really believe instead of just holding on to backwards ideas that they heard in a joke somewhere.
Posted by School4ever (Member # 5575) on :
That looked like a Minerva Teichert painting, while I really don't like her work, if it is hers, the painting is a "Mormon" interpretation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Good grief, what's with the ominous music? It sounds like the preview for Jaws.
I read an "e" instead of an "a" in the last word of this sentence. Suffice it to say, I was quite shocked until I realized my mistake.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Me too, Dag.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
<--- did the same thing.
--j_k
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Good grief, what's with the ominous music? It sounds like the preview for Jaws.
I read an "e" instead of an "a" in the last word of this sentence. Suffice it to say, I was quite shocked until I realized my mistake.
I guess its word association, I read ominous and as soon as I saw J I knew it was Jaws.
I do not associate Jews with Ominous.
Why is it that you associate the two Dag? Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
I think their word association went Mormons = People of a Religion = Jews.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I did the same thing, and yeah it was word association, like MidnightBlue said.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I'm interested to see this. I'm pretty confident that the coverage of the polygamist fundamentalists will be done in a manner that gives the viewer enough background to understand that they're not part of the LDS church. In my experience with Frontline, they seem pretty good about doing their research.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
So, since this was not sanctioned by the LDS church, it should be viewed as likely to be anti Mormon? That is patently ridiculous. Frontline has done the same thing with other religions and provided pretty fair documentaries. Further, this preview seems mostly positive regarding the faith (Where was the "ominous" music? Most of the clip was upbeat.).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Umm...I don't see where anyone has said that this is anti-Mormon.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My stars, oh no, yeah...JAws! With an "A"!Ominous music! The shark movie. DUHdun. DUHdun. *waves hands*
The ominous music in question would be the growling minor key as the narrator says "powerfull.." It's supposed to be ominous, because then it bursts into the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the juxtaposition is supposed to be contrasting. I completely get why it makes a more exciting documentary. I still don't like the ominous music intro. *wrinkles nose*
Justa, you're tilting at windmills. No one has said what you are decrying.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I wonder if we (Justa and myself) have different definitions of the word 'anti-Mormon.'
To me, 'anti-mormon' indicates an agenda to disprove or discourage Mormonism. I don't think anyone on this thread or in the links has implied that such an agenda appears in this production.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I was wondering how strong the Churches stance was against it, as I had not clicked on the link yet. I wouldn't have stated it had been called anti-Mormon, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had been in those links.
I am interested in seeing it though.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I wouldn't be surprised if it had been in those links.
The Church, to my knowledge, doesn't usually comment on things using the terminology 'anti-Mormon.' IIRC, they did issue a heads-up memo in regards to the movie September Dawn, saying it was not favorable to the church.
In my experience, the Church doesn't usually dignify (or recognize) critics with discussion.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I was wondering how strong the Churches stance was against it, as I had not clicked on the link yet. I wouldn't have stated it had been called anti-Mormon, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had been in those links.
It's not. By all means, click on the link to the LDS News Room article kat quotes from. The Church isn't against it...it even praises parts of it.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I wonder if we (Justa and myself) have different definitions of the word 'anti-Mormon.'
To me, 'anti-mormon' indicates an agenda to disprove or discourage Mormonism. I don't think anyone on this thread or in the links has implied that such an agenda appears in this production.
Maybe we have different definitions, but I don't think that's what I was talking about.
There are many posts in this thread that react, not negatively, but with an inference of distrust to it and pre emptive criticism. I got this impression mostly from the posts by katharina, Occasional, and DaisyMae.
Maybe I got the wrong impression than the one their posts were meant to imply. Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I've found that it's usually unwise speculate on what someone "really means" in an all-text environment.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: I've found that it's usually unwise speculate on what someone "really means" in an all-text environment.
Truer words were never spoken!
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Should I go ahead and quote all the statements that led me to the conclusion I did?
Is not the purpose of discussion in a text only environment to find out what a person "really means?"
What are you saying, exactly?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is not the purpose of discussion in a text only environment to find out what a person "really means?"
Typically, people who truly want to find out what others mean don't rephrase what the others said in confrontational statement and then label it "ridiculous."
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I can't WAIT for this show.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Is not the purpose of discussion in a text only environment to find out what a person "really means?"
Typically, people who truly want to find out what others mean don't rephrase what the others said in confrontational statement and then label it "ridiculous."
Typically, when the initial impression one gets is wrong and they admit it by saying things like "Maybe I got the wrong impression than the one their posts were meant to imply," then it is better to not be rude to the person like you are doing.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
The painting of the angel in the preview is deginitely not a Minerva Teichert. Not her style at all.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm excited about it and I want to see it. To me it sounds very positive. The controversial things they touch on in the trailer, for instance, the experience of gays who grow up Mormon, are things we definitely need to talk about more, and be sure we understand all points of view. Polygamy seems an overdone subject to us Latter Day Saints, but there is no denying that people outside the church probably associate that subject with Mormonism more than any other, so it's important that the true situation be recognized widely, and discussed. There is also a legacy of polygamy in today's church (I believe) in our reluctance to accept women in more leadership positions, and the cultural (not doctrinal) tendencies that exist that promote the sidelining of women and their lack of participation in decisionmaking in the church. So for these reasons, I think it might be a good thing both for members themselves, and for those outside the church, to examine these beliefs and this history, and give all the ideas a good airing.
I'm very much for openness and honesty. Even if the documentary turns out to have some factual errors, it will only serve to bring them forward for rebuttal. We have nothing to fear from more knowledge about the church and more people discussing the church. It will all turn out for the good of God's kingdom, no doubt!
If I didn't think it was an awesome church, with a process and system that generally leads lots of people in the right direction, toward more kindness, responsibility, self-realization, community, strength, resiliance, and wisdom, I wouldn't be LDS. I've gone from knowing almost nothing about the church to learning a great deal in the past 10 years. It has all been about 95%+ positive, and the experience of actually living it, or trying my best, has been 100% positive for my life. The more people learn about it, the better, I think!
I second the vote of confidence for Times and Seasons, and especially for By Common Consent, both of which I read faithfully. Smart, funny, committed Mormons write for both, and it's usually delightful to read them. I want to add a plug for my very favorite place on the bloggernacle, Mormon Stories Podcasts. John Dehlin strikes me as an example of the kind of person the church tends to foster, honest, sincere, kind, faithful, and good. His podcasts explore all sorts of interesting angles on people's experiences in the church. His interviews with Richard Bushman, who wrote the recent biography of Joseph Smith called Rough Stone Rolling, are especially excellent.
[ April 22, 2007, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Justa:
Instead of explaining why you think that they think that this film is anti-Mormon (one of them has already asserted that she doesn't think so), you might want to reconsider the wisdom of speaking on behalf of the minds of those with whom you disagree.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
I wasn't speaking on their behalf, I was commenting on the impression their posts gave me. If the impression I got was incorrect, then that is a good thing. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Wow right after I posted that endorsement for Times and Seasons, I got an email inviting me to guest-blog there. I'm excited!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
At Times and Seasons? That's awesome, Tatiana! Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tatiana's statement:
quote:It will all turn out for the good of God's kingdom, no doubt!
reminded me of this passage from my novel. I am shamelessly self-promoting.
quote: Vangel West stood quietly. “God.” His wings stretched and fanned the air. “God,” he said again. To himself, maybe, or to the sky. He was turned away from Lisk.
When he spoke again, his voice was rough. “When Noah had been on the Ark forty days, the Leviathan came for him. The Leviathan is the mother and father of all evil creatures—the dragons, the efrit and such. Its belly is hung with a thousand wombs, that every year, birth a thousand monsters. It devours all its children but one—the fastest one, the strongest one. The Leviathan sang to Noah, and threatened to capsize the Ark and undo all of God’s plans, unless he would throw his sons overboard.”
Lisk shuddered. “It sang?”
“That is what the scriptures tell us. Noah would not sacrifice his sons to the creature. Instead, he cast himself into the waters, and it swallowed him. For three days, Noah reveled in the belly of the Leviathan, until it vomited him back into the waters.
“Lisk, where was God when Noah was struggling in the waters before the Leviathan swallowed him?”
Lisk didn’t answer. Couldn’t answer.
“God is good. He is not kind, sometimes. He cannot be. And so when you say that God has brought this man into our village through you, I wonder—what is God doing?”
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I am wondering if this PBS production is what to expect from "The Mormons" when it comes on. If so, I do see some problems that might not help matters. As was said from at Article VI by Lowell:
quote:Update from Lowell: This PBS broadcast from last Friday also covers much-trodden ground. We have polygamy myths; the fear of a Mormon U.S. president kowtowing to his church's leadership; church critics quoted as authorities on what the church believes (and making mistakes in their statements); and so forth. This is all pretty tired stuff; I will address only one true howler in the piece, this statement by Dr. Phil Roberts, president of the Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary:
"One of the conditions for being temple-worthy is that you have to swear allegiance to the Mormon president whom they believe can receive from God direct revelation."
Any Mormon who holds what we call a "temple recommend" will read that statement and wonder what Dr. Roberts is talking about. It is simply an ignorant comment. We do not "swear allegiance" to any man. We do acknowledge in the course of an interview for a temple recommend that we sustain the president of the Church as a prophet of God. That just means that in ecclesiastical matters we believe no one else is authorized to exercise the full divine authority on earth. It has nothing to do with political matters. If the president of our church really were calling political shots for Mormon officeholders, how could Harry Reid (a committed, temple-going Mormon, and Mitt Romney (also a committed, Temple-going Mormon) hold such divergent political views? Again, anyone who really want to know what Catholics believe should ask a Catholic, not a critic of Catholicism. The same is true of any faith.
The resident Evangilical has a few comments that might be of interest as well. Make of it what you will. My own expectation for the upcoming work is in the negative. I am not saying "anti-Mormon," but I will say distorted and perhaps NOT helpful toward true understanding.
[ April 23, 2007, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If the president of our church really were calling political shots for Mormon officeholders, how could Harry Reid (a committed, temple-going Mormon, and Mitt Romney (also a committed, Temple-going Mormon) hold such divergent political views?
If the president of the LDS church did tell people that God insisted that you vote a certain way, would you feel compelled to vote that way?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
President Heber J. Grant counseled members to NOT vote for FDR. Utah went for FDR anyway. *amused*
For the current situation, I think imagining up hypotheticals isn't fair. "If there was a loyalty oath, would you keep it?" But there isn't a loyalty oath to a human being, so it's a pointless question.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
"One of the most powerful, feared and misunderstood religions in American history...."
Sinister music...
And then we hear the Mormon choir singing "Glory Glory Hallelujah." I almost thought it was meant to be funny.
Even if it weren't for that though I would be very surprised to see secular media give an insightful report on religion. They do not understand it sufficiently. I see the same problem with science.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: If the president of the LDS church did tell people that God insisted that you vote a certain way, would you feel compelled to vote that way?
Apart from the obvious, "well, God wouldn't insist on any such thing, so it's a moot point" if such a thing were to occur, I would first attempt to get independent confirmation through prayer and fasting that the revelation was true. If that worked, then I would feel justified. If not, I would take it up with ecclesiastical leadership.
There's also perhaps a bit of a fine point to be made on prophet's counsel versus God's commands. Prophets can counsel and not be speaking for God (as, perhaps, President Grant was in kat's anecdote). When a prophet speaks from God, you should be able to independently verify that by taking it up with God personally. That's one of the promises I think Mormon theology rests upon.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
quote:His interviews with Richard Bushman, who wrote the recent biography of Joseph Smith called Rough Stone Rolling, are especially excellent.
It's this exact book that has me holding out hope that this production has a net positive effect. That book was portrayed as a faithful retelling of the Joseph Smith story that didn't withhold the parts that aren't generally included in your weekly Gospel Doctrine class. It talked about the parts of the story that makes Mormon's nervous -- i.e. polygamy, different versions of the First Vision, Smith's treasure hunting days etc., -- but still did an amazing job of being fair, concise and sticking to what the official record shows, without adding the token anti-mormon stance.
I hope this production will do this. I really do.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: I've found that it's usually unwise speculate on what someone "really means" in an all-text environment.
I think what this posts really means is that this TV show will rock and will draw in more viewers than "American Idol." Did I get that right? Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
So, what did you all think of the PBS program? This is a question I especially have for non-Mormons who might have seen it. To be honest, I already have a general idea of what 1. Reporters, 2. ex or disgruntled Mormons or 3. Mormons think of it. I have heard hardly any comments from generally educated non-Mormons.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I sort-of watched it. It was on in the background while I cleaned up my living room.
But from what I saw, it was interesting. It definitely didn't seem pro-Mormon, but I don't think it was meant to be anti-Mormon propaganda either.
It seemed very simple: this is who these people are, this is what they believe, here's some of their history.
But again, I only watched a bit of it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's fascinating me... But, it;s so unfortunet that it has such an irratating time slot! But I will watch it on Friday. Mormonism fascinates me. Perhaps because I am not a Mormon and i am fascinated by things that are different than me. But there are some details that seem left out....
The massacre depressed me. It doesn't make me feel anti-Mormon, it's just that it's a human problem. I cannot understand why people insisted on picking on Mormons. It's stupid. Why not let them have their own beliefs and not persecute them? I do not understand it... And I do not understand what caused this Massacre, it depresses me deeply.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"But there are some details that seem left out...."
There are a LOT of details left out, both pro and con. This is especially the case with the first 2 hours of history. There is a lot to cover and I can understand why things were jumbled and confusing. However, the worst part was the Nauvoo era that gave the most biased view of Joseph Smith than any other portion of both programs.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Do share? This may be difficult, but do you have examples where the show went astray?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Basically calling Joseph Smith a Tyrant King who whilly-nilly destroyed a printing press without explaining Joseph Smith's own reasons for doing so.
He took over the Nauvoo Legion and became Mayor when those who originally given those positions abandoned him and Mormonism, then attacked him. He destroyed the printing press as he was advised it was legal to do. Not smart, mind you, but seen as legal under the Law. The Nauvoo Charter was granted by the STATE because of past persecutions didn't give Mormons much of any power (other than in numbers).
Not to mention the whole 3 and 8 Witnesses of the Book of Mormon were not mentioned ONE TIME, no matter what you might think of them.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Not to mention the whole 3 and 8 Witnesses of the Book of Mormon were not mentioned ONE TIME, no matter what you might think of them.
I seem to remember them being mentioned. I could be getting it confused with when I looked up the book of mormon on wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure they did mention the witnesses at least once.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't remember it myself and I know other Mormons have mentioned they weren't talked about at all, so . . . unless proven otherwise.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I watched the first segment, the history. I believe it runs about 1h50m or so of actual documentary. I thought it was pretty well-handled. Occassional, I'm not sure how you'd like the destruction of a printing press by an American religious leader to be treated in a documentary.
"Whoops! You get a mulligan on that, bad call." No, I think not. I'm a Mormon too, and it's not a part of my history I'm happy about, to say the least. But I'm not going to hide from it or gloss over it, either.
I don't recall the witnesses being mentioned either...I've still got it, though. May watch it again.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Occassional, I'm not sure how you'd like the destruction of a printing press by an American religious leader to be treated in a documentary."
I just said HOW. To put in Docu-speech, "Joseph Smith was advised by counsel to destroy the Printing Press in accordance to the then legally recognized nuisance clause of the Nauvoo Charter. It struck at the Heart of the American institution of free speech and ended up leading to the prophet's death."
[ May 02, 2007, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I found the show very informative and interesting. However, there was one part that caused me to be upset and dismayed. The part about the baptisms for the dead.
Just so I've got this straight, they have a mountain complex that is dedicated to nothing but acquiring names of dead people, which they then use for baptisms in temple ceremonies? Is this true?
If so, it's one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Stihl, there have been several heated threads on Hatrack about baptism for the dead if you're interested.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I envy your life, stihl1, if posthumous baptisms are among the most disgusting things you've ever heard about.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Lynn, don't let a massacre from over 100 years ago depress you.
I saw roughly half of the documentary, and I thought it was interesting and fairly balanced. They went into polygamy, both historically in the LDS church and in modern apostate LDS faiths*, but emphasized that it has been forbidden for many decades (since 1890??). And that it results in certain excommunication. I thought that was a balanced approach.
The part on the family and sealings was interesting. And the part on excommunication highlighted a major problem with most all organised religions: authoritarianism.
* I'm not sure of the correct term for the quasi-Mormons who still practice polygamy but are not in the main LDS faith. Splinter groups? Fundamentalists? Apostates?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Just so I've got this straight, they have a mountain complex that is dedicated to nothing but acquiring names of dead people, which they then use for baptisms in temple ceremonies? Is this true?
The truth is not quite so dramatic. Just about every Mormon congregation in the US has a genealogy center (open to the general public) where people can go to research their ancestry. Mormons doing their own genealogical work can submit the names of their direct ancestors to have their temple work done for them.
In theory, and according to Church policy, that's how it's supposed to work. The reality is a bit messier, and has been well debated on these forums.
Are the two latest threads that I remember dealing with the subject. If you want to have a conversation about this topic, please remember that you can choose to use language that reflects your distaste for the practice, but does not offend others.
The phrase "it's one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard" is not especially effective at engaging others in conversation.
quote:the part on excommunication highlighted a major problem with most all organised religions: authoritarianism.
All organizations have some degree of authoritarianism. I'd love to hear more of your opinion on exactly why you think the authoritarianism discussed in the documentary was so problematic.
quote: I'm not sure of the correct term for the quasi-Mormons who still practice polygamy but are not in the main LDS faith. Splinter groups? Fundamentalists? Apostates?
I'm sure they don't feel that any of those terms apply to them (though, privately, I do). I think "polygamists" is a fair designation that can be used without insulting mainstream Mormons or...er...polygamists.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My impressions:
There is a flurry of chatter in the bloggernacle about this. Here's a link to a post with links to a lot of the threads: http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3841
I thought it was overall perfectly fine, very favorable in points, and balanced overall. I wouldn't show it in Sunday School, but it wasn't meant to be a church movie.
The second day was better than the first. Someone seeing the first day might come away with a distorted impression of church history - the mountain meadows massacre is simply not so big a deal that it deserves 1/6 of the airtime for history of the church. Also, the long segment emphasizing modern-day polygamy was a little bit annoying considering those who practice it have been being excommunicated for a hundred years, but the documentary twice showed President Hinkley stating that polygamy was NOT part of the modern-day church and those who practice it are not Mormons and definitely not fundamentalist Mormons. So, the time devoted was disproportionate, but the actual content was, as far as I could tell and according to Matt, accurate.
The second day was great. There were definitely viewpoints expressed that I would disagree with, but every negative comment was balanced with someone from the church or with positive experiences or comments. After one woman's tale of her excommunication, the documentary noted that the church NEVER comments on or releases accounts of excommunications, so every story you here is by nature from only one side. The segment on church welfare and church humanitarian work practically had a sunset in Arcadia feel (TM Anneke), and the part on missionary work I thought was sweet. The segment on temples was, with the exception of one woman's comments, very respectful and accurate. Even the ex-Mormons who did not believe it anymore and said why spoke of the temple and the church affectionately. There are angry ex-Mormons out there, but the documentary didn't give them a place to air grievances.
The man who talked about his wife who died giving birth to their eighth child was just heartbreaking. Elder Jensen was very personable, and Elder Packer was, I thought, very sweet, open, explanatory, and a little rueful about the consequences when questioned about a comment that has rubbed many people the wrong way.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
We didn't watch it. My son turned it on for a bit, but he said he felt just the opening part of the show expressed such a snarky attitude about religion in general that he figured it was going to be very biased and tainted and not worth watching.
FG
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I thought the first day was disappointing. I didn't find it quite as biased as Occasional, but I thought the emphases were pretty wrong. As kat mentioned, the 20 minutes on Mountain Meadows was a little heavy, as was the extensive polygamy discussion.
I only saw the last hour of the second day, but I thought it was very well done. My stomach clenched a bit when it went into the temple discussion, but I thought it was handled fairly, by-in-large. I thought the discussion of homosexuality within the church, and particularly Elder Jensen's comments counterposed against those of the former member were particularly good at expressing the complexity of the issue. I thought the first day suffered more from lack of what I would recognize as authoritative views on church history, relying more on personable interviewees. I would have liked more credentials than "Author" on most of the individuals.
I think my favorite interviewee was Richard(?) Mauw, the Protestant pastor. I saw three statements from him, and every one I thought was indicative of how I would hope Mormonism would be perceived by a non-member: an assumption of good will and good intent, without a belief in its veracity.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I watched most of it...had to miss some bits since I was busy, but I thought it was really cool. The second half was better than the first I thought.
I might have missed it but did the show talk about the racist stuff from the Mormon past?
Regardless of its old form and past issues I think modern Mormons are neat.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"I might have missed it but did the show talk about the racist stuff from the Mormon past?"
Yes, almost a whole section of it. Although it focused more on the revelation to give priesthood to all men rather than any racist attitudes. That was helpful because it explained the process of revelation and priesthood authority from at least one person (Pres. Hinkley) who was actually in the room when it was revealed.
One thing people just don't understand (and I know it was talked about a few times here at Hatrack) is that race issues in Mormonism are so complicated that you literally have to do more than slap on a stereotype label.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I've watched most of the first segment, until the site started having technical difficulties. Maybe the server got overloaded or something. It's all posted online now right here.
Maybe it's just because I don't like tv much, and I'm not used to watching it, but did the people they interviewed seem like they were overdramatizing every word they said? I found that a constant annoyance. They seemed like performances by bad actors or something, instead of just interviews.
I liked the content overall, but from studying more about Mountain Meadows massacre I found that nearly every historian of the subject agrees that there's no evidence that Brigham Young ordered the killing. Yet the one fellow they interviewed (Will Bagley) is the only historian who feels the data says otherwise. His reasons, though, don't seem very sound. For instance, his first bit of evidence for Young's culpability is that Brigham Young was in control of everything that happened in Utah, a proposition that's pretty ludicrous and refuted by many documents of the time. Next, Bagley believes Brigham Young did it in order to send a message to the United States that he was in control of all transportation through Utah, and then he simultaneously believes that President Young acted immediately to cover up all traces of his part in the events. Which is it? Was he sending a message or trying to keep it a secret? It's not really reasonable to believe both, though Bagley sincerely does seem to. So I thought it wasn't the smartest thing of Helen Whitney to present Bagley's narrative standing alone as though it represented an accepted consensus among historians.
[ May 05, 2007, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I see race issues in Mormonism as being fairly simple and straightforward, myself. We're told by our doctrine, and by our General Authorities, that racial hatred is wrong, that we're all one family, children of God, brothers and sisters. We're taught to work together to succor each other and build up Zion regardless of race or culture. We're a worldwide church, and we're taught to love each other as ourselves, to mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort, to lift up hands that hang, and this holds across all races and ethnicities. Nothing could be more completely clear in our doctrine.
We send missionaries to all parts of the globe, and they always seem to gain a deep love and appreciation for the people, country, and culture of their missions. Nearly all the future leaders of the church have served missions, so this global perspective pervades the church leadership. We worship together, there isn't any segregation in Mormon churches, unlike most other denominations in America. Before I joined the LDS church I had visited many local churches (Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, AME, Catholic) and never happened to see any congregation that was integrated. They all were either black churches or white. All the Mormon wards I've belonged to have had both. The bishop of my second ward was black, and there were about as many blacks there as whites. So, in practice, I find the Latter Day Saints seem to do better than other denominations about race, although there's still definitely a lot of racism in individuals that needs to be worked on.
Historically, the fact that Mormon doctrine wasn't always so clear about race, I think, reflects the social trajectory of our country, and particularly that of Utah. I wish it weren't so. Joseph Smith adopted a black girl into his family, as a daughter, and he and his brother ordained blacks to the priesthood. One reason early Mormons were distrusted by their neighbors in Missouri and Illinois is that they were abolitionists. Had Joseph lived to a ripe old age, perhaps our church would have grown up free from the stain of institutional racism entirely. That would have been marvelous.
[ May 05, 2007, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I thought the "Mountain Meadows" part was well done, until they put Bagley in as spokesman for more than 50 year of excellent research on the topic. You explained it well Tatiana, but I would put it differently. He came away sounding like, "this is the way it was because that is how I say it was." Sadly, those who are not familiar with the many non-sensational works on the subject won't know how complicated the question is; and those who already agree with him will simply say I told you so.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Overall I think the documentaries are a good thing, as they will get people both inside and outside the church talking and thinking about all these issues.
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
The ex-communicated scholar mentioned a "Heavenly Mother" but then they never explained what that was. I've never heard of it before. Is that a general Christian concept? I thought all of the Christian deities are male.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
The concept of a Heavenly Mother (a spouse and co-creator of our spirits with Heavenly Father) is, to my knowledge, a uniquely Mormon doctrine. It was first expounded by Eliza Snow in her hymn "O My Father" and then declared doctrinally sound by Joseph Smith.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
I love that doctrine. It isn't talked about a GREAT deal, except with a lot of reverence. For me it's one of the most beautiful, moving doctrines we have.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Part of why I'm glad it's not talked about much:
In my experience, it's a favorite target of anti-Mormon literature and fiction, often distorted into extremely vile, repulsive distortions.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Heavenly Mother is very cool! I want to learn more about her.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There is no record of Joseph Smith teaching it. There are several second-hand accounts of him teaching, the most famous being Eliza R. Snow's words to the hymn "O My Father, which were included because of something Joseph said to her. She wrote it after Joseph died, however.
In the history of the Church, there are 1) revelations given to Joseph that were announced as such, 2) things that Joseph said, and 3) things that people say Joseph said.
It is a human tendency to lump those altogether as Joseph's teachings, but they are not the same. It think the concept of Heavenly Mother is so vague and often not spoken of precisely because it belongs in that third category.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
One of the unique doctrines of the LDS Church is the existence of a Mother in Heaven. It is more than a trivial speculative idea, but part of the foundational teachings associated with Exaltation. No one (Man OR Woman) can be saved to the highest degree of Heaven without marriage for time and eternity. Although particulars are not available, the doctrine is enshrined in one of the most beloved hymns “Oh My Father” by Eliza R. Snow. It states, “in the heavens, are parents single?” and replies, “no . . . truth eternal tells me I’ve a mother there.” President Wilford Woodruff proclaimed the hymn a revelation. To add to that, it is impossible to fully comprehend the doctrines of eternal families without accepting the implications.
The key to understanding Heavenly Mother is both in the name and a simple verse of the Doctrine and Covenants. It occurs in the famous “Civil War Prophecy” of D&C 130:
quote:1 When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves.
2 And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.
Although it has more to do with the nature of God and our relation to Him than gender issues, the idea expressed of “that same sociality” has repercussions. There is not a lot of differences between what we observe here on Earth and human nature in the Eternities. It is true that we are perhaps more prone to sin, misunderstanding, lies, and mistakes in mortality. Yet, it is clear that mothers are a very important part of the social fabric of humanity. To understand motherhood is to understand Heavenly Mother, just as Fatherhood brings its own lessons. The recent Proclamation on the Family emphasizes the Earthly relationships of gender to Eternal truth:
quote:We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children . . .
. . . By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.
Therefore, we know that Heavenly Mother is just that; a woman who takes care of children. There is no pretence as to how that can be achieved morally or "physically." It is in the forming of Heavenly Children (that has not been explained in the least) that the vile, repulsive stories are talked about. Mostly it comes from those who consider any physical act as gross and damning, and find this the perfect excuse to make Mormonism look disgusting.
Of course, not every man or woman has the opportunity to marry or raise children here on Earth. However, if Heaven is the ideal and families reflect Heaven, then Time only is of concern and not ultimate circumstances. There is much that we must, as religious people, hope for in the next life that cannot be attained in mortal probation. Marriage and children might be part of that anticipation for a better Eternal life when not available as mortals. That is the faith that drives proxy Temple work after all.
Scriptures do not mention Her because she is not part of the plan of salvation beyond what we already know of motherhood. The deity we worship continues to be Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as One, and They have been consistent on who and what we must do to be saved. If honesty is important, those who want to “graduate” the female half of Heavenly Parents must acknowledge there isn’t much known about Father in Heaven either. We know as much as we do about Him because Jesus is His representative. Ultimately it is through Jesus Christ that we get near the Father, and it is through the Father that the Mother can be percieved.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
While the scriptures do not overtly mention Her, both Adam and Eve being created in God's image at least implies Her existence. In the LDS interpretation of what "In God's image" means, of course.
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
Thank you for the explanations. So she is assumed to be a deity on the level of the Heavenly Father and the mother of Jesus?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
The mortal mother of Jesus is not considered a deity to the LDS. We revere her but don't pray to her.
Heavenly Mother is the spiritual mother of all of us, and we know very little about her. Our theology is open-ended though. There are many things yet to be revealed, and Heavenly Father teaches us line by line, and precept by precept. As we receive and put into practice the teachings that we have, we become worthy to receive more and higher teachings. This goes on eternally, and is known as eternal progression.
So I think of us in our current state as being in kindergarten. There are ages and eons of experiences and struggles and growth and learning that go on after this mortal life. We aren't taught much about any of that. I suppose that means we need to focus on the work we have to do here, and the other will come in the right time. Presumably we'll be better able to understand it, the wiser and better we become. Exaltation is a gradual process, which involves every fiber of our being, our wills, our agency, and our efforts, as well as the necessary grace of God, and the atonement of Jesus the Christ, without which it would be impossible.
Understand that these are peripheral teachings, that aren't fundamental to our religious lives. They are interesting to speculate about, and to think and pray about, but they don't come into Sunday School or church very often. The central tenets of our faith are faith in Jesus Christ as the savior of humankind, repentence, baptism, receiving the holy ghost, and loving God and our neighbors.
[ May 06, 2007, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chanie: The ex-communicated scholar mentioned a "Heavenly Mother" but then they never explained what that was. I've never heard of it before. Is that a general Christian concept? I thought all of the Christian deities are male.
In classical Christian theology God, having no physical body, is neither male nor female.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Originally posted by Tatiana:
"Understand that these are peripheral teachings, that aren't fundamental to our religious lives. They are interesting to speculate about, and to think and pray about, but they don't come into Sunday School or church very often. The central tenets of our faith are faith in Jesus Christ as the savior of humankind, repentence, baptism, receiving the holy ghost, and loving God and our neighbors."
The general, encompassing term we use for doctrines like that of a Heavenly Mother is "not essential to our salvation." In other words, full and complete understnding of it does not effect our ability to be saved, as opposed to those listed in the last part of Tatiana's post.
Incidentally, the fact that "O My Father", the hymn that talks about our Heavenly Mother, is in the hymnbook means that it's doctrinally approved.
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
But G-d is the father of Jesus, no? And Jesus is a son?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
In trinitarian theology the father-son language is metaphor. Jesus is believed to be the same being as God -- the incarnation or "en-fleshment" of God. Father/Son is as close as the language could get to describing a relationship that has no actual human experience parallel.
And one of the limitations that God took on by becoming incarnate was the limitation of having to be one gender or the other.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
dkw is talking about what the vast majority of Christians believe. What Mormons believe is held only by them. Just so no one is confused.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Quite. I was answering Chanie's question, which I took to be responding to my post just above it.
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
Yes, thank you. That was what I was asking. I am often confused by the Christian concepts of Moshiach/G-d.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
The concept of Mother in Heaven is speculative doctrine. There is no binding canonical information about her existence. I believe that it is not necessary to believe in a Mother in Heaven to be a faithful member of the church, or vice versa. A good deal of Mormon "doctrine" falls into this category of speculation; which I think is a good thing, as long as people do not hold it in the same regard as scripture.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kent: The concept of Mother in Heaven is speculative doctrine. There is no binding canonical information about her existence. I believe that it is not necessary to believe in a Mother in Heaven to be a faithful member of the church, or vice versa. A good deal of Mormon "doctrine" falls into this category of speculation; which I think is a good thing, as long as people do not hold it in the same regard as scripture.
If the hymn O My Father, is considered a hymn in the official LDS hymn book, and the preface of the book states that the hymns ought to be used for sermons, and if the hymns we sing are a prayer to God himself. It seems odd if not blasphemous for entire congregations to have praised God for decades concerning a concept that is not recognized as true.
There are so many scriptures that implicate Her existance that I think the onus is on the naysayers to prove she does not exist and why not.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree with Kent. I think it's beautiful and it makes sense to me and I like it and it feels right and I believe it, but it isn't doctrine the way the restoration of the Priesthood or the nature of God the Father is.
quote:Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.
With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.
However many scriptures seem to "implicate" her existance, none of them say it outright and the conclusion must be inferred.
It is not said outright in a official proclamation by the Church, it isn't said outright in the scriptures, and it isn't in the Articles of Faith. That does NOT mean it can't be true, but it isn't official doctrine.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:The concept of Mother in Heaven is speculative doctrine.
I don't agree with you. In the temple it is understood that the participants will become kings and priestesses and will continue to propagate children. If the participants remain true to their covenants it is taught they will become like God and have an eternal family.
The very nature of Mormonism and eternal goals requires a Heavenly mother. There might not be written canon on the subject, but it is certainly more then speculative.
EDIT
quote: The mortal mother of Jesus is not considered a deity to the LDS. We revere her but don't pray to her.
I think what you said is speculation, and I will continue to speculate. In Mormonism I can't help but see the Heavenly Mother as Deity. Mormons are taught that married couples in this life are equal with different roles. The priesthood, Exaltation, is not complete without both roles.
We may not understand her role, but that doesn't make her a non-Deity. The Holy Ghost is a Deity and we don't pray to him/her/it. Mormons don't even pray to Jesus, and He is considered Deity.
I am only talking about how I perceive Mormon doctrine, not my own personal beliefs.
[ May 07, 2007, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem:
quote:The concept of Mother in Heaven is speculative doctrine.
I don't agree with you. In the temple it is understood that the participants will become kings and priestesses and will continue to propagate children. If the participants remain true to their covenants it is taught they will become like God and have an eternal family.
The very nature of Mormonism and eternal goals requires a Heavenly mother. There might not be written canon on the subject, but it is certainly more then speculative.
I agree with what you are saying. What if there was something particular to our God's case that does indeed remove a heavenly mother from the picture? I have no idea what specifically but it's just a thought.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
lem,
I disagree with you on the certainty of Mother in Heaven in Mormon doctrine. It isn't in any of the sources listed above as sources of official doctrine. I think it is important to clarify the differences between official doctrine and non-official doctrine found in statements made by leaders of the church.
It could be true and I think it is, but it isn't and hasn't ever been official.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Does Mormon doctrine require that God have not just a physical body but also a human body? If not, "he" could reproduce asexually.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Does Mormon doctrine require that God have not just a physical body but also a human body? If not, "he" could reproduce asexually.
Its more OUR bodies are patterned off of His. What abilities God's body has that ours does not is limited in treatment by scripture.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
Just because something is speculative doesn't mean it isn't true. However, the concept of a Mother in Heaven is so far to the periferies of the gospel that it really is not a core doctrine. If the prophet were to come out and teach that there is no Mother in Heaven it would not damage my faith.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I will say that the idea of a "Mother in Heaven" is doctrinal without reservation. In fact, I think we would have to have a revelation about her NOT existing to say otherwise.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What are you basing that on, Occ? How do you reconcile that with the statement on the church website that says doctrine must be in the scriptures, a proclamation, or the Articles of Faith to be official?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
What BlackBlade said. We are patterned after Him, not to mention are His Children. So, logically He has the same body type as us. Even if that is not stated in scripture, description of Him in Mormon revelations are of a human body of unimaginable glory.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
Tom, I do not know of any scriptures which speak of how God created our spirits. Many people believe it is similar to how our bodies were created (Dad & Mom). We do not claim to know how God even created Adam and Eve, and how they were different from the other humans which may have been living on the earth (and there are plenty of Mormons that believe in Evolution). As a result, we definitely do not have any doctrine on how God came to have the physical body that prophets have attested to witnessing. There is one camp in the church that speculates that God was once a man living on an earth who worshipped his God the Father, and back and back and back. The truth to these questions is usually, "We just don't know."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Occ, did you see my questions? How do you reconcile what you said with the statement from the church that only that which is in the scriptures, a proclamation, or the Articles of Faith is official?
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
Occasional, we do not even know how the Father came to have a human body. "Logically" is not the same as "doctrinally." Members are free to speculate on this and a host of other ideas. A non-binding non-canonical belief could be a popularly held notion, but is it really the same as "doctrine"?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
What statement of mine are you talking about? God's body type or the Mother in Heaven?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I will say that the idea of a "Mother in Heaven" is doctrinal without reservation. In fact, I think we would have to have a revelation about her NOT existing to say otherwise.
That statement. It isn't stated anywhere in the places listed as sources of official doctrine.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Well then for the purposes of this discussion I am divorcing "doctrine" with "truth" as clearly all doctrine is truth but not all truth is official doctrine.
But as for official documentation of a heavenl mother,
From the Proclamation to the Family, "All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose" (emphasis mine)
[ May 07, 2007, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"How do you reconcile what you said with the statement from the church that only that which is in the scriptures, a proclamation, or the Articles of Faith is official?"
That is the question isn't it? I am sorry, but I am not the only Mormon who sees those rules as, at best, minimizing the effect of pop-doctrines in the Mormon culture. I fully sympathize with the idea of more rigorous definitions of doctrine, but think it has its limits for clear understanding. Mormon doctrine is not static or (mostly) dogmatic.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So you're taking issue with the statement from the church?
Do you define Mormon doctrine as what is official doctrine or as what most Mormons believe?
In case it isn't clear, I am opposed to members deciding on their own what is and isn't official doctrine and proclaiming it as such.
--
BB: That's the strongest statement I've seen from the official sources of doctrine. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I am not taking issue with it *so far as its purpose to help people "outside" understand the doctrinal issues involved in the Mormon faith.* However, as a general statement FOR the faithful, I think it is a minimalist set of guidelines to curtail the more extreme personal beliefs.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't agree. Do you think the church is saying one thing to non-members and the press and another thing to members? What makes you think that?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
No I do not. However, the purposes are different. It is the difference between the Constitution of the United States and the Laws created in association with it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: if the hymns we sing are a prayer to God himself.
It's my opinion that Heavenly Father and Mother are even more perfectly unified than the rest of the Godhead, so talking about the one is talking about the other. I'm not willing to go so far as to say they are physically one body; but it makes for some interesting thoughts.
quote:The Holy Ghost is a Deity and we don't pray to him/her/it.
The Holy Ghost is male, at least if we take Nephi's account of his encounter with him literally.
quote:Mormons don't even pray to Jesus, and He is considered Deity.
Well...actually we DO pray to Jesus--if He's physically present. Again, quibbles.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
Scott, you should change your screen name to "quibbles".
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'll think about it. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Wouldn't that violate your apathy policy?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
*giggles* at rivka
Did anyone capture this on video or dvd? I was able to see part 1 (as I was in a hotel that had TV and cable) but not part 2. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:It is the difference between the Constitution of the United States and the Laws created in association with it.
Ah. I see it as Doctrine, then informed opinions from leaders about doctrine, then speculative doctrine, then folk doctrine, then false doctrine.
And anything other than the first doctrine carries with it the possibility of being false doctrine.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Ah. I see it as Doctrine, then informed opinions from leaders about doctrine, then speculative doctrine, then folk doctrine, then false doctrine.
I'm not saying that the "Heavenly Mother" doctrine necessarily falls into the category I'm about to postulate, but I DO think there are some doctrines which, while never explicitly stated, must logically follow from explicit doctrines. For example, if you have a doctrine that says "all berries are yummy," and you have another doctrine that says "tomatoes are to be considered berries in all respects," it should ALSO be considered doctrine that tomatoes are yummy.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Wouldn't that violate your apathy policy?
It's a kinder, gentler apathy which I represent. I don't have to be all up in your face about the fact that I'm apathetic; I'm content to uncare about things rather lazily.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, I know and that makes sense. However, considering human vagaries and the fact that hundred people can read the same scripture and be sure of a hundred different meanings, I don't like holding the conclusion of inferences as gospel.
I think such a conclusion very well COULD be true, but I don't think we do ourselves or anyone else any favors by blurring the line between what it explicit and what is inferred. That's how culture and traditions get mixed in with absolute truth.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Oh, I know and that makes sense. However, considering human vagaries and the fact that hundred people can read the same scripture and be sure of a hundred different meanings, I don't like holding the conclusion of inferences as gospel.
I think such a conclusion very well COULD be true, but I don't think we do ourselves or anyone else any favors by blurring the line between what it explicit and what is inferred. That's how culture and traditions get mixed in with absolute truth.
I disagree that we do not do ourselves any favors when we take our own study of the scriptures and draw conclusions that the general authorities have not given their blessing too. Everyone is to read the scriptures precisely so that they can learn how to become like God, and to know what He knows. Having strong opinions and well thought out theories are a good thing, its good to practice applying your knowledge and solving problems.
The only pitfall is when somebody takes a theory or conclusion and decides it proves that official doctrinal statements made by the general authorities are wrong, and they need to be corrected. Note this is not the same as disagreeing with a general authority.
For example there was a man in my ward who slowly over time came to the conclusion that he was a woman trapped in a man's body. He later claimed that God himself had appeared to him and told him that he was a crusader for others like him and that the church had failed to recognize the truth that he was being revealed by God.
I honestly saw alot of restraint and attempts at reconciliation on the part of the branch presidency and the stake presidency. In the end, this man simply would not acknowledge the authority of the general authorities and the rules regarding ordinances (sacraments) and he left the church.
I will agree with you Kat that when we insist others recognize our own ideas as doctrine, we run some terrible risks. It is better to suggest those ideas as possibilities, and if they ring true, the holy ghost will confirm the truthfulness of it. But ideas that rely on clever wording and passionate debate are rarely useful, and its typically best to just cling to what the scriptures and general authorities make abundantly plain.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Wouldn't that violate your apathy policy?
It's a kinder, gentler apathy which I represent. I don't have to be all up in your face about the fact that I'm apathetic; I'm content to uncare about things rather lazily.
Well-known plots and machinery would seem to indicate otherwise. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well-known plots?
Eh, you don' know nuthin.'
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
This talk was given in 1991, when President Hinckley was a counselor in the 1st presidency. Even he fell shy of saying that the doctrine is canonical, although he certainly endorsed it and he was the president of the Church when the aforementioned Proclamation was written which includes the words "Heavenly Parents":
quote: “It was Eliza R. Snow who wrote the words: ‘Truth is reason; truth eternal / Tells me I’ve a mother there.’ (Hymns, 1985, no. 292.)
“It has been said that the Prophet Joseph Smith made no correction to what Sister Snow had written. Therefore, we have a Mother in Heaven. Therefore, [some assume] that we may appropriately pray to her.
“Logic and reason would certainly suggest that if we have a Father in Heaven, we have a Mother in Heaven. That doctrine rests well with me.
(He went on to say that it is not appropriate to pray to our Heavenly Mother.)
I have this recollection that he's brought up this topic more recently in conference, but I can't find it anywhere. Then again, I may be crazy.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I DO think there are some doctrines which, while never explicitly stated, must logically follow from explicit doctrines.
If we can change "must logically follow" to "logically seem to follow", I'll agree.
[ May 08, 2007, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
The Wikipedia article brought up polygamy in a context I've never considered before. Is it a widely held belief that while it's important to avoid polygamy in this life due to social constraints, plural marriage is practiced in heaven?
The only reason I bring it up is because the Wiki article mentioned the possibility of there being more than one Heavenly Mother.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
We don't know exactly how it happens in heaven. However, it is possible for a man to be sealed to more than one wife for eternity. My dad is sealed to both my mother and my step-mother.
No, I'm not terribly happy about it.
However, it wouldn't be heaven if it was a problem, so something there is going to give, I think. I leave open the possibility that it might be my feelings about it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Eh, you don' know nuthin.'
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)