Mormons Respond to 'The Mormons' on PBS

I always find it interesting to see how member of the Church respond to its portal in the media. I found Helen Whitney's documentary 'The Mormons' to be a well balanced and respectful presentation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Even the Church's official response to the program seems to reflect that sentiment. However much of the grass-roots Mormon community who viewed PBS's recent offering apparently felt differently (click here). This was brought home to me in my ward sacrament meeting the Sunday following the broadcast. It was fast & testimony meeting so members of the congregation could come up to the podium and speak there minds about the faith (at least in theory). About 3 0r 4 people mentioned the documentary in their testimony's, each time it was referenced negatively. The general consensus among those who spoke on the topic, seemed to be that it missed the point (or the heart) of the LDS message, namely its literal trueness and exclusive hold on all things divine. Some even went so far as to suggestion the program intentionally mis-lead viewers and was thus potently destructive to their salvation.

I find this frustrating. I can understand their arguments to an extent, but would couch them in very different terms. It is unfortunate that most of my fellow Mormons have come to view any presentation of material related to the Church in a dualistic way. Either it is pro-Mormon, meaning it embraces the present orthodox or mainstream views within the LDS Church, or it anti-Mormon, meaning it is in any way critical (i.e. less then glowing) about the Mormon experience or the institutional church. In other words there can be only propaganda pro-or-con (with the pro side being divinely sanctioned), and no middle journalistic ground. This is false. Things simply aren't that simple.

As with most things there is a wide spectrum of views on the Church that can be legitimately held, with no underling malice necessary. We have a complicated history, lot's of doctrine, tradition, and folk lore, as well a diverse body of lived experience by those with-in the LDS orbit. Jan Shipps, the Ostlings, Van Hale, and others present information which is ambiguous, journalistic, or scholarly. It is not propaganda, it is not (necessarily) left or right. It just is. We need to deal with what 'just is', it is how we can grow and develop. Dismissing things (for which there is great evidence) just because we don't like them, is a bit like poking our heads in the sand. It accomplishes nothing but the illusion of safety. It is merly denial. Only by engaging what concerns us do we have the hope of arriving at some answers. We may have to change our views on some of the details, but if were confident in a 'core truth' why should that concern us? We Mormons tend to dismiss our critics as unable to digest all of the gospel truths that we have found, but might not we ourselves be forsaking some truths because we find them hard to bare, or pose the risks for loss that any transition can offer. I suggest that we try to be stronger, that we be fair in evaluating what information comes or way, even if we might rather not. I mean we expect those investing our Church to confront a similar risk, and possible paradigm shift when exploring our faith, is it not hypocritical for use to avoid doing the same. "I never said it would be easy" doesn't only apply to 'the other'.

I hope we as a faith can grow to understand that not everyone's out to get us, there are legitimate questions raised by our faith and practice, past and present, and we should treat those who raise these issues with the respect that we collectively feel Joseph was denied by the establishment of his own day. If we are confident that we are guided by the truth, what have we to fear?