However, it turns out that things have gone south for the TBMs. Here is the most recent OP on this topic on the fittingly named MADboard:
cdowis wrote:My daughter just received an email.Miraculously I have had the opportunity to watch the two day special of the PBS- The Mormons series. As a member of the Church I was horrified by the slanted and negative way that they depicted our history and our first prophet. In the first two hours they used many historians to validate their FACTS, but only a few of those were LDS. The second hour of the first night is exclusively about the MT. Meadows Massacre, polygamy and fundamentalist Mormons? and their belief that they are the TRUE followers of Joseph Smith. I don't want even my children to see the Monday night showing of the PBS special.
Happily the Tuesday night two hours are better. Elder Jensen is the spokesman and they discuss our missionary force, the family, the Temple and our humanitarian efforts.... but they also have a large segment on dissenters- excommunicated anti's, gays and ERA disgruntles. The second night certainly didn't raise huge questions of doctrine and minute pieces of history.
I would suggest that members tape the two nights and watch them in the privacy of their homes and then share with friends and family those parts that are FACTUAL, and write PBS specifically with the concerns that you have regarding the integrity of the FALSE depictions of a church that is just trying to follow the Savior.
Later, DCP shows up to perform damage control. He has said elsewhere that he likes the director of the film---Helen Whitney---"very, very much." Now, though, his opinion of her appears to have cooled considerably:
Daniel Peterson wrote:PBS didn't make the film. Helen Whitney made the film. I like Helen Whitney. She's a nice person. She's intelligent, and a superb filmmaker. But she's not infallible. (I doubt that she claims infallibility.) And reliable sources tell me that she's been under at least some pressure (from elements of PBS) to make the film less positive (i.e., more negative).
A couple of questions. 1) Who are his "reliable sources"? Ms. Whitney herself? Lou "Hey did you hear about Mike Quinn" Midgley? And 2) Why, if he likes her so much, is he now calling her "fallible"? Does he feel (or suspect) that he's been "played for a sucker"?
Anyways, he goes on:
Daniel Peterson wrote:I have hopes that the film will be a good one. I will be surprised if it's not sympathetic. That said, she spoke with more dissidents than I would have preferred (in fact, with more than I would regard as proportionate), and such interviews will, no doubt, have their coloring effect. I repeat what I've predicted before: Most likely, the film will be too negative for believing Latter-day Saints and too positive for hostile critics. Which is probably about the best that we can ever hope for from PBS.
It is intriguing that he is apparently advocating censorship (e.g., his "more dissidents than I would have preferred" comment). It's also interesting to me that he's now including the "[it] will be too negative for TBMs/Chapel Mormons" caveat. This was a remark that was totally absent from his and others' earlier gloating about this film. All his braggadocio has come back to bite him on the tush!
Further on, many TBMs are beginning to launch personal attacks on the Good Professor's beloved Helen Whitney, such as this one from simply_disappear:
I don't suggest she's less than honorable. I suggest that from what I've read and heard it is not going to be something likely to be palatable for most Saints. I think it's a weird thing to do in the name of "honesty" coming from a person of her standing.
To which DCP replies:
(emphasis added)Daniel Peterson wrote:What, exactly, did she do?
I've only seen bits and pieces of the film, and I'm in it.
It is often customary for filmmakers to show their films to the people who appeared in them, except in cases such as this one---where the person making the on-camera appearance is likely to get upset over the final cut. I really have to wonder whether or not DCP has been duped this time. I.e., in his quest to "crush" the "anti-Mormon element," and smear Tal Bachman and the RfM crowd, he inadvertently stepped into a trap of his own design.
But what excites me the most is hearing that he is actually in the film! What will the subtitle say about him? "Professor, BYU"? "Chief Apologist, FARMS"? I am so curious to find out! I cannot *wait* for this film!