DiscussMormonism.com

Well, it was nary two months ago that DCP, juliann, and the rest of the aptly named MADcrew were celebrating, salivating, and rubbing their hands together with glee at the prospect of the PBS documentary The Mormons really sinking its teeth into Church critics such as Tal Bachman. "Ha ha!" they chortled. "They're going to be so disappointed when they don't get their way! Woo hoo!"

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:

Daniel Peterson wrote:What, exactly, did she do?

I've only seen bits and pieces of the film, and I'm in it.

(emphasis added)

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!

Mister Scratch wrote: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!

The Krispy King? This certainly looks like an embarrassing climbdown for MADB.

From what you've posted here, I think DCP's response is right: neither the TBMs or the critics are going to be completely happy. I've heard Tal Bachman say how disappointed he was to here how positive Ms. Whitney was toward the church.

That said, if a sympathetic filmmaker gave a reasonably accurate portrayal of the church, I think that's wonderful.

I don't see any reason to be overly positive or negative toward the church. A balanced and reasonably accurate portrayal is the best anyone can hope for.

When will the film be shown? I would like to see it.

Maybe they are just hedging their bets. If it turns out to be faith promoting then they wil sing Helen Whitney's praises and if it is not faith promoting, then they will know she is in league with the devil. For the rest of America, it will provide more information about the LDS Church than several years worth of missionary efforts.

Runtu wrote:From what you've posted here, I think DCP's response is right: neither the TBMs or the critics are going to be completely happy. I've heard Tal Bachman say how disappointed he was to here how positive Ms. Whitney was toward the church.

That said, if a sympathetic filmmaker gave a reasonably accurate portrayal of the church, I think that's wonderful.

I don't see any reason to be overly positive or negative toward the church. A balanced and reasonably accurate portrayal is the best anyone can hope for.

Agreed 100%. I would prefer there to be no spin one way or the other. An unbiased, straightforward presentation of the "facts" is what I'm hoping for. "Facts' of course being those things that most everyone agrees on. MAD types and RfM types will most likely be disappointed, but I would hope those of us on boards like this will be satisfied with a balanced approach. In reality, a presentation of the known facts will upset chapel Mormons most, because even apologists and internet Mormons agree with most of the so called "anti-mormon" issues. They simply disagree with the implications.

It will be interesting to see it.

I know Tal was really put off by Whitney, but I visited with Will Bagley when he was in town (NYC) to do his interview and he didn't have the same impression at all. On RfM last week someone posted something Bagley had written about it (I guess he'd seen an advance cut) and he's apparently still favorably inclined.

Runtu wrote:From what you've posted here, I think DCP's response is right: neither the TBMs or the critics are going to be completely happy. I've heard Tal Bachman say how disappointed he was to here how positive Ms. Whitney was toward the church.

That said, if a sympathetic filmmaker gave a reasonably accurate portrayal of the church, I think that's wonderful.

I don't see any reason to be overly positive or negative toward the church. A balanced and reasonably accurate portrayal is the best anyone can hope for.

I hate to head down this Mopologetic rabbit hole, but I think we must face the facts: "positive" and "negative", "balanced" and "accurate," mean very different things to the various faction of online Mormonism. For many of the TBMs on the fittingly named MADboard, "accurate" is synonymous with "faith promoting." Heck, the Mopologists and Correlation have been given an ecclesiastical mandate to supply the rank-and-file with only faith-promoting materials.

What has been so interesting to me is to watch the Krispy Kreme King gradually shift his position from one of rancid and elated glee about Bachman's gripes, to hesitancy, and now to outright defensiveness. This is just yet more proof of the untenable nature of Mopologetics. From an outsider perspective, I am quite sure that The Mormons will seem "balanced and accurate." The group that will likely take the worst damage from this, naturally, are the TBMs.

liz3564 wrote:When will the film be shown? I would like to see it.

The doc is scheduled to air this Monday and Tuesday (Apr. 30-May 1), on your local PBS affiliate.

Mister Scratch wrote:I hate to head down this Mopologetic rabbit hole, but I think we must face the facts: "positive" and "negative", "balanced" and "accurate," mean very different things to the various faction of online Mormonism. For many of the TBMs on the fittingly named MADboard, "accurate" is synonymous with "faith promoting." Heck, the Mopologists and Correlation have been given an ecclesiastical mandate to supply the rank-and-file with only faith-promoting materials.

That goes without saying, Scratch, and it's one of the most frustrating things about critics and believers trying to talk to one another. We can't even agree on the known facts, and it often degenerates into a shouting match of "liar!" and "heathen!" (to steal a phrase).

What has been so interesting to me is to watch the Krispy Kreme King gradually shift his position from one of rancid and elated glee about Bachman's gripes, to hesitancy, and now to outright defensiveness. This is just yet more proof of the untenable nature of Mopologetics. From an outsider perspective, I am quite sure that The Mormons will seem "balanced and accurate." The group that will likely take the worst damage from this, naturally, are the TBMs.

I guess the problem comes when people become so rigidly wed to their perspective that anything that conflicts with it is hostile and biased. That goes for critics and apologists alike.