Page 1 of 9
Helen Whitney and the Princeton panel presentation
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:32 pm
by _moksha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4tQpk4m6gI
At MAD, Cdowis posed the question, "Can we really suppose that she was unbiased on her treatment of the church?"
Runtu had this insightful commentary:
I'd say that the end result (the documentary) is a better indicator of her "bias" than some interview. On the whole, I thought the documentary was pretty fair. But then I'm an apostate, so what do I know?
Edit: Having now watched the clip, I'd say you guys might learn something about how you're perceived by "outsiders." I don't see a particular bias against Mormons in what she said, but an understandable frustration at what we've all seen: attempts by some Mormons to distance themselves from their own theology. She really wasn't saying anything that wasn't said in the NY Times article, which several church members here said was positive. The idea, as I see it, is that you have a church trying to mainstream at the same time it internally maintains its doctrinal peculiarities, leading to "secrecy" and a dual public/private face of the church.
What sayest thou?
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:47 pm
by _Runtu
Apparently my comments were seen as an attack on the church and a defense of Ms. Whitney.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 pm
by _Who Knows
Jeez, what is he looking for? If she were any more unbiased towards the church, she'd be baptized.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:00 pm
by _moksha
I think the question could be framed as to whether it is good for the Church to have secretive doctrines which they either deny, downplay or tell another story publicly. At MAD, one of the posters offered the defense that transparency is not a good thing. However, that runs afoul of the old saying that honesty is the best policy. Can this evasiveness and obfuscation be beneficial in any way?
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:11 pm
by _skippy the dead
I think Ms. Whitney was pretty accurate in describing the perception of how the church has represented some of its core and difficult doctrines. I believe that rather than give a misleading reply to a question (a la Hinckley with King and Wallace, or the answers to the Fox News questions), the church should simply state "That's a very complex area of our doctrine that would not be served by the kind of response I can give to an interviewer." None of this "I dunno" crap.
And I did like the way she described the church's attempts to rub off the rough edges as part of an attempt to mainstream.
And cdowis is an ass to put a comment that Ms. Whitney is a "sick person". Puh-lease.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:31 pm
by _Runtu
skippy the dead wrote:I think Ms. Whitney was pretty accurate in describing the perception of how the church has represented some of its core and difficult doctrines. I believe that rather than give a misleading reply to a question (a la Hinckley with King and Wallace, or the answers to the Fox News questions), the church should simply state "That's a very complex area of our doctrine that would not be served by the kind of response I can give to an interviewer." None of this "I dunno" crap.
And I did like the way she described the church's attempts to rub off the rough edges as part of an attempt to mainstream.
And cdowis is an ass to put a comment that Ms. Whitney is a "sick person". Puh-lease.
Does anyone remember that PBS "documentary" called "American Prophet"? I suspect that this is the only kind of documentary that some believers will find acceptable. It was essentially a love letter to Joseph Smith that somehow made it onto PBS. I suppose Charles Dowis thinks that one was "objective."
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:56 pm
by _Abinadi's Fire
moksha wrote:I think the question could be framed as to whether it is good for the Church to have secretive doctrines which they either deny, downplay or tell another story publicly. At MAD, one of the posters offered the defense that transparency is not a good thing. However, that runs afoul of the old saying that honesty is the best policy. Can this evasiveness and obfuscation be beneficial in any way?
This is interesting, to me, in light of a story in the Book of Mormon regarding "guile":
Alma 18:23 And the king answered him, and said: Yea, I will believe all thy words. And thus he was caught with guile.
In the verses following this statement, Ammon describes God in terms understood by the "investigator," Lamoni.
The use of the term "guile" makes me wonder exactly what Ammon believed and the intent of his guile. Was he using guile in his description of God as a "Great Spirit?" Or was he using guile when he said he was sent in the name of that Spirit?
What was Ammon's "guile?"
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:49 pm
by _truth dancer
I thought the clip demonstrats the difficulty many have with the LDS church.
One can't really get honest answers regarding doctrine/teachings/beliefs. Maybe because no one really knows? -)
It can be frustrating.
~dancer~
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:50 pm
by _Runtu
truth dancer wrote:I thought the clip demonstrats the difficulty many have with the LDS church.
One can't really get honest answers regarding doctrine/teachings/beliefs. Maybe because no one really knows? -)
It can be frustrating.
~dancer~
Of course. And it does no one any good to say that those who express such frustration are just evil antis with an axe to grind.
Missionaries downplay the problematic all the time. I never taught a black investigator about the priesthood ban; I regret that. But it's standard procedure in the church to be evasive about the problematic.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:52 pm
by _moksha
As far as Helen Whitney goes, one needs to only look at the continuance of her remarks in this address (Click on
Mormon Certainty)
http://fora.tv/2007/11/10/Mitt_Mormonism_and_the_Media in order to understand her respect for the Mormons.