DiscussMormonism.com

I am of course speaking of the recent 11 part series by documentarian Kerry Shirts. One must wonder about the intentions behind this series of videos clips. Other than perhaps not paying attention to which part was what, Mister Scratch may have been confused as I was initially by the Lynchian suspense of chronological order and seeming lack of continuity that was yet painfully devoid of any redemptive subtley to nag for interpretation.

What seems to have happened is that Kerry Shirts with his humorous apologetic side-kick personality, set out to make a video postcard for the monetarily compensated senior apologist Bill Hamblin who is currently doing a lucrative side-job in Oxford. The project seemed to take on bigger dimensions as Shirts went along, evolving from hamming it up with his pals for Hamblin, to a more over-arching coverage of the conference complete with an awkwardly placed music accompanied montage, to finally a serious concrete jungle "interview with scholars" which may have fuled an initially unintended yet later augmented scope of revenge campaign against the "Shades message boards".

It seems that Shirts, searching for his own meaning of the piece, slapped on the introduction after the fact where he highlights his favorite parts of a "make it up as you go along" exercise in documentary film.

I would say that the most prominent failure of the film then, is Shirts's inability to set to scope of his piece.

But ultimately, confusing as it may be, we must accept his introduction as outlining his intended interpretation. Unfortunately, the substance of the film fails drastically to make good on his promises.

First and foremost, let's just get the angry get-your-ball-out-of-my-yard diatribe against the Shades message board out of the way. His sentences here, about this very forum, evoked more emotion than any other part of the documentary. Shirts is very upset that we on this forum do not understand Dr. Peterson's sense of humor. We just don't get what a great, noble, and nice fellow he is. So in part 5, he holds a very lengthy interview with Peterson where it is explained that Peterson softens his disdain for other posters by using irony. Where Peterson's brain is thinking "you idiot, you moron," his fingers type irony. So now, when we read ironic statement after ironic statement from Peterson, we are given the legend from Shirts whereby to make the appropriate insulting substitutions. And this is supposed to make us feel better about Peterson, to make us think Peterson is a "nice guy" and misunderstood, where in reality, the only misunderstanding would be that we might have thought Peterson was just being funny, when really all the time he's holding back a slew of personal insults?!

Please, do not get me wrong, my intention here is not to criticize Peterson, but rather Kerry's fumbling attempt to make a convincing documentary. Where he intends to deliver bridge-building material to resentful anti-Mormons in need of repentence, he only delivers good reasons for their distrust and fules the fire.

Perhaps the most startling aspect of Shirts's documentary, though, is his failure to deliver the "good times with old friends" promise. In his introduction, he notes the linking up with old buddies to be the best part of the conference. Yet, because of his boisterous and in some cases physically invasive antics he proceeds to embarrass just about everyone he holds the camera to in the first 4 parts of his feature. While this works a little bit for a personal video card, Shirts broadened the scope to a documentary, and the result is that he comes across much like Michael Moore when Moore interviews his adversaries!

Shirts literally succeedes in making the lower tier apologists look dumb, caught off guard and not knowing how to respond. You can see them dreading Shirts's approach with the camera and quickly looking for a way out exactly as in those situations where Moore happens upon republican politicians. In this regard then, he failed in his objective to portray the deep apologist to apologist bonding he set out to.

Another heavy mention in Shirts's intro was directed toward a high school kid who goes by "the romulator" or something like that on MAD. For all I could tell, the fascination was something akin to finding a younger version of himself. Because of the like mindedness between the two, this was perhaps the most successful part of the film as to living up to Shirts's promises. Indeed, we are convinced that mini-Shirts and big-Shirts had a good time cracking jokes together. For obvious reasons, this is not a substantial victory for the project, however.

Finally, Shirts is triumphant over a long interview with Blake Ostler which spans three segments. Shirts assures us that after listening to Ostler, we'll be blown away with the intellectual prowess that is Mormon thought. Now, I have a few comments about this interview. First of all, as I sat peering into the screen with brow furrowed and hands clasped with chin resting against my index fingers, I could not help but be distracted by Ostler's suite which if worn to sacrament meeting, would significantly violate dress protocol as outlined by the Brethren. I had not taken Ostler to be such a man of fashion.

Of course, the failure of this interview is clear, Shirts promises revolutionary insight wheras what Ostler delivers is a ham-fisted barrage of basic skeptical points that were made far more riviting in the movie "The Matrix". I will admit I found this interview very confusing as my own online experience with Blake has him defending traditional philosophy before the modern period and becoming frustrated with skepticism presented by LDS thinkers who question representationalism and so on. Also, there seemed to be a great taking advantage of Immanuel Kant who hypothesized the noumena as that which lies beyond human experience. They seemed to be saying that this realms is "known by the heart" which has nothing to do with Kant nor any philosopher I'm aware of.

Anyway, I don't mean to put Ostler down. I like him. I've found him very pleasant to interact with, much more so than virtually any of the other apologists. My criticism is towards the demands of the documentary as placed by the documentary's creator. Certainly, Ostler might have been confused by Kerry's way of questioning. It certainly didn't help that while Blake was going to the lengths of quoting words said in the temple and commenting on them, Kerry would shove his face in the camera for a quick "hi mom!" And certainly Blake wasn't the one representing his answers to Kerry's questions as revolutionary.

A final observation about the film. Shirts does give us a good insight into the "put off" feelings of the Yale scholars upon encountering the apologists who promoted each other as if they were all celebraties. Kerry grovels before standard professors who are only the world's greatest minds to LDS, who make the judgement as Kerry does by noting a large number of LDS books they write as opposed to peer-reviewed articles within their respective fields.

All in all, a turkey of a documentary. Though in a strange way, lovable in its failures and entertaining to those of us who follow apologists for their personalities.

Interesting write-up, Gadianton. I've only watched the parts that Mister Scratch linked--along with Part 1, which is chronologically the final part filmed--so I didn't see many of the parts that you referenced.

You can see them dreading Shirts's approach with the camera and quickly looking for a way out exactly as in those situations where Moore happens upon republican politicians.

Everyone except "The Rommelator," that high school senior who is apparently the Mopologetic messiah in embryo. He seemed to be loving the camera time almost as much as Kerry himself.

At any rate, I didn't actually see the interview with Ostler, but I do remember the Backyard Professor going on and on about his book as though it was the Second Coming of Christ. Will you please give me a run-down as to what, exactly, Ostler's book was about?

Oh I love Brother Shirts! He is my fav Youtube LDS apologist!

I wish I could have been able to have attended the Fair conference, but I could not get off work. :(

I know, I know, his production quality was kinda rough, but he is a nice guy. His humor does take some getting used to, but once you do get used to it, it is addictive!

He reminds me of one of my parents home teachers. I think he just wants to have fun and while he helps to defend the Gospel.

Well, I better get to bed, Church starts at 10:30am. But heck sacrament meeting is last, so dunno, I might sleep in!

And this is supposed to make us feel better about Peterson, to make us think Peterson is a "nice guy" and misunderstood, where in reality, the only misunderstanding would be that we might have thought Peterson was just being funny, when really all the time he's holding back a slew of personal insults?!

Oh my gosh, I'm just shocked!!

Actually, the part that shocks me is that there was ever any question that DCP's humor is largely insult-based.

One of the strangest aspects of internet debates between Mormon and critic is the condescension that apologists so frequently manifest. One would think that the apologists are actually defending academically and scientifically accepted concepts that only silly ignoramuses would challenge. When one considers that the reality is that they're defending a religion based on a man translating disappearing gold plates by look at a rock on a hat, it's almost surreal.

Dr. Shades wrote:Interesting write-up, Gadianton. I've only watched the parts that Mister Scratch linked--along with Part 1, which is chronologically the final part filmed--so I didn't see many of the parts that you referenced.

You can see them dreading Shirts's approach with the camera and quickly looking for a way out exactly as in those situations where Moore happens upon republican politicians.

Everyone except "The Rommelator," that high school senior who is apparently the Mopologetic messiah in embryo. He seemed to be loving the camera time almost as much as Kerry himself.

At any rate, I didn't actually see the interview with Ostler, but I do remember the Backyard Professor going on and on about his book as though it was the Second Coming of Christ. Will you please give me a run-down as to what, exactly, Ostler's book was about?

Let me give you and others wanting to view the whole documentary a hint. Go to the Youtube search and type "pt7 fair conference" or just substitute the "pt7" with whatever part you want to see. I didn't try past 11, there may even be a part 12 or 13 for all I know.

Ah, thanks for the correction on the name, Rom must be a new poster I am not familiar with. You are absolutely right, hence, this is why I made special note that this part of the documentary *worked* according to Kerry's stated objectives for his film in part 1.

As for Ostler's book, that's a good question. A question our documentarian failed to address. I can tell you from my reading of Ostler on Clark Goble's blog, that he is very interested in framing Mormon theology in the language such as the early Church fathers and Catholic metaphysicians. He mentions the "Summa Theologica" in his interview. But during most of the interview with Kerry is unleashing a harsh critique of "truth" and attacking the viability of science to answer important questions for humanity. I was just confused because his frequent appeals to Kant dismisses his own metaphysics long before it reveals constraints of science. His frequent quick and dirty "how do we know what reality is" kind of points go against the positions I usually see him argue for and he is often critical of Clark for being a postmodernist. But the bottom line is, if you want a clear explanation of what's in Ostler's book, I'm not sure watching his interview here will help.

CT wrote:I know, I know, his production quality was kinda rough, but he is a nice guy. His humor does take some getting used to, but once you do get used to it, it is addictive

Welcome to the board CT. Yes, I think Kerry is a nice guy. I think his humor is a strong point, and the fact that his humor is genuine and usually good-natured, he is a valuable asset to the apologetic front. But, underneath the surface of an accomplished comedian is a deep seriousness about the humor. Kerry should by all means use the strengths of his personaility in his film work. But I believe he needs to make that transition from "class clown" with a camera to comedian before he will ever produce a successful documentary.

Beastie wrote:One of the strangest aspects of internet debates between Mormon and critic is the condescension that apologists so frequently manifest

You can read this subtext in Shirts's documentary. Kerry has the camera glued for long periods of time to the books being sold and makes comment after comment about how enlightened Mormon "scholars" are. I believe Mr. Scratch in his important commentary on this film mentioned that it's as if Shirts is trying to make the argument "Mormons read lots of books therefore the church is true!"

The apologists are very upset over the fact that critics will not recognize their great learning. But the thing is, they end up venting their frustrations in these exhausting contradictions. On the one hand, if a critic says that an apologist is wrong, the apologist snaps back with comments about the critic's lack of credentials to make the criticism. But then they get even more frustrated when critics point out that LDS "scholarship" isn't taken seriously in established academic circles. But if one isn't qualified to judge the merits of the work, her only recourse is to appeal to the opinions of related experts. No doubt, those LDS who agree with the apologists are qualified to make the scholarly assessment, no matter what their lack of credentials may be. And this will tab up 95% of the apologist's audience.

Bottom line is, unless the critic will agree that LDS have serious intellectual reasons for believing the truth of Mormonism, they will not be happy.

How sad that this is what you spend your time doing.

Can you elaborate LoP? What am I doing, and why is it sad?

And what do you spend your thousands of hours on message boards doing that is either so important, or praisworthy?

Dr. Shades wrote:Interesting write-up, Gadianton. I've only watched the parts that Mister Scratch linked--along with Part 1, which is chronologically the final part filmed--so I didn't see many of the parts that you referenced.

You can see them dreading Shirts's approach with the camera and quickly looking for a way out exactly as in those situations where Moore happens upon republican politicians.

Everyone except "The Rommelator," that high school senior who is apparently the Mopologetic messiah in embryo. He seemed to be loving the camera time almost as much as Kerry himself.

At any rate, I didn't actually see the interview with Ostler, but I do remember the Backyard Professor going on and on about his book as though it was the Second Coming of Christ. Will you please give me a run-down as to what, exactly, Ostler's book was about?

It's actually a series of books: Exploring Mormon Thought. Volumes 1 and 2 are available. I'm not sure if 3 is for sale as of yet.

I'm making my way through volume 1 right now (I have 2 as well).

Ostler (from what I've gathered from volume 1 and numerous Sunstone presentations) is essentially a process-cum-LDS theologian/philosopher who tends to deny certain long-standing LDS beliefs (e.g., the infinite chain of gods in favor of a solitary divine source: God the Father), aplogetically accentuate the finitude of the LDS God (while maintaining that God's superiority and eminence in relation to lesser divine beings: Christ, Holy Spirit, men), and argue for, what seems to me, a merely hypothetical (purely theoretical) understanding of the Trinity in which the Godhead is an emergent entity dependent upon the interpersonal relationships between the three beings.

He assumes his understanding of the "Trinity" avoids the problems associated with classical Trinitarianism, but his solution is at least as theoretical and speculative as anyone else's.

He replaces classical Trinitarianism's dogmatic denials (the Trinity is not this; the Trinity is not that) with a positive statement that relies primarily on his own amalgamation of LDS theology, process philosophy, and an elevation of his own understanding of personal relatedness and its importance in understanding the Godhead.

That's my take, at this point, at any rate.

cks