By the way do you think the LDS people would have made up different answers if they knew they were being filmed? That they would have been less honest or forthcoming with their answers about their beliefs about "Lamanites" if they knew other people would hear their responses?
Who knows. We will never know since the documentary filmed people secretly...and edited it accordingly. Thus, the problem with the documentary. Also, the Mormon side was not presented at all. Also, the critics were professional people, the LDS were just normal people on a mission or in a play. Thus, the problem too.
No problem with any of that, although those "normal people" you mention were called by God to serve in the positions they are in, the film wasn't about the LDS church. It was about what LDS people say about the so called lamanites and how those referred to as lamanites feel about what is said. The documentary is about non-LDS people and what they think about, and feel about what the LDS church teaches about their people. People are going to have strong feelings when they are told their skin is dark because of sinfulness, this is the story of their experience and they have every right to articulate it as they please.
Mary wrote:Why Me, for goodness sake. No one is arguing that Native American's and other indigenous groups throughout the Pacific didn't have their own culture's, religious beliefs, wars and the such like. What on earth are you on about.
The subject here is the effect of the teachings of the Book of Mormon on various groups of people who had been historically identified as Lamanites and the effect of this on their image and feelings of self-worth, and actually whether those teachings had any basis in historical (and religious) truth and reality.
That is the subject. Can you stick to the point?
The film made such an argument. Certainly they critiqued the battle scenes in the Book of Mormon and yet, ancient civilizations were certainly warlike. Not that much different from the Book of Mormon scenes.
The Mormon native american GA who used to work for the government in a very important position could have been interviewed for the documentary. But...no such luck. It seems that he survived quite well and many other native americans would have also, if they would have joined the LDS church and lived the word of wisdom. But such a message would not be welcome in that video and most likely not that welcome in his classes.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
café crema wrote: No problem with any of that, although those "normal people" you mention were called by God to serve in the positions they are in, the film wasn't about the LDS church. It was about what LDS people say about the so called Lamanites and how those referred to as Lamanites feel about what is said. The documentary is about non-LDS people and what they think about, and feel about what the LDS church teaches about their people. People are going to have strong feelings when they are told their skin is dark because of sinfulness, this is the story of their experience and they have every right to articulate it as they please.
I agree. But for Mary this documentary was fair and nonconfrontational. Thus, my problem. It is not fair and it is confrontational. If you can't see that...what can I say? Nothing. Filming people in secret with cheap film is never a good idea but it is good to do if one wishes to give a slant to the video, especially when the side that the film supports were filmed with high quality film with the knowledge of the people involved who were all professionals.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
why me wrote: The Mormon native american GA who used to work for the government in a very important position could have been interviewed for the documentary. But...no such luck. It seems that he survived quite well and many other native americans would have also, if they would have joined the LDS church and lived the word of wisdom.
And those people have the church to tell their story for them through magazines, talks etc. Their story is not the point of the video and they are under no obligation to tell the stories of those who are comfortable with the tales of the LDS church. Just as a documentary about people abused by Catholic priests is not required to showcase the stories of those who were not abused.
café crema wrote: No problem with any of that, although those "normal people" you mention were called by God to serve in the positions they are in, the film wasn't about the LDS church. It was about what LDS people say about the so called Lamanites and how those referred to as Lamanites feel about what is said. The documentary is about non-LDS people and what they think about, and feel about what the LDS church teaches about their people. People are going to have strong feelings when they are told their skin is dark because of sinfulness, this is the story of their experience and they have every right to articulate it as they please.
I agree. But for Mary this documentary was fair and nonconfrontational. Thus, my problem. It is not fair and it is confrontational. If you can't see that...what can I say? Nothing. Filming people in secret with cheap film is never a good idea but it is good to do if one wishes to give a slant to the video, especially when the side that the film supports were filmed with high quality film with the knowledge of the people involved who were all professionals.
It is not in the least bit confrontational to say I don't believe what you believe and I can't find any support for it in the scientific community. As to the secrecy of filming we don't know that in those instances the LDS church won't allow filming. They are after all the most secretive religion around.
Mary wrote:I agree, but I think it must go further in terms of explaining/clarifying the relevant passages in both the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price that seem to engender a racist theology in terms of God cursing entire races of people with a dark skin.
That is one of the many things that needs to be done. The LDS Church lacks a robust discussion of many such issues. I would contend that there is room to read the Book of Mormon in more positive ways, and the text should be thus redeemed. I am hopeful that it will be in the future.
If you have time, can you explain what you mean here?
What I am saying is that those who look at Mormonism as flawed beyond redemption are obviously exaggerating. Good things have come from Mormonism; good things will come from Mormonism. For those who choose to remain on the inside, it is a duty to improve the reading of these texts. For those who are on the outside, it is a duty to hold their feet to the fire. But burning those feet off is going too far.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
That is one of the many things that needs to be done. The LDS Church lacks a robust discussion of many such issues. I would contend that there is room to read the Book of Mormon in more positive ways, and the text should be thus redeemed. I am hopeful that it will be in the future.
John Dehlin's Mormon Stories page on Facebook has some great discussions that reflect what you are stating here. The likes of Dan Wotherspoon and (removed name as don't know if he is happy to have his name used on a public board) have made some great comments over there about how the text can be read in a way that emphasizes the errors of men. I love the way they think, but at the moment their thoughts and ideas would be considered 'heretical' by many I am sure.
What I am saying is that those who look at Mormonism as flawed beyond redemption are obviously exaggerating. Good things have come from Mormonism; good things will come from Mormonism. For those who choose to remain on the inside, it is a duty to improve the reading of these texts. For those who are on the outside, it is a duty to hold their feet to the fire. But burning those feet off is going too far.
Yeah, agreed.
"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov
café crema wrote: They are after all the most secretive religion around.
Oh...okay....the vatican would be glad to hear it.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Themis wrote: First you make assumptions about what Mary said that was not said. This is a horrible habit you have. Second your post doesn't deal with your extreme bias and inability to see other perspectives.
Here is what Mary said about the video:
Someone over on Facebook has also just posted links to this documentary made by a young Navajo man about the effect of Book of Mormon teachings on his people and on Polynesians. It is very gentle, honest and non-confrontational and has all the more impact because of it.
Worth watching.
I saw no honesty in filming people in secret. And the professor was far from gentle at the end of the video nor was she non-confrontational. Also, the maker of the video had bias written all over his forehead.
You keep demonstrating you cannot see any other perspective but the one you want to see. This is why you cannot even see how honesty is being used. Prove me wrong by telling us what I am getting at.
Drifting wrote:Is this still 'bumping' or is it now 'trying to nail jello to the wall'....
It's perfectly fine to keep reminding for everyone something whyme is not honest enough to admit what we already know. We all know the church has never taught this, and even the article he quotes says it is not affiliated with the church in any way. The answer they give is BS apologetics that makes no sense, since it would not really distinguish the groups. To say one group is all lazy and the other is industrious is stupid to the extreme.
