PBS Documentary "The Mormons"

[MisterT]

I'm not sure if anyone else caught this series when it first aired a few years ago, but I picked it up from the Library yesterday and watched all 4 hours last night.

My impressions are mixed. Its obvious that PBS went out of their way to appear as though they were presenting an unbiased investigation, but it became clear throughout the documentary that they did have an underlying agenda to provide more contrary information (such as Joseph Smith not using the Urim and Thummin [sP] and instead using a "Seer stone" in the bottom of a hat to translate the Golden Plates) and interviews with excommunicated members.

I was moved by their coverage of the Churchs humanitarian relief efforts and found the eye-witness accounts to be inspiring, and there were many times when one of the General Authorities such as Dallin H Oaks was being interviewed that I had the proverbial "Burning in the bosom."

All in all, I thought it was a well put together piece, and as far as secular historians go, one of the more balanced pieces; but one that will polarize anti-LDS sentiment and the faith of members alike.

[Elphaba]

(such as Joseph Smith not using the Urim and Thummin [sP] and instead using a "Seer stone" in the bottom of a hat to translate the Golden Plates)

Joseph did use a seer stone in the bottom of a hat to translate some of the Golden Plates.

All in all, I thought it was a well put together piece, and as far as secular historians go, one of the more balanced pieces; but one that will polarize anti-LDS sentiment and the faith of members alike.

It didn't polarize anything/anyone years ago, so why would you think it would today?

Elphaba

[MisterT]

“Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted ‘seers’ in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.” (JS—H 1:34–35.)

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

The PBS documentary specifically excluded the use of the Urim and Thummim and stated that a "seer stone," unrelated to the U&T was used.

I simply gave my opinion of what I got out of the show; you don't have to like my opinion, its a free country.

[john doe]

Actually, I saw it was on KUED last night again. What I saw of the show I thought was fairly even-handed, even though there were some things said that I would take issue with. It seems from my memory that some of the detractors tried to paint the church in a bad light, but the show didn't give them much credence either.

[Elphaba]

“Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted ‘seers’ in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.” (JS—H 1:34–35.)

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

Yes, I am aware of all of that.

The PBS documentary specifically excluded the use of the Urim and Thummim and stated that a "seer stone," unrelated to the U&T was used.

From the way you had worded your OP, specifically the word "instead," I thought you weren't aware Joseph had used the seer stone/hat. My apologies for getting that wrong.

I simply gave my opinion of what I got out of the show; you don't have to like my opinion, its a free country.

You posted your opinion on a "discuss"ion board. "Discussions" often include people asking you questions about your opinion, but it does not automatically equate to not liking your opinion.

Elphaba

[Maureen]

...The PBS documentary specifically excluded the use of the Urim and Thummim and stated that a "seer stone," unrelated to the U&T was used...

These are transcripts from the PBS documentary:

DANIEL PETERSON: We know that Joseph didn't translate in the way that a scholar would translate. He didn't know Egyptian. There were a couple of means that were prepared for this. One was he used an instrument that was found with the plates, that was called the Urim Thummim. This is a kind of divinatory device that goes back into Old Testament times. Actually, most of the translation was done using something called a seer stone. He would put the stone in the bottom of a hat, presumably to exclude surrounding light, and then he would put his face in the hat. It's a kind of strange image for us.

TERRYL GIVENS: I think one of the hallmarks of Joseph Smith's thought was the collapse of sacred distance that generally is held to be an absolutely essential ingredient in our experience of the divine, that sense of worshipful distance that should obtain between man and his God. He did this by arguing that when revelations came to him, they came through vehicles as palpable and earthly as seer stones, or Urim and Thummim or gold plates, that God himself was once as we are, that he is embodied. That level of detail and specificity isn't suppose to obtain when we're talking about things that are supposed to be ineffable. It was an affront to traditional religious faith in ways that were troubling and threatening.

The Mormons . Transcript | PBS

Daniel Peterson is an LDS apologist and Terryl Givens is LDS.

M.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Maureen

[InquisitiveSoul]

I see the term thrown around a lot, but what exactly is a "LDS apologist?"

I saw the show and thought it was well done. It showed both positives and negatives of Mormon history and gave the viewer a rather level field from which to judge the Church.

[hordak]

I see the term thrown around a lot, but what exactly is a "LDS apologist?"

I saw the show and thought it was well done. It showed both positives and negatives of Mormon history and gave the viewer a rather level field from which to judge the Church.

one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something

Lds apologist just means they defend the LDS faith. It is important to note the fine print

FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.

and that they are really just people giving their opinions on the issue.

No different then Brother Smith in gospel principals class, or Elphaba on lds.net

[rameumptom]

I saw it a few years ago, and it was on again last night on our local PBS station. I personally know several of the people they interviewed, and have read the works of several more. It was a fair review of each thing, however it focused on Mormon problems in most of its "acts." The September Six were excommunicated almost 20 years ago, and as much as Margaret Toscano might hate to think it, they are basically a non-issue anymore in the Church. She made her excommunication sound like a terrible ordeal, and it probably was, but the stake presidency did their job. She had been warned on what not to teach in public, and she intentionally went against that counsel. What? She thought the stake presidency was going to allow her to defend her views in a Church council, which was not their to determine doctrine, but to determine if someone was rebelling against the Church. Of course they told her to be quiet, as it had nothing to do with her personal views or historical views, and everything to do with choosing to disobey her priesthood leaders.

Still, given the issues PBS chose to cover, they did a fair job of viewing all sides of the issues. For Darius Gray, a very great LDS member and LDS author, to discuss again the priesthood ban and how early prophets made racist statements (he quotes John Taylor), is not a fun thing for Mormons to hear. Yet, Darius is a very faithful member of the Church, and remains a member regardless of its sometimes troubling history. No one is questioning his membership, either. He actually received permission from the GAs to stated that while we do not know how the ban started (revelation or imposition), we do know that it was ended by revelation.

[Just_A_Guy]

Joseph did use a seer stone in the bottom of a hat to translate some of the Golden Plates.

You admit they existed and that Smith translated them, then?

(Just teasing you, Elphaba! )

[Maureen]

...The September Six were excommunicated almost 20 years ago, and as much as Margaret Toscano might hate to think it, they are basically a non-issue anymore in the Church.

When the documentary was done and Margaret Toscano was interviewed it had been 14 years since the excommunications. And since she was one of the excommunicated, it's only natural that she would see it as a huge issue.

...What? She thought the stake presidency was going to allow her to defend her views in a Church council, which was not their to determine doctrine, but to determine if someone was rebelling against the Church. Of course they told her to be quiet, as it had nothing to do with her personal views or historical views, and everything to do with choosing to disobey her priesthood leaders...

It is called a church court. One would think that that might imply something similar to how a court of law is structured. If no one told she would not be allowed to tell her side of the story she may have assumed that she would have her say. She found out then, that she was not allowed to defend herself.

M.

[NeuroTypical]

I remember that show. I thought it was about the best someone who was outside of the church could do at trying to be unbiased and paint both adherents and critics in the most charitable light.

One thing I think they did goof up on, was some of the artwork. For the life of me, when I think of the Angel Moroni coming to visit, I really don't have this image in my mind:

[Moksha]

For the life of me, when I think of the Angel Moroni coming to visit, I really don't have this image in my mind:

Nor do we always see eye to eyes with Picasso.

[ADoyle90815]

I saw that documentary again recently on a local PBS station, and it looked balanced to me. If you took a look at history in general, not all of it is positive. The documentary did mention all of the humanitarian work the LDS church does. If someone truly believes that the LDS church is true, this documentary is not going to stop them from being baptized as a convert.

[Wingnut]

Weird. I just finished reading through this thread while my husband was flipping through channels looking for something to watch. I moved onto another thread just as he landed on the documentary. Lol.

[bytebear]

I guess the problem I have with the documentary is that the spent so much time on the controversies, and not nearly enough that defines the church today. Agreeing with rameumptom's statements about the September Six and also with MMM, it was really implied that those issues that define us, when in reality, the majority of members have a passing knowledge if any at all. Of course everyone knows about polygamy, but even still, to have it completely overshadow aspects like the amazing agricultural, architectural, and city planning that defined Brigham Young's leadership really misses a huge chunk of Mormon history.

I also felt that they let slip issues presented as "facts" by those interviewed, when in fact, there is much controversy about the specifics of certain historical issues. It always bothers me when I hear something that isn't true, and the apologist side never rebuts.

[Maureen]

...I also felt that they let slip issues presented as "facts" by those interviewed, when in fact, there is much controversy about the specifics of certain historical issues. It always bothers me when I hear something that isn't true, and the apologist side never rebuts.

Could you give an example?

M.

[Snow]

The PBS documentary specifically excluded the use of the Urim and Thummim and stated that a "seer stone," unrelated to the U&T was used.

... and you thought that they should have presented inaccurate material instead?

[rameumptom]

You admit they existed and that Smith translated them, then?

(Just teasing you, Elphaba! )

I never thought I'd see Elphaba bear her testimony like that. We've made progress here with her. Next thing you know, we'll be offering her a Primary teacher position here.

[rameumptom]

When the documentary was done and Margaret Toscano was interviewed it had been 14 years since the excommunications. And since she was one of the excommunicated, it's only natural that she would see it as a huge issue.

It is called a church court. One would think that that might imply something similar to how a court of law is structured. If no one told she would not be allowed to tell her side of the story she may have assumed that she would have her say. She found out then, that she was not allowed to defend herself.

M.

No, it is called a Disciplinary Council. I've sat in on many of them, both on ward and stake levels. The issue at hand is not her interpretation of history, but whether she went against counsel given by Church leaders. That is the only issue she was to discuss. Even if she were correct in her assessment of Church history, it does not bear on the issue of her going against the counsel given her. She's a big girl. She grew up in the Church, taught college, and knew what was going on. To play ignorant once the other shoe dropped is just her pretense at playing victim to get people to feel sorry for her.

[Maureen]

No, it is called a Disciplinary Council. I've sat in on many of them, both on ward and stake levels. The issue at hand is not her interpretation of history, but whether she went against counsel given by Church leaders. That is the only issue she was to discuss. Even if she were correct in her assessment of Church history, it does not bear on the issue of her going against the counsel given her. She's a big girl. She grew up in the Church, taught college, and knew what was going on. To play ignorant once the other shoe dropped is just her pretense at playing victim to get people to feel sorry for her.

The Church court system

Relatively few Church members really understand the Church court system...

Let us take a quick look at the bishop’s court. If the initial confidential interview with the bishop reveals a serious irregularity, he may decide to convene a bishop’s court. The court consists of the three members of the ward bishopric. They may consider the matter of excommunication for any member of the Church living in the ward except for a member who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood. The bishop’s court, however, may render a decision of disfellowshipment or probation for any member of the ward, including Melchizedek Priesthood holders. The high council court, on the other hand, is under the direction of the stake president and consists of the stake presidency and members of the high council. This court has the authority to conduct hearings for any member of the Church residing in that stake, and they have jurisdiction over both Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood holders and may impose a decision of excommunication where appropriate.

Robert L. Simpson, “Cast Your Burden upon the Lord,” New Era, Jan 1977, 4

The terms bishop's court and high council court are used in this article. You have been involved in these courts on the other side. You know the procedures, but chances are the people being judged are not as well informed with the procedures and their rights as you are.

M.

[MarginOfError]

The Church court system

Relatively few Church members really understand the Church court system...

Let us take a quick look at the bishop’s court. If the initial confidential interview with the bishop reveals a serious irregularity, he may decide to convene a bishop’s court. The court consists of the three members of the ward bishopric. They may consider the matter of excommunication for any member of the Church living in the ward except for a member who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood. The bishop’s court, however, may render a decision of disfellowshipment or probation for any member of the ward, including Melchizedek Priesthood holders. The high council court, on the other hand, is under the direction of the stake president and consists of the stake presidency and members of the high council. This court has the authority to conduct hearings for any member of the Church residing in that stake, and they have jurisdiction over both Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood holders and may impose a decision of excommunication where appropriate.

Robert L. Simpson, “Cast Your Burden upon the Lord,” New Era, Jan 1977, 4

The terms bishop's court and high council court are used in this article. You have been involved in these courts on the other side. You know the procedures, but chances are the people being judged are not as well informed with the procedures and their rights as you are.

M.

Well, you're both right. They had been called bishop's courts and high council courts, but at least by 1998 when the Church Handbook of Instructions was published, they were referred to simply as disciplinary councils, which is still the proper terminology, even after the 2006 edition was published. At the time of Tuscano's excommunication, it may very well have been a high council court.

[prisonchaplain]

You admit they existed and that Smith translated them, then?

(Just teasing you, Elphaba! )

There are very few LDS.net members who are old enough to verify the existence of those plates...and we won't be naming names, will we???

[Moksha]

Well, you're both right. They had been called bishop's courts and high council courts, but at least by 1998 when the Church Handbook of Instructions was published, they were referred to simply as disciplinary councils, which is still the proper terminology, even after the 2006 edition was published. At the time of Tuscano's excommunication, it may very well have been a high council court.

1. Has the term "Court of Love" been abolished?

2. Is there any kind of Court of Appeals?

[rameumptom]

The term used to be church court, but was changed in the mid 1980s, during the time when the Church was changing much of its appearance (such as the Logo, changing the name of the BoM, etc). So, during the time of Toscano's excommunication it was called a Church Disciplinarian Council. This better reflects how we use councils today. In Brigham Young's day, they really were like courts, and often determined struggles between members. Today, they are used exclusively for the repentance process.