Last night was the first of two documentary specials that Helen Whitney has written and directed on the history, beliefs, practices, and controversies surrounding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I watched the first two hours of The Mormons last night and was impressed overall, though as usual I have a few quibbles.
First, a bit of background. I am one of the people Helen has been talking to for the last two and a half years, off and on, both in person and over the phone (though not on camera, thankfully). I've come to like and respect Helen very much, which you should bear in mind as you read this review. Perhaps you should take it with a grain of salt. My sympathies are basically with her, both because she tried her best as a filmmaker, pleasing two impossibly diverse constituencies (PBS executives and faithful Mormons), and because I co-wrote that Dummies book on Mormonism and know firsthand how very hard it is to pull it all together in a balanced way. That's a pretty darn hard row to hoe.
Yesterday I spoke with Helen's good friend and college roommate (who works in religion publishing -- small world, eh?), who told me that Helen has been "devastated" by PBS's final cut of the movie. Helen apparently found it overly critical of the Church and fought hard to keep the perspectives of active, faithful Mormons. So I was expecting the first part of the documentary to be fairly muckraking. This opinion was also strengthened by the comments I heard from two conservative Mormons in the weeks before the special aired. They had seen portions of it and found it lacking. So, I was primed to be greatly disappointed.
But I found it to be generally well-balanced, with multiple points of view showing that even among Mormons, there is a great deal of diversity about historical issues. Yes, an enormous amount of time was given to the Mountain Meadows Massacre (nearly 20 minutes out of just under 2 hours of historical material). However, I disagree with those Mormons who are out there pontificating today about it being far too much. It takes time to do MMM right -- you have to position it in the context of the Utah War and the fanatical period known as the Mormon Reformation, which the documentary did. You have to provide various points of view, from Will Bagley's overconfident assertion that Brigham Young ordered the attack (despite the absence of any extant documentary evidence for it from a leader whose every sneeze was duly noted in the logs) to the Church's position that Young's “mistake was to stir up some emotions which got out of control, but he didn’t order it done, and he didn’t condone it.” All in all, I think that MMM was handled respectfully and thoroughly. (Maybe my perspective is different on this issue than other Mormons'. My husband's ancestors come from the same sparsely populated Arkansas county as the ill-fated Fancher party. It is more likely that he is distantly kin to some of the victims than it is that he is not. It kind of changes one's perspective.)
In fact, I think the doc let the Church off easy in terms of the cover-up afterward. THAT is what we actually have the documentation to prove, and other than mentioning that a cover-up occurred, the doc didn't go into detail about how elaborately and thoroughly the Church lied about MMM for decades. In all, I was glad to see that this most shocking and horrifying event in Mormon history was not trivialized or whitewashed. It is time for the truth, which the Church seems to feel also, since the Historical Department will soon release all of the documents related to MMM.
Polygamy, on the other hand, was bizarrely handled. Polygamy was such an important part of the Mormon experience, both as a catalyst for social cohesion and as a bedrock of 19th-century Mormon theology, that it should have received more attention. Instead, almost half the total time devoted to polygamy was given over to contemporary polygamists. I guess it was just irresistible for a filmmaker who was offered the chance to go behind-the-scenes of a modern polygamous family, even though that has such a tenuous and contested relationship to 21st-century orthodox Mormonism. So, while I disagree with some fellow critics who argue that polygamy got too much attention--it didn't get enough, in my opinion--I do think the focus should have been on polygamy in actual Mormon history, rather than a peep show of how "Mormon fundamentalists" live today. (Still, I confess I was intrigued by them. Was that wine the adults were drinking? How come they get to drink wine?! I am jealous!)
My biggest issues with the doc were editorial. There were some choppy, unfortunate transitions here and there, the worst of which was when Terryl Givens was speaking about the theological rationale of Mormon dancing. We’re burying our children in the frozen prairie during the trek west, and then . . . we’re dancing! Terryl’s thoughts on Mormons and dancing were right on target – brilliant, even – but they seemed totally out of place in the middle of this section on the dangers and heartbreaks of the Mormon trail. After the brief interlude of dancing, we were back on the trail. This section was very poorly edited, if not downright bipolar.
Also, some of the closeup camera angles were just too much. Only the gorgeous Sally Gordon has a face that can stand up to that kind of scrutiny; most historians were designed for radio. Pull back! Pull back!
The talking heads all did well. I was surprised that Richard Bushman got so little play about Joseph Smith, but his comments were astute and incisive, as always. I was thrilled to see Kathleen Flake shine. Kathleen has got to be the smartest Mormon woman of all time. And there was a fine coterie of non-Mormon scholars, including Sally, Harold Bloom, Jon Butler, and some thoughtful ruminations from evangelical heavyweight Richard Mouw. But where was Jan Shipps?
I won't be blogging about the second half, I don't think. I've been pretty busy lately and seem to be suffering from adult-onset ADHD -- hey, what's that shiny thing? Anyway, my next post is going to be about Harry Potter and all our theories for book 7. Be getting yours ready to share . . . .
I was also impressed with how Helen and Jane (coauthor) did, conflicting demands of target audiences notwithstanding. I feel that it was well-balanced overall, even though it clearly included critical voices and thus would not fully represent how modern Mormons view themselves. I liked the polygamy segment and felt MMM did well and was delighted to hear Elder Oaks apologize for the MMM (though admittedly the historic public relations issues have been difficult).
Posted by: smb | May 01, 2007 at 01:55 PM
Nice comments, Jana. I did notice that while Helen was listed for producer and about four other major jobs in the creation of this thing, someone else was listed as the editor. Would you say, then, that in large measure she is not responsible for the final product?
Posted by: Ben H | May 01, 2007 at 04:05 PM
I enjoyed your comments, Jana. (Funny, I had the same thought that it is a good thing Sally is a gorgeous, because that was a tough camera angle for most of us mere mortals to have to endure...)
Posted by: Kevin Barney | May 01, 2007 at 04:43 PM
As I watched the first part of the documentary last night, my key question was, "Where's Jana?", and now I know: behind the scenes. Given your expertise and winsome eloquence, it's a loss to the documentary that you didn't appear in front of the camera.
I also saw the doc as balanced. It acknowledged the usual bafflement people have regarding Mormonism while also portraying Mormons as just as human and complicated as non-Mormons are. That's a PR coup for the church, I think. My husband and I--who wouldn't give 15 seconds to Mormons knocking on our door--opened our minds as wide as we could and gave LDS four hours of our sustained attention.
While we shed some of our misconceptions (Margaret Toscano's story helped with that), it is also true that the documentary left us even more bewildered than we used to be regarding the appeal of what seems to be a preposterously controlling religion. It is possible though that our issue is not with Mormonism itself but its abuses. Why can't all Mormons be like you Jana?
Best,
Agnieszka
Posted by: Agnieszka | May 02, 2007 at 12:22 AM
I watched most of the 4 hours. I thought it was well done overall, and I appreciated the range of voices - for once, a documentary full of talking heads almost all of whom had something interesting to say! The history of the church is fascinating, and I also like the respect accorded to people speaking about their beliefs. Some of the personal stories were touching, such as the man who teared up while talking about his conversion experience while on his mission (the guy who had been raised Mormon but it was at a moment on mission that he suddenly "knew"). The one thing I wished for was more about LDS theology. Unless I missed it, I don't think they ever said anything about what, exactly, Mormons believe. Except for talking some about the historical claims of the Book of Mormon re.the Israelites, Lamanites and Nephites. The tenets of the faith are part of the faq on the PBS website but I think it would have been helpful, and interesting, to have some of the experts explain on camera. I realize these are complex issues, but its really the core of an overview of any religion, I think.
Posted by: Kelly | May 02, 2007 at 02:09 PM
Jeepers, Agnieszka, you're the cool and smart one. Why can't all evangelicals be like you? And Kelly, you're right, though I hadn't noticed the relative absence of theology until you mentioned it. Maybe it's because theology isn't very inherently cinematic. :-) It's easier to focus on things that Mormons do, maybe, than just what they say.
I wound up watching most of last night's as well. (Not bad considering it was up against Veronica Mars!) Very balanced and fair, I thought. It struck a good balance between some pretty undisputed positives (Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, strong families) and some trickier issues, like excommunications and how the church has dealt with homosexuality. The best moment was the African-American convert who wanted to know what the missionaries were "on" when they started teaching her our preposterous religion. I howled.
Agnieszka and Kelly, it is quite marvelous that you both spent 4 hours learning about a religion not your own. Thanks for your efforts to understand my faith.
Posted by: Jana | May 02, 2007 at 02:31 PM
> Oh I forgot her! LOVED her story. Her testimony was very moving. I loved when she said "they told me the most preposterous story about a white boy, an angel and some golden plates" (that's from memory so may not be verbatim).
You're right, theology isn't inherently cinematic. But with all those talking heads, surely there was one who could give a concise and compelling overview.
It aired after Veronica Mars in Chicago, so I was able to watch both. But that was one hamhanded and lame episode of Mars. I was disappointed. I'll watch for your review :-)
Posted by: Kelly | May 03, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Jana,
Your insights on the PBS documentary are much appreciated. I encourage you to blog on the second half. It may explain Helen's "devastation" by PBS's final cut -- or not. C'mon girl! You can't just do something halfway and leave us hanging like that.
Posted by: Suzanne A. | May 04, 2007 at 12:24 AM
Jana,
I am also a big fan of your writing. I am glad the film took it easy on the Church on the coverup of the MMM, given that Brooks's opinion on the matter had become somewhat of a consensus.
I think however, that the question has to be re-asked about how much Brigham Young knew and when he knew it and what sources of information he trusted. While I am confident that there was a local cover-up of the Massacre, I think Lee and Haight were lying to Brigham Young and the members of the Twelve that he sent to conduct five investigations of the Massacre. The rank and file participants were sworn to secrecy by Massacre's leaders and there was some propaganda being generated by them to center blame elsewhere. We also know now that Brigham Young offered to help the feds prosecute, but he was rejected.
So how much the Church hierarchy knowingly participated in the cover-up (as opposed to being unwitting dupes) is a rather complex issue. Further information is available in my report of a lecture by Thomas Alexander. See http://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2006/09/23/p1797 . This issue is going to be more fully laid out in a second volume put forth by Turley, Walker, and Leonard.
Posted by: David Keller | May 04, 2007 at 06:48 PM
Jana, you're awesome. And of course you like Veronica Mars, since you have such impeccable taste.
I've heard lots of negative comments about the show this week from regular Mo types, and lots of folks seem heartily disappointed. I think they were somehow expecting something more uniformly positive. Of course, when I got around to watching the first part myself, I was scratching my head as to what they had found so offensive. I was able to talk to someone at church today and learned that she had thought great parts of the Joseph Smith section, especially the treasure-hunting and hat/peepstone parts, were anti-Mormon bunk. It seems that Helen's tactic of leaving off religious affiliation so Mormons wouldn't discount non-Mormon opinions has backfired, and Mormons are discounting the opinions of anyone who doesn't stick to the seminary line (Peterson) or who doesn't sound Mormon (Flake), even though they're active members!
Posted by: JaneAnne | May 07, 2007 at 01:26 AM
Hi Jana,
Here's me to represent all the lurkers out there. I appreciated your comments on the show. I have been writing a book about three generations of my polygamous female ancestors (spanning from Elvira Cowles, a wife of Joseph Smith, to Eliza R. Welling, first post-manifesto wife of eventually excommunicated apostle John W. Taylor). So my main complaint was that I didn't see anything beyond surface scratching (although most folks aren't aware of the basic extant surface stuff).
Regarding Mountain Meadows (I guess I'm convolving this with what you had in 'Mormonism for Dummies' about MMM), I am surprised that almost no one seems to see the connection between what happened September 11, 1857, at MMM and what happened Sept 10-12, 1846, in Nauvoo. I know Haun's Mill was more horrific in some ways, but having 1000 men with 2 cannon attack and drive the final feeble few out of Nauvoo by force (and there were deaths) seems more correlated with both the date and with what MMM-era Mormons were anticipating (an army in the 1000's with artillery come to agress). Extrapolating from the 2-3% Mormon men killed in one day during the Battle of Nauvoo, the potentially anticipated mortality of an occupying force could have been anticipated to be in the hundreds or even thousands. As it turns out, that didn't happen, of course.
Posted by: Meg Stout | May 16, 2007 at 06:17 AM
Why not let the women decide? What about if some wome prefer to share one alpha male than being the only one for a loser?
Posted by: Jim Thio | September 19, 2007 at 07:22 PM