“The Mormons”: Pregame show

On MMM, I think it depends on your perspective. If you told me I only had two hours to cover all of Mormon history, I wouldn’t spend fully one-sixth of my allotment on MMM. But this is a documentgary, not meant to give full coverage to Mormon history (the way a GD teacher may try to fully “cover” the reading assignment), but rather a series of chapters telling stories. And MMM is certainly a compelling story and is all the rage right now. So from that perspective 20 minutes seems ok.

On polygamy, I agree with you.

I’m torn about whether to watch these programs when broadcast (I don’t have a dvr). Locally they run from 9 to 11, and I don’t normally stay up that late watching TV. But if I don’t, it will be hard to contribute meaningfully to the blog discussion of them. I’m still mulling what to do.

Polygamy remains absolutely central to Mormonism today. Several of our most cherished doctrines and practices were revealed and taught in the context of justifying, persuading people to accept, or keeping secret the reality of polygamy. Four obvious examples include eternal families, the temple endowment, the Relief Society, and Mother in Heaven. Polygamy is the context for each of these; indeed, the revelation on eternal marriage in our scriptures is primarily a revelation about polygamy. So it’s silly and counterproductive to distance ourselves from the historical practice of polygamy. Without that, we would likely be a very different church, believing and doing quite different things.

Seven minutes out of four hours doesn’t seem like too much emphasis on the lingering challenges related with polygamy for the church today. Even if we accept the effort to define “Mormon” as equivalent to “member of the LDS church,” it remains clear that modern polygamists are a challenge for Mormons. They use our scriptures, teach many of our doctrines, and defend some doctrines from the 19th century that we LDS folks have left aside. The very fact that the official LDS website regularly comments on the distinction between church members and polygamists is enough to justify some focus on the issue: it’s important enough to Mormons in the US that our church can’t leave it well enough alone.

I’m looking forward to the documentary.

HP, the doctrinal and practical consequences of polygamy do play a central role in the lived lives of modern Mormons — that’s all I’m trying to say. Polygamy was the way the idea of an eternal family came to us, along with a bunch of other things we really value. I’ve had people in various conversations try to dismiss things like Mother in Heaven because the idea originated in discussions of and defenses of polygamy — but so did so very much of what we treasure in Mormonism.

Mark D,

I think JNS means that the doctrine of the eternal family is historically predicated on polygamy, not that polygamy and the eternal family are synonymous today.

I think that JNS is right that without polygamy there would be no endowment, no garments, no eternal family doctrine, no D&C 131/2. Also, the abandonment of polygamy is an important case study in religious accommodation and change. Finally, a look at modern Mormon polygamy shows how even weirder the mainstream Mormons used to be!

Polygamy is vital history.

As far as MMM, well, it’s flavour of the month, isn’t it? The fact that there’s a church-sanctioned history being published this year suggests that the church considers this an important issue. I mean, how many other church-sanctioned histories are being published this year? I’d say that based on their own complaint, the church may be over-emphasising MMM! Really, what church PR is unhappy about is not MMM per se, but a segment that evidently allows Will Bagley to say, “it was Brigham wot dunnit.”

And Whitney undercuts her own stated goal of dispelling stereotypes by spending seven minutes on modern-day polygamists. The documentary makes it clear they’re not members of the LDS Church, so why confuse the issue?

The complaint does not seem to be about looking at the history of polygomy but the current polygomists — FLDS, etc.

But I still say that’s fair game. People have it as a cultural reference and want to see how it all fits together.

I just got back from Stake Conference where our Stake President announced that the series would be airing in the next couple days. He said that all Bishops/Stake Presidents had received a letter from the First Presidency telling them about the documentary, though he left it unclear as to what the letter actually said. Our Stake President mentioned that the series would not be entirely favorable, and that some of the Bishops would be talking about the series further in the individual wards.

Does anyone have a copy of or access to the First Presidency’s letter?

What I really hope doesn’t happen is that some Mormons get very upset about the film and respond with unbridled hostility. Even if it turns out to be much worse than it sounds, even if it’s horribly untrue and unfair, then our best response is still calmly and lovingly correcting the mistakes. This is a huge opportunity for the church to be better known in the mainstream of world thought. Any anger and hostility on our part will only result in worse publicity for the church, and more importantly, will tend to turn people away from the restored gospel before they’ve even heard it.

Jacob,
If MMM is indeed the single most bloody massacre in the history of the US before 9/11, I don’t think it’s sensationalist to dwell on it.

(But I’ve been wondering about this. Have there not been Indian massacres of more extreme vintage? What about during the various homeland wars?)

DavidH: a good explanation. That’s how I feel. I think Muslims and mass terrorism probably work the same way.

Mark,
D&C 131 and 132 clearly belong to the milieu of polygamy. That’s all I’m saying.

I agree with DavidH. I think you have to explain polygamy to understand modern Mormonism. Much of our identity of being a persecuted people is a result of polygamy. Sure, people didn’t like us because we had a gold bible, but when it gets down to it they really didn’t like Mormons because dudes had more then one wife.

Plus, we have two living mainstream apostles who are sealed to more than one wife, spiritually speaking of course. Would that be possible if we didn’t have D&C 132 with us? I don’t know. D&C 132 at least justifies people being sealed to more than one spouse. The whole concept of multiple post mortem sealings boggles my mind.

Finally, modern mainstream Mormonism has created its identity around not being polygamists. We’ve replaced polygamy as a cultural marker with fighting for the survival of the traditional family. (I guess stricter adherence to the Word of Wisdom also is used as a way to distinguish ourselves from the mainstream.) So, I think juxtaposing the Fundies with the mainstream Church is a good way to understand what it means to be Mormon today.

We believe that revelation happens when specific questions are asked. Questions regarding eternal families, etc., were only asked by Joseph Smith after polygamy raised the question. While we see these doctrines as logically independent from polygamy today, that was certainly not the case when they were revealed. Indeed, modern temple practice continues to presuppose the validity of polygamy: men can be sealed to multiple women, but women can only be sealed to one man. None of this means that our family, temple, etc. doctrines couldn’t have arisen except through polygamy. But they did arise through polygamy; the scriptural and historical texts regarding them are soaked in the intellectual and doctrinal world of polygamy. So, even if logically separable, these doctrines become in practice inseparable from polygamy.

Ronan, regarding Mountain Meadows, what I’ve heard most often is the claim that it was the bloodiest act of religiously-motivated violence in the US before the 2001 terrorist attacks. Obviously, there was a massive genocidal war against Native Americans that cost many more lives, etc.

After rereading JNS’ comment, I realized that he was not making as sweeping a statement as the one I contradicted. My apologies if my previous comment seems to be off-point.

It is also important that the “sealing power” that we call it now, wasn’t really emphasized as being the motive power for Mormon marriage until relatively late. Joseph mainly talked about that power in relation to sealing people up into eternal life.

Does anyone know if the segment on the FLDS appears in the history episode on Monday or the modern church episode on Tuesday?

It is not possible to tell the full story of Mormon history without covering polygamy. Regardless of how is it or is not linked to doctrines continuing in the modern Church, it had a huge practical impact on what happened to and with the Church in the period 1844 – 1904, in other words, most of its early history. With regard to the FLDS, whether we like it or not they are in the news, and not mentioning them would have left a hole in what is after all a news documentary.

MMM on the other hand was such an extreme and isolated episode that any mention of it can generally be considered sensationalism. But again, in sympathy to Helen Whitney, with September Dawn coming out how could she have ignored it? Although 19 minutes is still too much.

Since blather about MMM is not going to go away, my thought is that we can turn it to a casuistic use. How do we react to those who criticize or ridicule us? MMM is an extreme example of the inpulse to lash out and attack our critics and persecutors. Is there a more Christian way to respond? There actually is a fascinating historical counter-position to MMM. This is the officially Church approved actions against Johnston’s Army lead by Lot Smith. Here we have a truly brilliant guerilla campaign which did not directly take a single enemy life! Can we respond to our critics and yet still care for their souls? Like Jesus, answer them by reminding them that “ye are gods!” (John 10:34).

As we discuss these issues in the Mormon context, you may find the following article from today’s Chicago Tribune WRT a different PBS documentary on moderate Islam v. Islamicism. This raises similar kinds of issues:

Documentarians battle PBS over Islam film

By Karoun Demirjian
Washington Bureau
Published April 29, 2007

WASHINGTON — The film features grainy footage and dramatic music, presenting itself as a stark look at the way fundamentalist Muslims in America and Europe crush dissent by their more moderate co-religionists.

But the very production of “Islam vs. Islamists: Voices From the Muslim Center” has highlighted sharply different views about the state of Islam in the United States and showcased how intensely sensitive that subject remains. PBS, which commissioned the project, is delaying airing the film after protests that it is anti-Muslim. Now its creators are launching a public campaign against PBS to get it shown.

The hourlong documentary is one of 22 episodes funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for PBS’ “America at a Crossroads” series, which examines post-Sept. 11 subjects such as terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the experience of American troops overseas and global perspectives on U.S. foreign policy.

“Islam vs. Islamists” follows the efforts of socially liberal Muslims in America and Europe to reclaim their religion from political extremism by speaking out against ultra-conservative imams.

But the film never made it into the initial lineup of 11 shows that aired recently. A film about widespread discrimination against Muslims, “The Muslim Americans,” did air as part of the series.

The producers and subjects of the “Islam vs. Islamists” film, who began to show it in private screenings last week, say that PBS demanded what the producers saw as unrealistic editorial changes after the series’ advisers, acting on criticism from such Muslim groups as the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Nation of Islam, claimed the documentary unfairly portrayed Muslim religious leaders. They say their experience with PBS proves the point of their film: that moderate Muslims have no platform from which to criticize extremists in their own religion.

“I can’t see what they object to, except that they don’t want to see the true plight against modern-day Muslims,” said Hedieh Mirahmadi, a representative of a moderate imam who spoke at a screening in Washington that was organized by the film’s producers. “Not being able to see the political reality means that it may come to root in a very dangerous way.”

Mirahmadi argued, for example, that the Saudi-based Wahhabist movement, a fundamentalist form of Islam, has spread across the U.S.

Mary Stewart, a spokeswoman for WETA, the PBS station in Washington, and executive producer for the Crossroads series, said in a phone interview that even though the film hadn’t made the cut for the first 11 parts that were broadcast, it would be aired as soon as PBS feels that it has been satisfactorily edited.

“It is a film with a lot of promise,” she said. “But every film that comes through PBS goes through editorial standards. They have received notes on what editorial changes would need to be made to bring it up to standards for PBS.”

Producers and hosts of the Crossroads series have publicly accused the production team for “Islam vs. Islamists” of showing an editorial slant by being overly alarmist and demonizing imams.

But defenders of the documentary say it merely portrays, in realistic terms, the divisions within the Islamic community in the West.

The Muslims portrayed in the movie — including Naser Khader, the Danish parliamentarian who spoke out against Imam Ahmed Abu Laban and others leading the riots over last year’s cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad — say that PBS does not want to consider Western Muslims as a variegated group.

“In my opinion, we don’t have a crisis of civilizations, we have just one clash,” Khader said. “It is in Muslim society, between Islamists and those who say ‘yes’ to democracy and modernity.”

Speaking for the film’s production team, Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, a Washington national security think tank, insisted that the film was finished and said PBS’ refusal to budge on editorial demands meant that the film’s relationship with the network was finished, too. “They’re insisting on structural changes that would essentially eviscerate the message of the film,” he said.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting provided $675,000 for the production of “Islam vs. Islamists,” nearly all federal funds. Some members of Congress saw the film last week.

A Corporation for Public Broadcasting spokesman said it is committed to finding a way to publicly show the film.

————-

kdemirjian@tribune.com

smb, I’m not completely hip to Prince’s Elijah perspective, but still, Joseph talked about this power mostly in terms of sealing folk up into eternal life, and I believe, on one occasion regarding baptism for the dead.

Hey, I went to college with the girl that wrote the article in #31. Small world.

#11 — I’d like to hear more about the first presidency letter too. In our ward from the pulpit, we were “neither encouraged nor discouraged to watch the documentary,” which truly puzzled me!

#37: That’s interesting: the bishopric actually said that? Mine said nothing, which to me is the definition of “neither encouraging nor discouraging.”

Our ward bishopric did, perhaps on its own initiative, specifically recommend today that we all watch the documentary — because our friends and neighbors might see it, and we ought to be ready to answer their questions.

With regard to JNS’s comment that he has heard that the MMM was the earliest and bloodiest religiously motivated massacre, I do believe that those who made such comments have ignored the systematic slaughter of the Aztecs and their former client/allied tribes after the conquest of Mexico by Cortes in 1521 (or thereabouts). Under the waves of Spanish priest’s who followed Cortes, these indigenous peoples were often given the ‘convert or die’ ultimatim and a significant number of them chose death. Details of this are to be found in the journals of Bernal Diaz del Castillo which still repose in the Royal Archives in Madrid. To his credit, one of these priests who came to Mexico to assist in this conversion was ultimately appalled at the barbarity of this slaughter and came to become a great advocate of the indigenous peoples to the Spanish court. Regrettably, I have forgotten his name. Nonetheless, I feel that this likely ranks first religiously motivated massacre’s in the North American continent.
Please do not interpret the foregoing as any type of justification on my part of the MMM. I still feel that it was the darkest hour of Church history, but one which had it’s origins in the extremely bad judgement of the local leadership in southern Utah during an era of war frenzy. It still hurts and saddens me that it occurred.
As to the quotation of JSJ that “he would rather go the hell with friends than to heaven alone”. I hadn’t heard that before so now I have a pronouncement from the first Prophet of the Last Dispensation as to my (and my fellow gay brethren)destiny in the hereafter. I just wonder if we will be allowed to continue our Reconciliation meetings?
Brothers and sisters, I thoroughly this blog as well as Times & Seasons! Thank you so much for your fascinating threads and well thought out commentaries. You broaden my perspectives on more issues than I count! May God continue to bless you all!

“you” should read “some of our youth” weird typo…

JNS, let me finish my revisions on my chapter on the ecclesial versus the biological family, which I think clarifies some of this. Polygamy (along with adoption, baptism for the dead, patriarchal blessings, and some other innovations) was actually a way to bridge the gap between biological family, which seems to have been critical to Smith early, with ecclesial community, which was almost as early. There was always a creative tension between the two.

i think the cultural context is relevant because JSJ was in dialogue with his surrounding culture, which had evolving ideas about nuclear families as havens from a brutal world as well as a certain nostalgia (in complex repercussions across social strata) for an older patriarchal model that fit better JSJ’s ultimate innovations. In this sense Smith’s carry-over of the eternal family is secure regardless of polygamy. He and his followers had this Christian sensibility independently. However, the eternal patriarchal family so difficult to distinguish from the ecclesial family IS a part of a package deal with polygamy, at least historically. So in a sense the fact that we’re mostly (though not fully) back to the Protestant view reflects our increasing distance from polygamy.

The new and everlasting covenant WAS polygamy. It was denied by the church until 1852, when it was forced to finally admit that polygamy was practiced.

True history (accepted by everyone except LDS people) shows that polygamy was a cover/excuse for Joseph Smith’s many extra-marital affairs. Did you know he was married to (at least) 43 women during his lifetime, some as young as 14? Sex was a part of the arrangements. Most Mormons don’t know this. About 1/3 of the women were already married to living husbands! This is called polyandry. Most Mormons don’t know that either. Why do you think Joseph was tarred and feathered so many times?

Are you gathering the family for a PBS FHE? Any strategies for dealing with your friends, Mormon or not, who may find the documentary challenging? What are you looking forward to seeing the most?

Yes, I will be watching this with my wife and kids. I don’t know much about strategies for dealing with challengin issues — I’m much better at providing the challenges than providing resolutions. I think I am most looking forward to seeing Mormonism discussed like this in the mainstream media. My apologies for breaking any rules if I post here what I posted over at T&S

I remember watching the Joseph Smith documentary on PBS several years ago and feeling a sense of pride in my Mormon heritage. For me at least, there is something very fulfilling and validating about seeing Mormonism being discussed in main-stream media, whether it is President Hinckley being interviewed on “Larry King Live!” or a light-hearted (light-minded?) mocking context like Southpark.

There is something about seeing Mormonism packaged and made ready for main-stream consumption that gives me the sense that “we have arrived.” This may be very silly and naïve of me, but it is this sense of ethnic/cultural pride that I expect to feel when I watch this over the next two nights (and re-watch it any number of times afterwards), regardless of the mistakes and inaccuracies and biases that I just expect to be part of the storytelling.

Wow, smb. That was a much more civil response than I had planned, which was along the lines of “go soak your head in a bucket, troll”

#43, let me clarify: the line I’ve heard, which I think may possibly be correct, is that MMM was the bloodiest religious slaughter in the US before Sept. 11, 2001.

I am looking forward to it.

I really hope that the issue of race is addressed well. It is my hope that public attention to that issue will increase likelihood for the church to issue a proper apology and repudiate past teachings. I feel it will happen eventually, but it will happen sooner if more people want it.

Margaret, I am a little worried that Betty, as a purpurted ex-con ex-drug addict will be the primary representative of blacks in the Church, while Darius, who I believe is frankly just brilliant, will be marginalized. It seems like this decision was either made for entertainment purposes, (the LSD church..) or because the production staff didn’t see Darius as stereotypically “black” enough.

Of course, that may be a false intuition, and may show me as the bigot, but I am worried.

Margaret,

I am also suprised that apparently Whitney did not hit to hard on the Black issue.

Polygamy is easy to simply say its been a while its history etc.

1978 is a recent date. A good interviewer could get GBH on camera or any other member of the 12 who has been around forever and say the following.

” You were in the Q12 prior to 1978 what did you do to help overcome the ban? Did you support the ban etc?”

I am not to concerned about the show in general. Publicity is usually good cause it gets people asking questions about us.

Re:#s 49, 53:
I’m pretty sure that even Brodie thought that JSJ’s puritanical sensibilities ran too deep to justify viewing sexual gratification as the motivation for polygamy/polygyny/polyandry.

Whoa, Thomas, that did make me feel better. I like the mug:
Just because you’re necessary doesn’t mean you’re important.

I’m a bit curious about that letter–given what the church’s official line, so far, is– http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom

Yeah, me too–that’s why I stated it was “allegedly” sent by Dennis Holland.

However, several sources corroborate that this was sent by Bro. Holland. I think it is probably actually from him, but perhaps more people have seen the email than he intended?

Ooh.

Coming tomorrow:

“It is wrong to criticize (the leadership of the church), even…if..that…criticism…is…TRUE.”

per Elder Oaks.

That should be fun.

I think anybody who sees this as a negative hatchet job is smoking better stuff than I ever got back in the 80’s. I thought it was pretty balanced and if anything, very church-positive.

But I wanna know what it was like? Who watched it? I watched States of Grace tonight instead.

There’s an open thread about the show over on Mormon Mentality.

Please excuse me, but just how many children did that oversexed Joseph Smith have and by whom?

Sam, the former CES guy is Ken Clark, sometimes known as Grasshopper.

He is (or at least used to be) one of the mainstays of the Recovery from Mormonism board. One of my grad school friends knew him from back when he worked for CES in Idaho. From reading his story and talking to my friend, it sounds like he was a convert who had a very black-and-white worldview, a naive view of history, and some overbearing CES supervisors. Not a good combination.

Prior to the airing, he said (paraphrasing) that he tried to speak in intellectual, academic way without sounding like he had an ax to grind, or else he just wouldn’t sound credible.

Any more information on the “alleged” email from Brother Ballard? I’d like to find out more about it. I posted on this over at mormonfolklore dot org in case anyone is interested.

(I forgot the smiley icon—basically, I’m saying I agree, only I couldn’t watch closely enough to encounter the small mistakes that may have happened. But come on, I’ve wanted to see this for weeks, my daughter will usually fall asleep while we watch TV, and she explodes with energy—what’s a person to do?)

Glenn/Knudsen, stop using BCC as your personal spam billboard for your site.

Kelly/KLC, can you list out the people?

The poet is Alex Caldiero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Caldiero
http://www.signaturebooks.com/outofprint/various.htm#alex

The author was Judith Freeman, author of Red Water.

To duplicate here for those not reading all of the threads:

As a documentary done by someone “from the outside”, I couldn’t be more pleased.

I thought the first part was well done. It was more positive than I had expected actually. I agree the largest complaint or criticism I have is that so many people were titled as “historian” or “author” or “poet”. Some of them were recognizable IE – Bill Bagley, Truman Madsen and of course leaders. Forgive me I didn’t recognize any anti-Mormons though some of them self-admitted they were not LDS. But I think it was at best a poor oversight of information and at worst downright misleading to put a Bill Bagley or Truman Madsen opinion up alongside the opinion of an anti without letting the viewer know the allegiance, history, affiliation and/or bias of the opinions either for or against the religion.

Alex, you were offended when referred to as being “odd”? That surprises me.

Alex,

Joseph Smith as “Alpha and Omega” has unfortunate linkages, but it’s true in a way: he is the beginning and end of our movement. Sure, Mormons believe that Christ is the real “founder” of Mormonism, but you can hardly expect a public documentary to say that!

Re: the Smith family: in terms of their farming success, “living on the edge” is pretty accurate.

Coe’s characterisation of Joseph as a “shaman” was juxtaposed with Mouw’s admission that Smith was not a charlatan. I for one would be unhappy if a PBS doc didn’t explore contrary views of Muhammed. I don’t expect religious hagiography on public TV.

The art was different, but certainly no worse than the saccharine that often passes as Mormon art. Let’s say it was “challenging” and be grateful that our lazy aesthetic was thus challenged!

Givens stated that the Book of Mormon’s history was “an embarrassment” to many intellectuals NOT members.

Bagley said that Kirtland represented “hallucinations” OR “visions” and again, this was juxtaposed with Givens’ testimony of the Pentecostal nature of the event.

I could go on, but needless to say, your inaccurate and immature slander of the documentary does Mormonism no favours. Let’s get over our clannish inability to let others have any access to our story and be grateful that Helen Whitney produced such a balanced piece.

Can I get an Amen?

Obviously, lots of comments on the show were Anti-Mormon…they did not portray all the positive things the church has done for the world and what Joseph Smith example help millions of people change their lives…As always these Negative comments on the show about the Mormons will create curious minds to seek more about the truth. Those Historians rely mostly on their worldly knowledge and not of God’s…Whenever there are lots of Anti Mormon shows the membership of the Church soars.

Painfully slow streaming video. I’ve seen up to Carthage.

I didn’t know which thread to post this on but I think it’s really interesting. My good friend just sent me an email about her reaction to last night’s segment of The Mormons.
She’s an orthodox Jew, so she’s sympathetic to very structured religions and because we’re such good friends she probably knows more than the average about Mormons but it’s not like we sat around and talked about Mormons all the time.

I thought it was really well done and even though there were more opinions given from inside the church then from outside I think it seemed like a really fair portrayal. Everyone came off looking very smart and it was very clear that parts of the history still haunt modern believers. I walked away with the impression of Joseph Smith as someone whose religious fervor started out from a very honest place but by the end he believed in himself more than the religion (a common practice for leaders in my opinion, i.e. Jim Jones). For me that fact doesn’t devalue the earlier teachings of a leader so I still can respect the religion as a whole. (by the way this was my own person interpretation – the series did not imply this at all). The figure that was really interesting to me was Brigham Young b/c he wasn’t really a religious figure (or all that charismatic) and he struggled with some of Smith’s prophecies and was still able to command the community’s attention.

The funniest part to me was when they talked about polygamy. They showed the mainstream saying that there is no such thing as “fundamentalist Mormonism” so anyone who practices polygamy isn’t really Mormon and then they had a polygamist family talking about how it was a prophecy of Smith’s and you can’t undo a prophecy so they are practicing the religion correctly. It was heart-breaking to hear the first wife of the family talk about her struggle to share her husband. But I almost started laughing out loud when after they claimed they were doing this b/c it was Smith’s doctrine they were shown eating dinner and DRINKING WINE!!! Isn’t that going against a main tenant of Mormonism? I was almost convinced that polygamy in their minds was really a religious institution instead of just about male domination and then I saw that and realized they are just picking and choosing like everyone else.

Anyway, interesting. She doesn’t think JSJ would have poisoned all our pioneer forebears she just thinks that Jim Jones had good intentions and then went crazy as a result of being at the top.

Ronan, I “amen” your analysis completely. I have a comment/question: There seemed to be very little talk of a Mormon belief in Christ. Do we think that’s because it’s not interesting to outsiders or unique to what this documentary is trying to demonstrate? There of course was a lot of emphasis on the Prophet Joseph, but not so much on his “restoration” of the gospel of Jesus. I did enjoy the treatment of Joseph’s unique view of the Godhead and our potential to become as God is…

Re: 110, John I think you raise a valid point.

Did you read the part about her being an Orthodox Jew, DavidH? There’s no chance in hell (or gehenna) that she’d convert.

Plus why does everything have to be a conversion tool? That seems a little creepy.

People, I have seen anti-stuff and this is not anti-stuff. There was only one person last night whom I would characterize as 100% anti. Calm down!

Also, Amen.

There sure was a lot of Schubert in this documentary. The G-flat major impromptu kept popping up everywhere, including the credits.

I thought it was funny that when they were talking about ordinances for the dead, the music was the second movement of Beethoven’s “Ghost” trio.

Schubert’s “Death and the Maiden” quartet kept appearing, sometimes at inappropriate times.

The best was the use of the C-major quintet – Schubert composed this in the last of his 31 years – it came right toward the end when they were sending all those candle balloons, or whatever they were, into the air.

Amri and MCQ,

Hellmut is right, I was trying to use irony.

My wife chides me sometimes for saying things ironically in such a way that people take me seriously. My apologies. (Maybe I should ask Steve Evans if I could use an alternate identity along the lines of Prudence McPrude.)

I actually think the program was excellent–I personally believe that the spirit of God may have had a role in its production and editing. And I also think MikeInWeHo may be right that one day, the program may be used in CES.

Was it Hugh Nibley who said something “It is good the Old Testament did not have to go through the correlation committee, or it would only be five pages long”? (Actually, maybe that would be a good idea, so that it would be a more reasonable length to read.)