Join the Discussion

What are your thoughts concerning this film on the history and beliefs of Mormonism? Did it broaden your understanding of this very American religion?

Thoroughly enjoyed the program. I came away with greater understanding and respect (and pride) for my religious tradition (I was raised a member of the LDS Church). Thanks to all those that contributed to such a quality program.

Brent Beal
Baton Rouge, LA

 

I appreciate the attempt at balance in this PBS documentry. I was especially moved by the comments of people whose lives had been changed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. But, I was surprised that the very center of the Faith was not addressed at all..and that is the belief that Jesus is the Christ, He died and rose from the dead, and we follow Him and all His teachings.

All those "rituals" talked about that take place in the temples are adjuncts to this belief, and would have no meaning without Him by whose name the Church is called.

Unlike the ex or anti-mormons I went from the place of reading anti-mormon literature, and in a bold move decided to research the anti-mormon literature and compare it to the Book of Mormon and was surprised to find much of the anti-mormon literature had taken things out of context and even twisted passages to fit their bias. I was shocked by this. I had complete trust in the anti-mormon's because they were "christians." I guess this is what jouranlism is all about, the courage to look at both sides, and then an opinion can be formed. I'm just so glad I looked at both sides. I'm now a Latter Day Saint.

Moriches, NY

 

After seeing both segments, I have mixed feelings. So many of the wonderful doctrines that are supported by Old and New Testament teachings were misrepresented, and didn't even sound like doctrines of the Church. The people interviewed - professionals- often used the phrase, "I think". Opinion or conjecture to that degree should have no place in a documentary, "I think".

The time given to ex-Mormons' comments was not balanced with comments from ordinary Mormons and leaders. The part about the excommunication of a member was from her viewpoint which should have been given. However, the church's position on excommunication was not explained. The reason that she was treated kindly after the court, was that persons excommunicated are not hated; in fact, they are invited to work with the Bishop to overcome the problem, and many ex-members are rebaptized into the church.

I am grateful for the program; I just wish it had shown a more accurate and complete picture of what the church was and is.

Betty Cox
Madisonville, KY

 

If the ratio of Mormon to non-Mormon comments on this board is indicative of who viewed the program, it would seem that Mormons made up the majority of the audience. That is somewhat disappointing to me, a practicing Mormon. I'd hoped that this would be an opportunity for non-Mormons to hear an unbiased account of our history and faith.

As to the content, I do not agree with those who've complained here about an overwhelming negative slant. Was the main focus on the more "sensational" aspects of Mormonism? Yes. Should anyone be surprised by this? No. Overall, I think the portrayal was accurate and fair. I've also enjoyed reading the interviews on this site very much and I look forward to watching the second half of the program.

Mike Jones
West Jordan, UT

 

Did anyone read who the interview's were? To say that the show used mostly exmormons is not correct. For instance, Daniel Peterson, the man who described Joseph using a peep stone in his hat, is one of the most respected LDS scholars in the religion. He's a professor of Islamic Studies at BYU. From the list, I see only one exmormon, Michael Quinn. The VAST majority of interviews weren't with exmormons, but either current Mormons or non Mormon historians.

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/

I'm almost sad at the reaction of current Mormons. As a member, I'm shocked at how little people know about the early history of the faith. The accounts in the documentary are well documented by several LDS sources. I'm surprised how little current members of the LDS faith have read about the early founding of our church.

Steve J
Las Vegas, Nevada

 

As all documentaries should, the program focused on historical facts rather than heresay and beliefs. I watch the Frontline series and I think this documentary is in line with their high standards.

I hope the program helps Americans understand the atrocities that were committed against the mormons and the mormons acknowledge that their history is not clean either (Mountain Meadow massacre etc.) Religious tolerance was needed in the 19th century and is what we need today.

Many people who have seen it seemed to think it was not fair and balanced. If there any important FACTS (not beliefs) that the documentary excluded, it will be great if they can share it

anonomous ...
Provo, Utah

 

I had the feeling this program infured that I was being blindly led. I do not believe that but if it were so what damage is done. I have been taught to follow Christ and treat people like he would. I have been taught to be honest in all my dealings. To be true and chaste. To honor my parents. To cleave unto my wife. To support and nuture my children. To avoid substances that would harm my body. To help other people and be chartible. To freely give of my time. I could continue but I think you understand.If people find these attributes offensive or my desire to share them with other obtrusive, I just wish all I dealt with in life tried to treat me the the way I try to treat them.Thanks PBS for your time and concerm with my religion

Terry Cook
Cortez, Colorado

 

Like some of the comments recieved I thought there were good points and bad points brought out in the 1st part. I think as a whole your program could've bee reported better. Let's stick to facts. Not someone's personal opinion or interpretation of something they only think they understand.

As far as the reporting on the Mountain Meadows Massacre which was the first I had heard about it, I thought there was one important factor left out. The mormon people had to have been very suspicious of any outsiders. They still remembered and were still terrified from all the atrocities against them in Kirkland, Nauvoo and the Hauns Mill Massacre. They still remembered with sad hearts the many times they were forced to flee their homes and leave behind everything they had worked so hard for. And don't forget the extermination act brought about by the governor of Missouri. I would've been trigger happy too.

Like with any organized group religious or otherwise there is positive and negative. That is because they are ran by human beings. Human beings are know to error and have faults. No one is perfect. While I do have my own issues with some of the teachings of the LDS Church I still believe in the basics and principals it was founded upon. I will never turn my back on it, unlike some of the very bitter sounding ex-mormon comments you have recieved.

Ashton, Idaho

 

As an active Latter-day Saint, I was a bit apprehensive about how the PBS special would present my faith and my faith's history. I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised. I thought the quality of the production and the content was quite good. The program dealt with very difficult issues of history where a lot is not known and where interpretations vary widely about what is known. ...

All of the topics in the program have been dealt with at length in LDS and non-LDS venues, so there was no surprise for me. I understand that some of the history presented may have been new for some Latter-day Saints who have never before studied these events, but I hope that these Latter-day Saints will ultimately agree with me that a deeper understanding of the 19th century saints will lead to a deeper appreciation of their faith and sacrifices and will lead to a more profound and stronger faith in saints of our own time.

I commend those who worked to create Part I of the series. For me, the program was instructive, moving, and inspirational.

Paul McNabb
Champaign, Illinois

 

This Frontline piece on Mormonism strikes me as utterly the mostunbalanced presentation I've seen in a Frontline film: the majorityof the "historians" and "authors", et al, seemed little more than Mormanapologists. As a non-Morman I would have prefered a real dialectic, eg.a piece in which a massacre is not explained away with mealy-mouthedexcuses. To say one felt for the Mormon gunmen who murdered innocentmen, women and children (as one apologist did) by saying they were boundby Mormon customs to obey is uncomfortably close to the excuses usedat Nuremberg, post WW II. I would have liked to have heard more analysisfrom non-apologist historians, journalists and theologians.

Additionally, I too would have liked to hear more analysis from Protestant and Catholic theologians in order to balance the Mormon apologetics so heavy in thisfilm. I hope part II contains more balanced dialectic, however, from this initialepisode I am not too hopeful.

San Francisco, California

 

I've read with much amusement the comments posted so far about this program. And since you get ctiticism from all points of view, PBS must have struck somewhat of a fair balance concerning the subject of The Morman Church. I didn't watch the whole program. I could tell from the very beginning that coverage of this subject was, in my opinion, rather thin and sanatized, which was proven all the more since PBS didn't include Jon Krakauer, the author of "Under the Banner of Heaven", as an interview subject or source.

Grady Henry
Casa Grande, AZ

 

What a breath of fresh air it was to see the prohpet of God President Hinckley, Elder Holland and Elder Oaks. Their countenance was so bright, peaceful and self assured. No matter what lies or biased views were given by a panel of anti-mormons. The truth was so evident when it was spoken by these humble, intelligent God fearing men.

sydnie Deneke
davenport, Iowa

 

I had high hopes, and I have to say they were exceeded by what I saw.

I loved how the film drew the connections that beliefs in the miracles of the LDS faith are no different then the belief of miracles in any other religion. I think too often people of other faith some how think their miracles are some how more believable because they happen so long ago.

I thought the film was well balanced. I thought the program did a good job of connecting the dots on both sides. As a child I grew up in the church and I knew the history that the church gives. Then as a young man I fell away from the church and became very aware of what the anti-Mormonism crowd thought about the history of the LDS church. Believe it or not they were polar opposites. But when watching the program I could see both sides of the story coming together and I really appreciated that. I felt like the program wasn't holding any punches, and at the same time being extremely reasonable.

My only criticism is the time lapse. The history is so rich, it was hard to see so many elements get left out, however I understand that 2 hours doesn't come close to enough time, and I truly did enjoy what was accomplished. Regardless of how many negative responses you get, please know you can't please everyone, but you certainly pleased one person.

Thank you

Harrison Odell
Salt Lake City, Utah

 

I, like the New York Times, thought it "great to hear people who believe in something and can articulate it without sounding crazy or defensive." It is interesting to hear other members complain about the balance of opinion. I thought is was thought provoking and presented information and allowed the viewer to make a decision or perhaps even want to find out more. I am looking forward to the second half.

Carlos Chacon
Highland Springs, Virginia

 

Too bad the program last night wasn't as accurate about the LDS Church as your FAQ section is. I haven't read it all but what I've read presents correct answers to the questions and misrepresentations of the Mormon Doctrine.

Jim Burnett
Spanish Fork, Utah