It is gratifying to see that the Church leadership is finally trying to begin opening up. The Church would be well served to trust its own members to sort through issues about the history and decide for themselves what they believe. Not every aspect of Church history is positive, and members are better off being told the truth. As an active Church member, I am asked in temple recommend interviews if I am honest in my dealings with my fellow man. The question to the Church leadership is: Are you being honest in your dealings with your own members and history? Again, by letting all the information available be made public, people can choose for themselves how to interpret it and what they believe. Isn't this what Joseph Smith was trying to get the Christian world to do about the revelations he had? Also, isn't it consistent with a free and open society? Of course, some members might leave, but that is the purpose of free agency and the members that choose to stay after a full evaluation of information will be much stronger. The Church also teaches (and I certaintly believe it is true) that we should forgive our fellow man and seek forgiveness. Again, wouldn't it be good for the Church leadership to publicly admit mistakes that previous Church leaders have made and apologize in situations where it is appropriate. For example, wy doesn't the Church (which clearly teaches that we are all equal before God), come out and state directly (not in veiled terms) that previous statements by many Church leaders about racial issues and previous Church policies regarding the Priesthood were just plain wrong and apologize for them. Rather than have members that are afraid to question or feel embarrassed about the negatives, the Church would be much better off admitting to past mistakes, clearly apologizing for them and moving on to the positive things that the gospel has to offer. This is what we are taught and members and it would be nice to from our own leadership.

A decade ago, Hugh Hewitt produced a PBS TV series called "Searching for God in America" that included an hour interview with LDS Church Apostle Neal Maxwell. It was riveting as Hewitt explored Maxwell's life experiences and their influence on his religious faith, including his combat in Okinawa. Having read the transcripts of the lengthy interviews Helen Whitney had with Elder Boyd K. Packer and Elder Dallin H. Oaks, most of which never was broadcast, it is clear that Helen Whitney's personal feelings of doubt, rather than any objective sense of what was important to understanding Mormons, their beliefs and history, guided her selection of material. She selected and displayed words and pictures that expressed her own "shock" that anyone could actually feel certainty about the remarkable spiritual assertions that are offered by the LDS Church.

The visuals were in fact so detached from reality that they were actively misleading. To illustrate a long sequence of several minutes in which a woman described the high council hearing which resulted in her excommunication from the Church, Whitney displayed a single hardback wood chair in the center of a large, dark room with a wooden floor and a railing overlooking a staircase going down, along which were placed other wooden chairs, apparently to represent the members of the high council. Whitney later admitted to a Mormon History Association meeting (as reported in the DMN) that this was meant to represent the "emotion" of the story, not actually depict anything resembling the place where an actual high council hearing would be held. Of course, there was no disclaimer on the video, thus deceiving the uninformed viewers who had never been inside an LDS meetinghouse, or a high council room with its normal ceiling, window, large boardroom table, white board on the wall, and soft padded chairs, all in pastel colors.

The only visual representation of Joseph Smith, used repeatedly, was a tryptich of his face without expression, with a dark background, not even an accurate representation of his appearance. The Angel Moroni was depicted as an odd painting of a dark and foreboding figure with no context, contrary to the only description of him as wearing a brilliant white robe. Visuals used with discussions about events in LDS history, such as the Nauvoo and Kirtland Temples, and the pioneers, even when parts of motion pictures, were short clips, dark and obscure, hard to make out.

Given the rich visual catalog of depictions of Joseph Smith, Moroni, and the many significant places and events in LDS history, the omission of any visual depiction that was (a) accurate (b) informative or (c) inviting, was certainly because Helen Whitney wanted to conceal them from her audience. There was absolutely no way that a viewer unfamiliar with Mormon history would learn from this program that most of these places still exist and have been restored to their original appearance and can be visited. No viewer was allowed to admire the simple craftsmanship and beauty displayed in temples built by small groups in times of great poverty, when their own families were not well housed. Maps were not even used to depict where events took place. The ability of a viewer to even know there were resources beyond this program was impeded by Whitney's obscurantism and refusal to transmit the "unvarnished" facts.

Whitney's view of Mormonism was so filtered through her own perceptions and unwillingness to transmit the "shocking" certainty of Mormons about their beliefs that it has absolutely no value for anyone who is trying to learn anything of substance about "The Mormons". There was a total of 20 minutes of enlightenment among the emotional fog of Whitney's desire to depict every Mormon as at least secretly doubting the Mormon story as much as she does.

I have heard reports that some of the positive things in the program, those few times where Mormons were emotional and "not boring" enough to get through Whitney's editing, actually touched some people to seek out the LDS Church and retain a positive impression of it. That can also be said of some explicitly anti-Mormon videos, which are so offensive in their tone that some people are actually driven to seek out the true story from Mormons.

It seemed to me that some of the basic facts omitted by Whitney included: (a) what a Mormon meetinghouse looks like (in case someone wanted to visit one), (b) what the Book of Mormon actually says about anything, (c) what Temple Square and its surrounding campus of buildings looks like, (d) what Brigham Young University at any of its campuses looks like, (e) what an LDS Seminary or Institute of Religion looks like, (f) what any LDS prophet before Gordon B. Hinckley looks like, (g) the fact that Mormons have no career clergy and every congregation is staffed by volunteers, (h) what an LDS Temple looks like (including interior photos publicly available), (i) the international diversity of the LDS members and the international experience of Mormons in Utah, (j) the high level of educational attainment of many Mormons, (k) the accomplishments of Mormons besides Mitt Romney and Harry Reid and Donny Osmond, (l) the fact that there were 11 other witnesses of the Book of Mormon gold plates, (m) the fact that many people experienced spiritual visions in concert with Joseph Smith, such as Oliver Cowdery, (n) Joseph Smith's confinement in Liberty Jail and the poignant words he penned there, and (o) the settlement by Mormons of much of the West.

In particular, Whitney's depiction of Mormon intellectuals was indelibly biased toward dissenters, and gave viewers no clue that extremely bright and capable scholars who are LDS, at BYU and elsewhere, are also devoted to their faith, rather than reflecting her insistence on finding a "doubt" that would reassure her that it was not possible for any intelligent person to really believe Mormonism. She omitted any mention of their extensive work in providing scholarly support for the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon, such as the video produced in the Arabian Peninsula that shows remarkable confirmation of the Book of Mormon narrative as to locations of unique geographic features.

The best thing to be learned from "The Mormons" was how difficult it is for Mormons to get our story told to the world without a suffocating blanket of censorship and distortion, even by people who are not actively fighting the Church. I pointed out much the same problem in the book review I wrote for FARMS at BYU of the book "Mormon America" by the Ostling family. People who find the Mormon story "incredible" or "shocking", are "bored" by Mormons talking about what they believe and why, and are shocked by Mormon certitude in affirming that story, believe they are being "objective" when they distort the Mormons to make them look less threatening in their certainty.

Like the Ostlings, Helen Whitney leaves a great mystery behind her. She has failed to explain WHY, despite all her own doubts and inability to believe it, the Mormons have such certainty, and have, because of that certainty, accomplished so much. By obscuring the extent of Mormon certainty and Mormon accomplishments, she tries to conceal the question, rather than answer it.

Altogether, the program resembles the way I think a pagan Roman playwright might have depicted the Christians of 65 AD. As the playwright spent time with the Saints, he would have been attracted to their devotion and kindness, but also "shocked" at their certainty that the fantastic stories of the resurrection of Christ and the various miracles wrought by Peter and Paul were actually true, before they were covered over time by a "patina" of skepticism and effete rationalization. Both original Christianity and restored Christianity (Mormonism) assert with certainty fantastic events that challenge conventional understanding of what reality is like. The power of that certainty, reflected in the growth of the Church and the achievements of its members, causes many people to fear that the consensus of viewpoint that is the foundation of their world view will collapse under the assualt of that certainty and conversion.

If after having visited temple square, hearing the tabernacle choir, learning of the great welfare plan of the church,and all the other great things wrought by mormons,If, I say,we feel nothing, then i add that there is something in us that needs
fixin.

The internet is the the new and impoproved Nauvoo Expositor and it cannot be burned down.

Its smallest part is bigger than the whole LDS church. It's influence with the truths that it reveals is stronger and more convincing than all 50,000 LDS missionaries.

We have seen conversion rates dropping and I believe we will see it drop even further.

As a lifelong member who left due to the truth, along with my wife and large mormon family, it would be refreshing to see President Hinckley come clean and start publishing the number of resignations.

Perhaps it is too high?

Truth, Facts and Falsehoods

My experience with members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is they are not perfect but trying very hard to live the commandments of God and living virtuous and charitable lives.
They work hard and have love in their family.
They have talents and share them frequently without fanfare and pretense. They love the Lord Jesus Christ and pray to the Heavenly Father in His name.
They are wonderful citizens of their countries and and serve their communities.
Their welfare system is admirable and their humanitarian aid is unselfishly given to those in need.
Those members who have left their faith I have found have broken commandments they made to God and now offer excuses why they are no longer attending their church meetings.
Living around them I see their faith in action.
I love them as my brothers and sisters.

Thank you Raymond and Greg for your insightful comments. I agree with both men. I only saw a small portion of Ms. Whitney's "The Mormons" and I found it offensive and sometimes very biased. "We", do not as active members, just have blind faith, we try to be as Christ like in all our actions as our leaders and our Heavenly Father asks us to be. No one says we are perfect, but we work on it daily. I will not comment further than to say the Greg summed it up in his short statements of truth. A member of the LDS faith is either active or inactive, there is "no" in between. We either support the leaders thru faithful service or we buck the system because we can't cut the mustard.

I found this documentary very enjoyable. I liked the idea that Ms. Whitney showed both sides of the issue. Intellectual study is a good thing. It doesn't always give you the answers you're looking for. The "certainty" of the truth comes from the heart. Many seek to find it but not all succeed. I have questioned my Mormon religion many times myself but my heart will not let me let go of the truth.

max pixel, sorry you left the church, why do you want to know how many people have left? What value is that to you? I thought the tv program was very misleading and took a lot of issues out of context.

I hate it when faiths argue. I am not a dumb woman. I just think we need to resepct all faiths...and try to love as Christ taught us.
Max....sorry you left....
I for one, have time to time stuggled with many things in my life....being a parent (there were days I wanted to throw away my mommy badge), a wife.......(don't even get me started) and even parents (don't all teenages?)....
When it's all said and done its what you truly bleieve with your whole heart that matters.
Have I been a good memember all my life? NO.....I failed a few times. I let God down. I offended God.
But, that is what The Atonment is all about. And the Plan of Salvation....
Max, you might come around one day again.......
Hope so....

I agree with Max that it would be good to hear the church admit their low retention rates. Every year they announce how many hundreds of convert baptisms have been done, with no mention of how many thousands have left. Based on my experience living all around the country, and hearing stories from missionaries returned from around the world, I have to believe that only maybe half of the official membership of the church are actually active, practicing members.

Amy,
I think Greg's comment, though made innocently enough, actually hit the nail on the head. What else would explain why you respond so vehemently and angrily, placing yourself as a martyr and as the one attacked, when your name was nowhere to be found in his post. Nobody was trying to shame you, but you shame yourself by responding the way you do. You're the one that labeled yourself an apostate. You also labeled Greg (or strongly infered) as someone that "doesn't understand that it takes more than just saying you love someone." I'm betting you don't know him. How can you infer that he fits your cynical view? If you have found a better life outside of the church and truly practice the kind of "love" you so highly esteem, why are you so quick to pick on others for their opinions and beliefs? You see persecution where there is none. You take offense where none is given. Live your life the way you feel best, avoid being controlled by your need to be "understood," and you'll find that life is a lot more enjoyable and even fairly simple, in or out of the church. I know people generally don't like to be told how to live their lives, and I'm sure I'm going to hear about it in a future post, but c'mon, is being defensive all the time really getting you anywhere? I know from experience that it generally doesn't, and I also know from experience that defensiveness is usually a symptom of personal discontent.

I quite enjoyed the PBS special 'The Mormons', felt it was balanced in that it demonstrated positive qualities of the church while being honest about it's past.

My own experience as one hyper-active in the church for 30+ years (bishopric, gospel doctrine teacher, temple worker) is that it is very disappointing to learn uncomfortable facts about church history which were intentionally kept from my grasp prior to the internet. I tried very hard (desperately hard) to disprove those unpleasant realities concerning Joseph Smith in particular, ended up finding out that the church has edited and sanitized it's history to keep it 'faith-promoting'. I consider that dishonest and unfair. Members such as myself are finding out that we've been treated like children and told pleasant stories, unfortunately the truth about church beginnings puts the entire restoration in question.

Amy,

Thanks for your clarifications. It's interesting, I took Greg's comment more like a personal observation, rather than an indictment, and it didn't seem as disparaging to me as you seemed to take it (I don't think he used the words "lazy," "touchy," or "apathetic.") And I doubt that is how I would label you if I knew you better (although I confess I did think you were "touchy" after reading your first post). I guess that's what happens when we read something from different perspectives. Anyway, if I wanted to, I could take your comment about Joseph Smith and consider it an attack on my beliefs. I don't believe that is how you meant it, and I choose to not take it that way. My point, I guess, is that I would consider you not an "apostate" but rather someone that simply has a difference of opinion on certain aspects of the church. You choose not to believe, perhaps don't feel you can based on certain things you've learned. But why does it need to turn into labeling and categorizing? True, I don't know what you've been through, and I do know that people (including church members) can often be tactless and intolerant. If Greg meant what he said the way you took it, then shame on Greg. If he didn't mean it that way, then shame on you. Either way, you could have ignored it and it's no skin off your back - really.
And for my part, I apologize for the martyr reference. It seemed legit at the time, but it wasn't fair.

Max, I am a convert. I think that those many who fall away are those, like in any religeon, who have not put any effort or committment into it. As for how many? Who should be worried? Does it not say in the scriptures(if you believe and are obedient)- Mat 7:14 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
I thought the word "few" was pretty clear and self explanatory.

I agree with KRudd that it is disturbing when people of different faiths argue. In order to be "Christ Like", you must respect all faiths, even those that have left the church. In my life I have come across many people that have left the church. Many of them have been lazy, apathetic people that just couldn't "Cut the mustard". Others have been insanely active people that were so let down when the truth came available to them (internet). Because of all the negative publicity the church has been receiving, they are now confronting those issues, and I applaud them for that. "By the power of the holy ye may know the truth of all things", not just the sanitized stories you learn in Sunday school. To many folks, programs such as this my be offensive. Learning about something you have been lied to your whole life is uncomfortable and painful (especially when the church has no response to such program). Most members of the church have no idea about the past of Mormonism, and it is good that they are finally learning about it.

The Mormon Church goes as far as to claim that they are the only unchanged church, however, everything has been changed. If Mormons today practiced as Mormons of old, they would all be living like Rulon Jeffs, Colorado City polygamists, and the Kingston polygamists. However, the people of the LDS faith see these people as crazy, sick, obscene, perverted, etc. Brothers and sisters, this is how your profits and members of the past have practiced. If you believe in the restored gospel, as it was restored by Joseph Smith, you should go join one of those polygamist groups. Polygamy was a huge part of the restored gospel, and it cannot be overlooked merely for convenience (US government forcing). If it was a commandment of god, it should never have been rescinded.

One last thought, "God is love". Do you really believe that god is going to cast those souls down to hell that cannot believe the LDS faith? The LDS faith is hard to believe when hearing the truth. Plus, there are so many great people that are members of other great religions that do great things their whole life. Someone full of love (God) is so proud of them for their good deeds no matter what their faith is. Religion causes conflict and radicalism (as seen on this forum). Let's focus on being good people, and accepting people of all faiths.

RKruger, I whole-heartedly agree with you when you say "let's focus on being good people and accepting people of all faiths." I also fully agree that God is love. I am not sure where you go the idea that we believe that those who do not believe the LDS faith are thrust into hell by God. I have never learned that. I have always learned that we are judged by our works, faith and our hearts, including how we treat other people. I have also learned that only the truly evil and wicked who have knowingly murdered, etc. with no remorse are those who will go to purgatory. The rest of all mankind will live in different degrees of glory, which are just that, glorious.

I also don't recall ever being taught that the Mormon Church has never changed. Anyway, I wish you the best.

Dear Max and Family:

What commandment couldn't you live?

As the time grows closer it is expected such behavior among man. I am a convert to the CJCLDS for over 20 years, I too believed Joseph Smith to be perfect because he was a prophet of God. I guess, we expect this kind of man to be perfect people. As times went by and I learned more about him, more I saw his imperfections, more I loved this man for trying so hard to please God. He was and is and ever will be a prophet of God. If you can't believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet because of his imperfections, his weakness, then you also can't believe in Moses or Abraham of the old testament, or the apostles of the New Testament. If polygamy is your blocking stone, them you shouldn't also believe in the bible, because God called man from the old Testament to practice polygamy and took it away in the New Testament times. Or are the two testaments from different Gods? We can be here arguing for a long time, but it would take us nowhere. There is no perfect man on earth, there never was and there never will be besides our Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ, who died and resurrected for each one of us, believer of Him or not. I never tell people "I am LDS now but I left the Catholic church because wasn't true" "or because they lied to me". I was not hurt by them. I want no ill towards the catholic church, but for some reason that's not true for people that leave the LDS church. I rarely hear people saying "Oh, I am a new convert to the such and such religion now" or "I recently became without religion and I am happy" without saying first "I was LDS and I left the Church because it is not true, they are liers, etc..." To me, personally, I think when someone have to tell bad things about their previous religion, what ever it was, is because they left primarily, because they were hurt by imperfect people in that religion and they need personal satisfaction against the religion itself. This opinion is not directed to anyone in particular, just an observation. The gospel of Jesus Christ is perfect and immutable, but the Church of our Savior is alive with revelations as of old. What a wonderful thing it is. I read all your comments and I learned much. Thank you for sharing them with me and being patient and understanding about my own. I pray that we all will be ready to receive whatever degree of glory we are working on at this moment, from whatever designation we belong to when judgment day arrives. I just hope we all can be better people and live in a way that can inspire peace and tolerance among men in this world we live in.