Full Oaks And Packer Interviews

[JNclone]

There is a proper way and an improper way to raise concerns.

That is what people in authority always say when they don't like what you have said about them and can't think of any way to show that it is not true.

You can hear the same language in Beijing and in parts of the Vatican. Isn't it funny that it is the people who are being criticised who claim the right to decide how they are to be criticised? Is that healthy, do you think?

[MorningStar]

None of us are supposed to criticize each other in the church. We are supposed to love each other. I think his point was that there are other ways to bring about change than with negativity. It sure would've been nice if they had included his comments that stated what he meant without leaving the one controversial sounding comment hanging all by itself. That was lame.

[Baurak Ale]

Are the filmed extended versions of the interviews avialable for download if so where?

[LifeOnaPlate]

That is what people in authority always say when they don't like what you have said about them and can't think of any way to show that it is not true.

You can hear the same language in Beijing and in parts of the Vatican. Isn't it funny that it is the people who are being criticised who claim the right to decide how they are to be criticised? Is that healthy, do you think?

I don't think it has much to do with truthfulness; more method. We can agree to disagree. [i disagree with your comparisons, by the way. Apples/oranges, etc. People like JNclone are a lot like the KKK in that they always must be right and never admit when they are wrong; a lot like Nazi Germany, etc.]

Also, as you didn't answer my original question, I'll ask again:

There is a proper way and an improper way to raise concerns. I think Elder Oaks is trying to communicate that. Would you disagree with that sentiment? [even if you don't think that is the point Elder Oaks is trying to make?]

[Scott Lloyd]

It was my impression that Whitney was commenting on how some excommunicants might feel the process is like a "1920's inquisition". It's also possible that some older Church buildings have a more stylized High Council room than the more generic modern ones.

That's not what she was endeavoring to depict, and she acknowledged as much in the MHA session. She was into "visual metaphor" at that point.

[Scott Lloyd]

Six: That is certainly possible. If that is what she was attempting to do, that is a biased approach. She could have chosen to visually portray the something that represents the disappointment and betrayal that believing Latter Day Saints feel when something they love is attacked by apostates. Or, she could have chosen to represent the disciplinary process from the perspective of those who, in the capacity of their callings, are forces to sincerely and lovingly deal with these hard issues.

I would suggest that if documentarian wants to show the truth, they ought not take sides.

Regards,

Six

I agree. She was very much engaging in advocacy during the segment on excommunication. And it was advocacy sorely lacking in balance.

[Doctor Steuss]

That's not what she was endeavoring to depict, and she acknowledged as much in the MHA session. She was into "visual metaphor" at that point.

What "visual metaphor" was she trying to convey when she utilized J. Kirk Richards' "Idea (ee-day-ah)" for the angel Moroni?

Dun, dun, dun...

[Scott Lloyd]

What "visual metaphor" was she trying to convey when she utilized J. Kirk Richards' "Idea (ee-day-ah)" for the angel Moroni?

Dun, dun, dun...

My kids had to sleep with the light on for three nights after they saw that thing!

(Just kidding. Actually, they weren't much interested in watching the program.)

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm certain HW and Tuscano had a lovely chat.

ps- Steussy, you ought to just make that baby your avatar.

[maklelan]

Putting my own bias aside, I thought HW did a balanced work. I've heard complaints from both sides of the fence. Thats usually a pretty good sign IMO.

I disagree. I believe this is a fallacy called argumentum ad temperantiam. This is the fallacious belief that the truth of a situation is found in the middle ground of two opposing viewpoints. Several issues were blatantly and intentionally misconstrued so as to leave a specific impression on the viewer.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

ps- Steussy, you ought to just make that baby your avatar.

George would get jealous.

[Scott Lloyd]

I disagree. I believe this is a fallacy called argumentum ad temperantiam. This is the fallacious belief that the truth of a situation is found in the middle ground of two opposing viewpoints. Several issues were blatantly and intentionally misconstrued so as to leave a specific impression on the viewer.

I had the same impression; I just couldn't put a name to it. Thank you.

And let's face it: The anti's would be discontented with and complain about anything that was not a full-scale hatchet job on the Church.

[MorningStar]

As a member of the church, I can look at the artistic license used when they showed an acutal courtroom and think, "Pbbbbbpt! That's not how it is!" But a non-member will take that as reality. If PBS puts on another special about a different faith, I will be suspicious of most of their claims, especially the negative ones. I'm curious as to how they would do a documentary on Jehovah's Witnesses.

[Scott Lloyd]

As a member of the church, I can look at the artistic license used when they showed an acutal courtroom and think, "Pbbbbbpt! That's not how it is!" But a non-member will take that as reality. If PBS puts on another special about a different faith, I will be suspicious of most of their claims, especially the negative ones. I'm curious as to how they would do a documentary on Jehovah's Witnesses.

It wasn't even an actual courtroom. Just 15 empty wooden chairs facing a single chair in a stark, carpetless room. It was other-worldly. It was as though the producers took the ugliest, coldest, most sinister setting an ill-informed outsider could conceive of and attempted to present it on the screen.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It wasn't even an actual courtroom. Just 15 empty wooden chairs facing a single chair in a stark, carpetless room. It was other-worldly. It was as though the producers took the ugliest, coldest, most sinister setting an ill-informed outsider could conceive of and attempted to present it on the screen.

Don't forget the murdurous handshakes and the obvious and overwhelming confounding of the elders by Tuscano.

[Scott Lloyd]

Don't forget the murdurous handshakes and the obvious and overwhelming confounding of the elders by Tuscano.

Oh yes. How dare they wish the woman well after having pilloried her so. It's not like one is ever admitted back into full fellowship after having undergone Church discipline.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Oh yes. How dare they wish the woman well after having pilloried her so. It's not like one is ever admitted back into full fellowship after having undergone Church discipline.

I'm certain they all relished the chance to remove her from the Church records. I'll be they had a party afterwards.

And indeed, they sent her to the land from whence no traveler has e'er returned. Excommunication land. I'm just now learning they have no chance at getting back.

[Hammer]

I'm certain they all relished the chance to remove her from the Church records. I'll be they had a party afterwards.

And indeed, they sent her to the land from whence no traveler has e'er returned. Excommunication land. I'm just now learning they have no chance at getting back.

Well they either take heed to the warnings or they cast them aside. I would think that those warranting excommunication for apostasy are those who have denied the Holy Ghost. Or They have fought against the church, leaders, zion etc and they are warned of doom in the 121nd section of the D&C.

You warn your kids and warn them not to run in the street yet complain when they get hit.

[HappyStretchedThin]

I'm not a film studies guy, but did anyone else notice how much care PBS took to frame the shot of particularly Elder Oaks making full and direct eye contact with his interviewer from slightly above and to his right so that it looked like he was shifty eyed the whole time?

Now thinking through at http://www.defenseoftruth.blogspot.com

[cinepro]

I disagree. I believe this is a fallacy called argumentum ad temperantiam. This is the fallacious belief that the truth of a situation is found in the middle ground of two opposing viewpoints. Several issues were blatantly and intentionally misconstrued so as to leave a specific impression on the viewer.

Really? Like what?

I think many members of the Church forgot what the Church was when they watched the show. The Church isn't a physical object that can be measured or examined. The Church is a group of people who have ideas and behaviors. And to each member of the Church, or to each person that has an experience with the Church, the "Church" is defined by that experience.

So there isn't one objective "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". There are only millions of people, alive and dead, who have had individual experiences interacting with the group that call themselves "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". And while most LDS share certain beliefs and experiences, every LDS has had a unique experience. I think the problem is that some people expected the documentary to reflect their particular thoughts, beliefs and experiences about the Church, and were upset when it didn't (or even worse, when it shared the thoughts and experiences of someone who had a negative experience with the Church).

Now, how do you make a documentary about such a thing? One approach would be to do what the Church does: make a documentary about what you wish the Church was like, showing an idealized and starched version of things. For those LDS who consider themselves open minded enough to not expect the show to depict their narrow experience in the Church, they were probably wishing for this kind of approach (but not expecting it).

Or, you could do what anti's do, and focus on the negative. (I suspect many LDS were fearing this kind of approach, and their memories of the program are largely colored by their expectations).

But both approaches only scratch the surface of what the Church "is" (while at the same time becoming part of the LDS Church experience in the process).

Helen Whitney approached the subject as any good documentarian would do. She stepped back and looked at the Church from many different angles. Then she presented the many facets of the Church so that someone who watched it might not be able to see "The Church" (after all, how do you see an experience?), but they would be able to see what the experience of being a Mormon, or being around Mormons, has had on people. For some it was positive; for others, negative.

I can understand complaints about getting stuff wrong when it's names and dates. And certainly I find that Moroni picture to be weird beyond belief (and certainly not a reflection of my experience as a Mormon). I thought the documentary was excellent, even in those parts that didn't reflect my understanding or experience with the Church. I felt like many, many facets were well eloquently represented, and I am baffled that any member of the Church could complain at a documentary that incorporates church leaders and scholars to the extent that Whitney did.

[HappyStretchedThin]

Really? Like what?

I think many members of the Church forgot what the Church was when they watched the show. The Church isn't a physical object that can be measured or examined. The Church is a group of people who have ideas and behaviors. And to each member of the Church, or to each person that has an experience with the Church, the "Church" is defined by that experience.

So there isn't one objective "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". There are only millions of people, alive and dead, who have had individual experiences interacting with the group that call themselves "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". And while most LDS share certain beliefs and experiences, every LDS has had a unique experience. I think the problem is that some people expected the documentary to reflect their particular thoughts, beliefs and experiences about the Church, and were upset when it didn't (or even worse, when it shared the thoughts and experiences of someone who had a negative experience with the Church).

Now, how do you make a documentary about such a thing? One approach would be to do what the Church does: make a documentary about what you wish the Church was like, showing an idealized and starched version of things. For those LDS who consider themselves open minded enough to not expect the show to depict their narrow experience in the Church, they were probably wishing for this kind of approach (but not expecting it).

Or, you could do what anti's do, and focus on the negative. (I suspect many LDS were fearing this kind of approach, and their memories of the program are largely colored by their expectations).

But both approaches only scratch the surface of what the Church "is" (while at the same time becoming part of the LDS Church experience in the process).

Helen Whitney approached the subject as any good documentarian would do. She stepped back and looked at the Church from many different angles. Then she presented the many facets of the Church so that someone who watched it might not be able to see "The Church" (after all, how do you see an experience?), but they would be able to see what the experience of being a Mormon, or being around Mormons, has had on people. For some it was positive; for others, negative.

I can understand complaints about getting stuff wrong when it's names and dates. And certainly I find that Moroni picture to be weird beyond belief (and certainly not a reflection of my experience as a Mormon). I thought the documentary was excellent, even in those parts that didn't reflect my understanding or experience with the Church. I felt like many, many facets were well eloquently represented, and I am baffled that any member of the Church could complain at a documentary that incorporates church leaders and scholars to the extent that Whitney did.

The overall approach of Whitney may well have been as you describe it, but there are many demonstrable instances of her intentionally framing the debate on specific points so as to create, *not* reflect, an image of that vast agglomeration of agents claiming a sense of community through roughly like-minded beliefs that we call the LDS church (which you were quite astute to point out). My argument with you, then, is less on the generalities than on the specifics which there isn't good space to go into here, but with some of which I've dealt (I hope adequately) at defenseoftruth.blogspot.com. And on that score, I'm afraid Whitney's numerous tricks of false framing tip the scale easily to the negative point by specific point.

[Scott Lloyd]

Really? Like what?

I think many members of the Church forgot what the Church was when they watched the show. The Church isn't a physical object that can be measured or examined. The Church is a group of people who have ideas and behaviors. And to each member of the Church, or to each person that has an experience with the Church, the "Church" is defined by that experience.

So there isn't one objective "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". There are only millions of people, alive and dead, who have had individual experiences interacting with the group that call themselves "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". And while most LDS share certain beliefs and experiences, every LDS has had a unique experience. I think the problem is that some people expected the documentary to reflect their particular thoughts, beliefs and experiences about the Church, and were upset when it didn't (or even worse, when it shared the thoughts and experiences of someone who had a negative experience with the Church).

Now, how do you make a documentary about such a thing? One approach would be to do what the Church does: make a documentary about what you wish the Church was like, showing an idealized and starched version of things. For those LDS who consider themselves open minded enough to not expect the show to depict their narrow experience in the Church, they were probably wishing for this kind of approach (but not expecting it).

Or, you could do what anti's do, and focus on the negative. (I suspect many LDS were fearing this kind of approach, and their memories of the program are largely colored by their expectations).

But both approaches only scratch the surface of what the Church "is" (while at the same time becoming part of the LDS Church experience in the process).

Helen Whitney approached the subject as any good documentarian would do. She stepped back and looked at the Church from many different angles. Then she presented the many facets of the Church so that someone who watched it might not be able to see "The Church" (after all, how do you see an experience?), but they would be able to see what the experience of being a Mormon, or being around Mormons, has had on people. For some it was positive; for others, negative.

I can understand complaints about getting stuff wrong when it's names and dates. And certainly I find that Moroni picture to be weird beyond belief (and certainly not a reflection of my experience as a Mormon). I thought the documentary was excellent, even in those parts that didn't reflect my understanding or experience with the Church. I felt like many, many facets were well eloquently represented, and I am baffled that any member of the Church could complain at a documentary that incorporates church leaders and scholars to the extent that Whitney did.

If Whitney's purpose was not necessarily to present things as they really are, but rather to present various individuals' perception of things, then I suppose she succeeded rather well.

Trouble is, that's not necessarily a way to approach truth. And if the presentation of perceptions is unbalanced and contrived -- as it was in portions of this documentary -- it can be quite misleading.

From time to time, I see the notion floating around that "perception is reality." I suppose that may bring comfort to advertisers and PR people, but it is patently ridiculous. Perception can -- and quite often does -- differ sharply from reality. Perception is that a pair of railroad tracks viewed at a distance converge and meet at a point. Reality is that they are parallel from beginning to end.

For example, in the inordinately long segment focusing on Margaret Toscano's account of her excommunication, she told of the high councilors shaking hands with her after the disciplinary council. Her perception was that they were being two-faced and hypocritical. The reality may well have been that, though they felt their decision was justified, the whole thing was very painful for them and that they were anxious to convey to her that they still valued her as a person and were fervently hoping that there one day would be a reconciliation.

What got presented in the documentary was Toscano's perception of this incident and not necessarily the reality of it. Certainly there was no weighing of her perception against that of, say, the high councilors involved or of those who may have been involved in similar situations.

[cinepro]

If Whitney's purpose was not necessarily to present things as they really are, but rather to present various individuals' perception of things, then I suppose she succeeded rather well.

Trouble is, that's not necessarily a way to approach truth. And if the presentation of perceptions is unbalanced and contrived -- as it was in portions of this documentary -- it can be quite misleading.

From time to time, I see the notion floating around that "perception is reality." I suppose that may bring comfort to advertisers and PR people, but it is patently ridiculous. Perception can -- and quite often does -- differ sharply from reality. Perception is that a pair of railroad tracks viewed at a distance converge and meet at a point. Reality is that they are parallel from beginning to end.

For example, in the inordinately long segment focusing on Margaret Toscano's account of her excommunication, she told of the high councilors shaking hands with her after the disciplinary council. Her perception was that they were being two-faced and hypocritical. The reality may well have been that, though they felt their decision was justified, the whole thing was very painful for them and that they were anxious to convey to her that they still valued her as a person and were fervently hoping that there one day would be a reconciliation.

What got presented in the documentary was Toscano's perception of this incident and not necessarily the reality of it. Certainly there was no weighing of her perception against that of, say, the high councilors involved or of those who may have been involved in similar situations.

You are so quick to see the fault in Toscano's perceptions, but are you so willing to doubt the "perceptions" of the people who had positive experiences with the Church and their interaction with Church members? Why are theirs any more valid? They aren't. both are necessary.

The Church isn't train tracks. The Church is a group of people with ideas, beliefs and actions. Sometimes these ideas, beliefs and actions have a positive influence with those around them (like in New Orleans), and sometimes negative (like Toscano).

Is Toscano's negative experience with the Church less valid than those with positive experiences? No. I absolutely agree with many of the criticisms of the program; I certainly would have spent less time on the MMM, post 1906 polygamy, "dancing", and Toscano. But this wasn't "Mormonsism According To Cinepro". It was "Mormonism as Seen By Helen Whitney, and PBS". And in order to represent all facets of the Church, the negative has to be included, even against the protests of the faithful.

[Scott Lloyd]

Duplicate post. Sorry.

[Scott Lloyd]

You are so quick to see the fault in Toscano's perceptions, but are you so willing to doubt the "perceptions" of the people who had positive experiences with the Church and their interaction with Church members? Why are theirs any more valid? They aren't. both are necessary.

I don't disagree with this. I'm only pointing out that truth is not necessarily found in a "he-said, she-said" rendition of a matter. (And, bear in mind this is coming from a working journalist who was trained to approach a topic in this way.) One can believe with all one's heart that something is the case and yet be totally wrong (as, for example, the folks who think NASA faked the moon landings).

In the movie "Absence of Malice," the newspaper reporter played by Sally Field is pontificating about reporting the truth. The Paul Newman character exclaims something along this line (I'm relying on memory here, so the quote may not be precise): "You don't report truth! You report what people say, what you overhear. You don't arrive at truth that easily."

Food for thought.

The Church isn't train tracks. The Church is a group of people with ideas, beliefs and actions. Sometimes these ideas, beliefs and actions have a positive influence with those around them (like in New Orleans), and sometimes negative (like Toscano).

I never contradicted this. But people can be wrong in their impression. And if they are, and their impression is the only side that's reported, then the public as well stands to get a wrong impression.

And I give it as my personal opinion that the obligation to be balanced is greater when when it comes to attacks and accusations than it is when one is dealing with compliments. Why? Because the potential for damage is greater with accusations than it is with compliments.

Is Toscano's negative experience with the Church less valid than those with positive experiences?

I would have been content if her remarks had been counter-balanced by someone pointing out thoughts along the lines of what I suggested in my prior post. As it was, the only thing we got that I recall was somebody saying that Church disciplinary councils are confidential, so accounts of them will, if anything, be one-sided.

Well, we can be thankful for small concessions, I suppose.

I absolutely agree with many of the criticisms of the program; I certainly would have spent less time on the MMM, post 1906 polygamy, "dancing", and Toscano. But this wasn't "Mormonsism According To Cinepro". It was "Mormonism as Seen By Helen Whitney, and PBS". And in order to represent all facets of the Church, the negative has to be included, even against the protests of the faithful.

The "negative" didn't have to be dramatized and contrived, the way it was in Whitney's "visual metaphor." And, I stand by my criticism that presentation of the negative was unbalanced in portions of it, particularly the segment on excommunication.