Helen Whitney’s PBS “The Mormons:” Lowering the Bar

 

Review by David Stewart, Jr.

Posted 22 July 2007

 

Helen Whitney’s PBS “The Mormons” is a two-part documentary that aired on PBS on April 30th and May 1st, 2007, which purports to tell the history and origins of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Ms. Whitney stated that her primary goal was to overturn stereotypes about Mormons, stating:  "I hope that most of the stereotypes — ideally, all of them — will be blown away...Because so many of them are just based on ignorance. Ignorance about Mormon history, ignorance about Mormon theology. Ignorance."[1]

While the film was generally well-received by secular press reviewers – few of whom appear to have been qualified to assess the accuracy of Ms. Whitney’s portrayals – the film’s reception by viewers was been far less favorable.  While the film was widely watched – due in large part to the free publicity Ms. Whitney received from her film being announced from the pulpit in many LDS congregations across the country -- the real report card of comes from cross-sectional feedback of those who watched the special.  Ms. Whitney’s representation of viewer feedback as “angry comments on the extreme edges”[2] grossly mischaracterizes the reality reported by Utah newspapers that viewer feedback on the documentary was strongly negative by a whopping two to one margin.[3] This resounding rejection of the film by the large majority of mainstream Mormon viewers demonstrates that most Latter-day Saints felt that the film failed to accurately represent them and their beliefs, and that they were unable to identify with its content. Certainly there were critics who were disappointed that Ms. Whitney’s production was not more negative, and members – expecting the worst – who were content that Ms. Whitney’s documentary was not as bad as what they may have expected.  Yet as historian Richard Bennett noted, the film “missed the opportunity to be balanced and accurate.”[4]  Most Latter-day Saints strongly feel that they are not able to recommend the film to others because fails to fairly or accurately represent their beliefs or history.  Ms. Whitney’s attempt to escape the errors and problems of her production by characterizing the bulk of Latter-day Saints who disagree with her work as marginal extremists, unfortunately, seems to be a sadly predictable echo of her own cynicism and disrespect towards believers that is seen throughout the film.

The LDS Church replied that Ms. Whitney’s documentary with its “thoughtful” approach to serious issues represented a “welcome change.” Ms. Whitney has invoked the Church’s response in order to defend herself from widespread viewer criticism, yet the official statement also suggests that the Latter-day Saints will feel that essentials were neglected, and that the producer’s decision to focus the special on a handful of historic controversies fails to provide a representative or balanced picture of either LDS history or contemporary Mormonism: “the historic practice of plural marriage and the tragedy of Mountain Meadows are far from the whole story of Church history or the experience and faith of members today.”  In light of the unprecedented cooperation that the Church gave Ms. Whitney for production of the film as well as the considerable time she gives to “exposing” the Church’s  “anti-intellectual” bent, a different official response was scarcely possible: direct criticism of the film would only have been touted by Ms. Whitney as further evidence of her repeated claims that the Church has been less than forthright in addressing its history – an accusation that even her defenders characterize as a “half-truth.”[5]

It is difficult not to see a rebuke of Ms. Whitney’s journalistic style in a subsequent church press release stating: “Core doctrines of the Church deserve to be reported on their own merits and with regard to how they impact individual lives, and not just as ‘controversial,’ contradicting, or competing with the beliefs of other faith groups...there is a better way than this ‘conflict approach’ to explaining Mormon doctrine. Doctrine can be discussed in light of what it means and particularly what it does to believers... It’s a formidable task, but one worth the effort for all involved.[6] Unfortunately, Ms. Whitney was not able to rise to the occasion, or to penetrate peripheral controversies to grasp the deeper and more meaningful elements of the Latter-day Saint movement.

 

Balance and Bias

Rather than presenting a balanced, mainstream overview of Mormonism, Ms. Whitney is inexorably drawn to the dark recesses of controversy.  Several interviewees featured in the documentary that I have interviewed cite Ms. Whitney’s use of leading questions, her rejection of mainstream answers as simplistic and “Disney,” and her draw toward the marginal. There is a deep cynicism towards what members say and an unwillingness to take Mormon beliefs and practices at face value. Most interviewees believed that Ms. Whitney believed in her own mind that she was trying to be fair, but that she was unable to recognize her own biases and attitudes which strongly influenced the final product.  Ms. Whitney’s inexplicable attraction to bottom-dwellers on the periphery of faith seems intent on heightening controversy rather than breaking down barriers.

The result of Ms. Whitney’s cynicism is not the insight or discovery of a tough investigative journalist, but rather that she introduces serious error and imbalance into the film by her rejection of faithful and well-documented answers in favor of the critical, the marginal, and the speculative.  Spooky, ominous music pervades the film, while the hymns of Zion are omitted.  Ms. Whitney presents dark, disturbing images inconsistent with the historical record[7] painted by excommunicant Trevor Southey, while ignoring the fine artistry done by Latter-day Saint artists including Greg Olsen, Del Parson, Simon Dewey, and others, as well as the art actually used in LDS churches.  Is it ethical to represent the LDS faith to a general audience with the dark artistry of excommunicants that few Latter-day Saints would recognize, while neglecting the mainstream art that Latter-day Saints actually use?  Does good documentary journalism consist in seeking out the most marginal, cynical, and suspicious content while neglecting the mainstream?  Such steps seem calculated to heighten misconceptions and stereotypes about Latter-day Saints rather than to foster understanding.

Ms. Whitney applauds her own generosity for allowing a couple of interviewees to mention in passing their belief in Christ, yet the program fails to make the central role of Christ in LDS theology apparent.  She misrepresents LDS beliefs with the sacrilegious claim that Joseph Smith is the “Alpha and Omega” of Mormonism – a title reserved for Jesus Christ in ancient and modern scripture.  Numerous inaccuracies are introduced by critics, but no opportunity for rebuttal is allowed. Maurine Proctor wrote:

 

“Whitney portrayed our Church and its history as violent, its leaders as rigidly authoritarian, and the people as unthinking zealots clinging to a faith for which there is no evidence.... Whitney starts to build the picture of [Joseph Smith as] a charlatan, a con man, one who started to tell a story, and then even believed it himself... [Joseph Smith was] a prophet who spoke to God, or a preposterous liar with a venal character. In making a documentary, if Whitney allows so many to express the latter idea, she is really obligated to explore the former. Too many important questions are never asked or answered regarding Joseph. Lots of people were founding religions in that period, but they sputtered and mostly came to nothing, while what Joseph founded has grown to become an influential, flourishing worldwide Church. Even if commentators do not see [Joseph Smith] as a prophet, they surely must acknowledge that he is a religious genius and count his accomplishments as remarkable. He brought forth three books so profound that millions, even the highly educated, consider them scripture. He elucidated theology and ideas so original that no one else had ever expressed something similar, at least not in his contemporary world.  If he was not a prophet, one would have to acknowledge that he is at least brilliant and fluent — especially given that he had very little formal education. He influenced thousands in his time and millions after to uproot and transform their lives in dedication to Jesus Christ...Whitney interviewed plenty of people who undoubtedly could have explored the source of his originality and influence — or at least marveled that it happened--but she chose to leave them on the cutting room floor... What did his close associates say of Joseph, and why were they so loyal to him? We hear no word of this.”[8]

 

As Proctor further points out, Ms. Whitney is genuinely irresponsible in giving critics extensive airtime to promulgate accusations that are not answered or addressed in the documentary.  She continues:

“Everybody doesn’t have to feel [excited] about the Book of Mormon, but the documentary should have at least portrayed the reality that many do. Instead the Book of Mormon is breezily dismissed by Grant Palmer, an excommunicant,[9] who calls it a piece right out of the 19th century and an archaeologist who says there is no evidence for it in Central America. Discussion ended.  Where is any mention of all the Mormon scholarship represented by FARMS? Why couldn’t we hear from a Jack Welch describing the Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon or the authentic Hebrew and Egyptian names? Why wasn’t Palmer’s comment about the Book of Mormon and DNA countered with a FARMS comment?”

 

The inclusion of such unanswered negative content is highly misleading to the casual viewer, and belies the fact that these and other criticisms have already been extensively answered by better scholarship of which Ms. Whitney is either ignorant or selectively chose to omit.  The vast number of speculative and nonsensical comments dredging up false claims which have already been repeatedly answered demonstrates that Whitney frequently failed to take the rudimentary journalistic step of adequately vetting her sources.

            Whitney’s allocation of large amounts of time to critics like Ms. Toscano attacking her excommunication for apostasy as a “violent action” while failing to give air time to the large number of Latter-day Saint scholars demonstrates that Ms. Whitney seems to have heard what she wanted to hear.  One colleague interviewed by Ms. Whitney reported being questioned at length about his experience with the Church’s “anti-intellectual activities,” and that Ms. Whitney made clear that his reply that he had never felt pressured or limited by the Church in his academic activities was not what she wanted to hear.  Certainly the inclusion of opposing viewpoints from faithful scholars on this and many other matters would have been important, but Ms. Whitney did not see things that way.

Ms. Whitney’s claims that she does not take an advocacy position are undermined by the fact that her historical advisor Will Bagley is a dedicated church critic associated with anti-Mormon groups including the Salamander Society.  Will Bagley himself admits that there is little clear evidence of what occurred.  He is alone of all of the historians in coming to the idiosyncratic conclusion that Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  The logic seems to be that Brigham Young was an autocrat, and (claims Bagley) nothing could have happened in Utah territory without his knowledge or permission — notwithstanding the long distances and slow communication in Utah territory at the time.  Bagley is certainly welcome to his opinion, but it is one that has been rejected by reputable historians (LDS and non-LDS alike), and to present his marginal and unsubstantiated speculations as representing fact or even a mainstream viewpoint is simply irresponsible.  Mr. Bagley’s record of presenting events in LDS history in the most negative light possible – even when such conclusions are unsupported by the historical record – is demonstrated throughout the film.

 

Focus on Controversy

            Ms. Whitney demonstrates an inability to prioritize and put events in their greater context.  The selection of big-name controversies – polygamy, Mountain Meadows Massacre, etc. – is based not on their significance or relevance to contemporary Mormonism, but on their sensationalism.  More significant matters are not covered.  The special offers almost nothing about theology or life application.  For example, Utah is the state with the lowest cancer and heart disease risks and longest life expectancy in the nation.  Studies have demonstrated that active U.S. Latter-day Saints live an average of 8-11 years longer than the average American.  The focus on self-reliance and strong families has kept crime and social problems low among Latter-day Saints.  The LDS Church is the most giving church per member in the world, and has been a first responder to many humanitarian crises.  These are highly significant issues for our society in which “Mormonism” has made stunning achievements, yet Ms. Whitney makes no mention of them except for a brief vignette on hurricane relief: Ms. Whitney is too preoccupied with lengthy segments dealing with the sensational, the speculative, the controversial, and the remote, to offer a mature or representative perspective of the modern church.  In so doing, she fosters suspicion and misunderstanding rather than building bridges. 

Ms. Whitney seems to believe that providing equal time to Latter-day Saints and anti-Mormons is the key to balance.  The basis for this belief must be reexamined. In a story on a church with millions of members, why should the relatively small fraction of excommunicated and dissident members gain a disproportionately prominent voice by putting them collectively on par with believing members?  It is clear amid the cacophony of voices that Ms. Whitney has done little homework to determine which statements of her interviewees are meritorious and which are not.  Why should shoddy scholarship and idiosyncratic conclusions of critics that have been answered numerous times and are inconsistent with the historical record be given credence over the historical record?  If Ms. Whitney were doing a show on geography, would she feel compelled to offer half of the time to proponents of “flat earth” theories in order to provide “balance?”  This is, unfortunately, what Ms. Whitney does with the “Mormons." Ms. Whitney’s other work certainly does not stand up to the tactics that she employs in her documentary on the LDS faith. 

If Ms. Whitney indeed believes that her approach was balanced, we must wonder where, for instance, were the angry critics denouncing Pope John Paul II and Catholicism in her tribute movie?  One wonders if Ms. Whitney would have been as widely acclaimed by national reviewers for her work had she done a special on the history of Catholicism which focused on the inquisition and the medieval tortures and their methods, the Catholic church’s rejection of science, the many religious wars, and suffering incited by religious leaders, yet such events occurred on a far wider scale and are better documented and more significant than the speculation and innuendo used for instance in attempts to link Brigham Young to the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The fact that one may present both “pro” and “con” arguments about the medieval inquisition and religious wars, does not make the documentary a fair and balanced look at Catholicism: the fact that the discussion is centered on unpleasant controversies while ignoring positive or even neutral elements in itself creates imbalance.  If Ms. Whitney believes that the LDS faith is violent, she is either badly misinformed or dishonest.

The focus of the special misses the mark of who Mormons are and the central elements of our faith.  While the Mountain Meadows Massacre is indeed a tragic event in LDS history – one that LDS historians have explored extensively, and have found no evidence of Brigham Young’s involvement in – this isolated event is far from allowing characterization of the LDS Church as a violent faith.  To the contrary, the record of other faiths suggests that it is remarkable that Latter-day Saints have perpetrated so little violence, especially in light of the persecution they faced.  Only through speculation and innuendo can the atrocity of Mountain Meadows be extrapolated to church leadership, in contrast to the numerous atrocities ordered over the centuries by Catholic popes and cardinals and those of other faiths. Between 100 AD and the great schism in 1054 AD, at least 279,000 Christians were killed by the apostate Church.[10]  After the Schism, over 5,170,000 other Christians were killed by the persecutions of the Roman Catholic Church alone. World Christian Trends reports over 16,000 Christians being martyred by Protestant groups, in addition to millions of Muslims, Jews, and pagans killed by Christians through religious wars, persecution, and for non-religious reasons.  Over 69 million Christians are estimated to have been martyred for their faith. 

 

Conclusion

One’s opinion of Whitney’s “The Mormons” will depend on what one is looking for.  If one is looking for sensationalism, speculation, and controversy, one will certainly find them as pervasive themes of Ms. Whitney’s special.  If one is hoping to understand LDS history or beliefs, Ms. Whitney’s film only muddies the water. Ms. Whitney fails to deliver on her stated goal of breaking down stereotypes, instead choosing merely to cement them.  Rather than clarifying, Ms. Whitney heightens and perpetuates misunderstandings of a “fascinating but often misunderstood religion.” By focusing on interpretations of controversy while ignoring the underlying principles of faith, Ms. Whitney fails to really explain anything about Mormonism.  Maurine Proctor accurately summarized the feedback from hundreds of her respondents when she noted that “the broad assessment was that the program as a whole was a smooth assault upon the Church, interspersed with a few eloquent moments from believers.”[11]

            Every faith has some elements that are difficult for outsiders to understand.  Is the real issue that the LDS Church has more troublesome baggage than other faiths and is difficult to understand, or is it that Ms. Whitney has embarked on a selective agenda of seeking out controversies in the far margins of faith while ignoring the essentials?  What about the history of religious wars, murders, intrigues, and whoredoms of the medieval popes and their American emissaries?  What of the atrocities committed against Indians and blacks by American Protestants in the name of God?  The fraud, embezzlement, and hypocrisy of modern televangelists?  In any case, Ms. Whitney’s film presents little more than a highly selective laundry list of contemporary pro and con opinions about peripheral controversies, most of which have little to do with the faith of contemporary “Mormons.”  In her obsession with peripheral controversy and titillating sensationalism, Ms. Whitney has utterly missed the essence of the Mormon faith.  Her scandal-mongering journalism never reaches the level of maturity to address essential issues, such as: What do Mormons believe?  Why do Mormons believe what they do?  What meaning do they derive from their faith?

            It is difficult to identify evidence of Ms. Whitney’s self-vaunted integrity in her final product. The disturbing misuse of public funds on a partisan project filled with inaccuracies and misrepresentations which was, as Maurine Proctor noted, “a smooth assault on the Church,” also raises legal and ethical questions.  When courts have ruled repeatedly for the separation of church and state, is it proper for taxpayer-funded projects to fund productions which slander faith and enshrine anti-religious bigotry?  Ms. Whitney’s production of what is ultimately a taxpayer-funded anti-LDS propaganda piece (with interspersed statements from believers to provide the appearance of “balance” for the masses) sets a dangerous precedent.

Latter-day Saints are not asking for an idealized portrayal, but merely to be treated with respect, fairness, balance, and integrity – which most viewers recognized that Ms. Whitney failed to deliver.  It is perhaps most disappointing how poorly Ms. Whitney still understands Mormons in spite of the volume of data she has collected.  It is ironic that Ms. Whitney chides outsiders about the need to overcome their ignorance toward Mormonism when her finished product enshrines so much ignorance and error.  She might do well to take her own advice before attempting any more “documentaries” on subjects that she does not understand.

 


[1] Pierce, D. Scott.  “’The Mormons’” on PBS takes aim at sterotypes.”  Deseret News, 14 January 2007.

[2] PBS Frontline “The Mormons” chat transcript, 2 May 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/04/27/DI2007042701597.html

[3] Fidel, Steve. PBS series 'a welcome change,' church says, but most viewers find fault with documentary.  Deseret News, 3 May 2007.  http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660217219,00.html

[4] Moore, Carrie A.  ‘Mormons’ Maker Defends Film. Deseret News, 26 May 2007, http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660224180,00.html

[5] Moore, Carrie A.  ‘Mormons’ Maker Defends Film. Deseret News, 26 May 2007, http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660224180,00.html

[6] “Positioning Church Doctrine — How Mormons See Themselves.”  LDS.org press release, 15 June 2007. 

[7] Southey’s dark angel is inconsistent with Joseph Smith’s description of Moroni’s visit (“a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen”) in Joseph Smith History 1:30-32

[8] Proctor, Maurine.  “Helen Whitney – Missing the Mark.”  Meridian Magazine, 4 May 2007.  http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/070504pbs2.html

[9] In fact, Palmer was disfellowshipped but not excommunicated.  see “Author of Controversial Book Disfellowshipped in Hearing,” KUTV.com news, 12 December 2004, http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_347162504.html

[10] Barrett and Johnson, World Christian Trends, 2001, 229-230.

[11] Proctor, Maurine.  “Helen Whitney – Missing the Mark.”  Meridian Magazine, 4 May 2007.  http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/070504pbs2.html