Revisiting "The Godmakers"

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

The film doesn't portray LDS doctrine from the scriptures. It portrays what LDS GAs have taught, mainly in the 19th century, and mainly from Brigham Young. It is moot today whether much of this is actually official doctrine, but does show the shifting sands of what was once doctrine. I don't believe the film is an accurate portrayal of the church today, what it officially believes or "omits" today, though some parts of the film are accurate. Notes on what is very dubious:

1) Adam God (denounced by Pres.Kimball in 1976)
2) Eloheim going into the garden with "one of his wives".
3) Are there trillions of planets ruled by countless Gods? Scriptural reference? The Book of Moses doesn't say this. It says that if the creations of God (singular) could be numbered they would be more than every grain of sand on earth. There is nothing about "countless Gods".
4) "As man is..." was taught by Snow, but approved by church leaders, but it is not scriptural.
5) The portrayal of the pre-existence is largely accurate, but black people were not considered "neutral". There were no neutrals in pre-existence, but the idea of "less valiant" was taught.
6) Eloheim knocking on Mary's door is a parody. This was perhaps meant to mirror Joseph Smith "knocking on the door" of one of his many wives. Eloheim has that seductive look, and Mary looks like a victim about to be raped. LDS doctrine has never specified how the conception occurred, but it certainly wasn't as portrayed in the film. Some GAs have said it was a "sex act", exactly as in mortal conception, but this is not official doctrine.
7) The idea of Jesus having three wives has never been LDS doctrine. It was speculation. You know, Brigham also taught that people live in the sun.
8) Joseph Smith never claimed that he had done more for mankind than any other man, including Jesus Christ. This claim was made by John Taylor in Section 135 of the D&C. Joseph said that he did more than even Christ by holding a church together, so there is some distortion or conflation here.
9) The statement that Joseph Smith "shed his blood for us so that we too may become Gods" is pure hyperbole.

I don't think this cartoon film does any justice to Mormonism, and the complexity and nuances of Mormon doctrine. These are things that need qualifiers and explanations and even exegesis. It is an attempt to make Mormonism look too simplistic, and does not account for shifting emphases and even changes in LDS beliefs. When the president of the church says "polygamy is behind us", and it was only "practiced on a small scale", and a church media spokesperson compares it to "stoning for adultery" and now in the past, the situation is not quite so simple. The church is now so anti-polygamy that it (incorrectly) portrays Joseph Smith as a monogamist.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

Coggins7 wrote:Loran:

Runtu, if you were not, at least in some fundamental way, "like" Ed Decker, you wouldn't be here in this forum, or any other, attacking and attempting to deligitemize the church in the eyes of others and destroy their faith and commitment to it. Neither would Shady, Rollo, or any of the others here with a similar agenda. As I believe Wade has pointed out time and time again, the majority of people who leave the church go on with their lives and let the church fade into the background. Some number of these will eventually come back to the church, and some won't, but it is only this tiny core of apostate critics who become either a part of the Evangelical Protestent counter-cult movement, leftist secularist critics of the Signature Books and Dialogue type, or ranting bigots like CoffeeCat, Nortinski, Polygamy Porter, and a few others here and in other forums.

These people clearly share a similar psychology and self concept not shared by the majority of people who don't stay with the church, but who don't gravitate to forums like ex-Mormons.org, Mormons In Transition, or Recovery From Mormonism. and who don't write books attacking the church, don't, create institutions and religious ministries invested in the destruction of the church and its teachings, don't create blogs and websites invested in the impunging of the church and its teachings, and who don't convey the kind of hatred, venom, bitterness, and frank intellectual dishonesty in their criticisms of the church that is a staple within this subcultural element of ex-Mormons. It doesn't seem to mattter whether one becomes a flaming leftwinger or a Bible thumping fundamentalist in response to one's leaving of the church for other pastures. The underlying dynamics seem quite similar across the spectrum of both commited amature and professional anti-Mormons.

No, you may not be the demagogue, intellectual hack, and flat footed snake oil salesman that Decker and others like him are, and you're approach to defaming and distorting church teachings and history may be more restrained, civil and, shall we say, domesticated than Deckers, but again, the underlying dynamics retain similarities that can be defined and critiqued.

Loran


Hmmm. So, I'm like Ed Decker lite, apparently. You just made my day. Thanks for the chuckle.

For the record, I have no interest in defaming or distorting any church leaders or teachings or history. I enjoy discussing Mormonism, and I will speak the truth as I understand it. If I'm wrong in my approach, I appreciate being shown how.

I don't think exmos have a monopoly on hatred, venom, bitterness, or frank intellectual dishonesty. In some ways I'm fortunate for having been at one time an apologist, as I see the same kinds of dynamics mirrored on both sides of the argument. There are honest and respectful critics, and hateful, dishonest apologists, and vice versa. In my experience, most people on both sides are honest and genuinely interested in the truth, but not all. We need not assign motives to each other. Rather, let's deal with the facts and leave the namecalling to the Deckers of the world.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Ray A wrote:The film doesn't portray LDS doctrine from the scriptures. It portrays what LDS GAs have taught, mainly in the 19th century, and mainly from Brigham Young. It is moot today whether much of this is actually official doctrine, but does show the shifting sands of what was once doctrine. I don't believe the film is an accurate portrayal of the church today, what it officially believes or "omits" today, though some parts of the film are accurate. Notes on what is very dubious:

1) Adam God (denounced by Pres.Kimball in 1976)


Yes, I caught the mention of that, but the narrator says, "Early Church leaders taught that..." I.e., the film doesn't say this is "definitive" doctrine per se, but rather that this was something that was legit LDS doctrine at one point.

2) Eloheim going into the garden with "one of his wives".
3) Are there trillions of planets ruled by countless Gods? Scriptural reference? The Book of Moses doesn't say this. It says that if the creations of God (singular) could be numbered they would be more than every grain of sand on earth. There is nothing about "countless Gods".
4) "As man is..." was taught by Snow, but approved by church leaders, but it is not scriptural.


I think that this is a good, and really very interesting point. It makes me wonder if Pres. Hinckley's "I don't know that we teach that" was actually a subtle means of dismissing the claims---not to mention the title---of Decker's film, or at the very least to downplay this aspect of Church teachings.

5) The portrayal of the pre-existence is largely accurate, but black people were not considered "neutral". There were no neutrals in pre-existence, but the idea of "less valiant" was taught.
6) Eloheim knocking on Mary's door is a parody. This was perhaps meant to mirror Joseph Smith "knocking on the door" of one of his many wives. Eloheim has that seductive look, and Mary looks like a victim about to be raped. LDS doctrine has never specified how the conception occurred, but it certainly wasn't as portrayed in the film. Some GAs have said it was a "sex act", exactly as in mortal conception, but this is not official doctrine.


I am curious what you think an accurate portrayal might look like. In fact, I suspect that many of the criticisms leveled against the film have to do precisely with the fact that these doctrines have been portrayed at all. I think that most TBMs would prefer that these teachings remain abstract, and would rather that things such as the (immaculate?) conception not be given a "screen treatment" at all.

7) The idea of Jesus having three wives has never been LDS doctrine. It was speculation. You know, Brigham also taught that people live in the sun.


Speculation by whom? I wasn't aware that this had ever been taught or "speculated upon" at all.

8) Joseph Smith never claimed that he had done more for mankind than any other man, including Jesus Christ. This claim was made by John Taylor in Section 135 of the D&C. Joseph said that he did more than even Christ by holding a church together, so there is some distortion or conflation here.
9) The statement that Joseph Smith "shed his blood for us so that we too may become Gods" is pure hyperbole.

I don't think this cartoon film does any justice to Mormonism, and the complexity and nuances of Mormon doctrine. These are things that need qualifiers and explanations and even exegesis. It is an attempt to make Mormonism look too simplistic, and does not account for shifting emphases and even changes in LDS beliefs. When the president of the church says "polygamy is behind us", and it was only "practiced on a small scale", and a church media spokesperson compares it to "stoning for adultery" and now in the past, the situation is not quite so simple. The church is now so anti-polygamy that it (incorrectly) portrays Joseph Smith as a monogamist.


But the Church itself doesn't exactly deal with or address these "shifting sands" or "changes" either, does it? I am still wondering about the feelings underlying the vitriol directed towards this film. To me, the cartoon, while perhaps a bit disrespectful, seems to be mostly harmless. A differing, and somewhat humorous perspective at the worst. I just don't understand why so many people react to it in such a vicious, angry manner.
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

Mister Scratch wrote:Yes, I caught the mention of that, but the narrator says, "Early Church leaders taught that..." I.e., the film doesn't say this is "definitive" doctrine per se, but rather that this was something that was legit LDS doctrine at one point.


The film also claims to be a representation of "what Mormon theology is really all about". That's the title. Are they talking about now, or "what early leaders taught"? Maybe it should be "what Mormon theology was really all about", or "we don't know what Mormons believe now, and we're not sure they do either".

I think that this is a good, and really very interesting point. It makes me wonder if Pres. Hinckley's "I don't know that we teach that" was actually a subtle means of dismissing the claims---not to mention the title---of Decker's film, or at the very least to downplay this aspect of Church teachings.


I think that is the case.

I am curious what you think an accurate portrayal might look like. In fact, I suspect that many of the criticisms leveled against the film have to do precisely with the fact that these doctrines have been portrayed at all. I think that most TBMs would prefer that these teachings remain abstract, and would rather that things such as the (immaculate?) conception not be given a "screen treatment" at all.


An accurate portrayal will take a lot more than 6 minutes 17 seconds of a cartoon. I saw the original and didn't find it to be as distorted as was claimed by many, but still distorted.

7) The idea of Jesus having three wives has never been LDS doctrine. It was speculation. You know, Brigham also taught that people live in the sun.


Speculation by whom? I wasn't aware that this had ever been taught or "speculated upon" at all.


From the John Dehlin 2:81

On October 6, 1854, Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde stated, "How was it with Mary and Martha, and other women that followed him [Jesus]? In old times, and it is common in this day, the women, even as Sarah, called their husbands Lord; the word Lord is tantamount to husband in some languages, master, lord, husband, are about synonymous... When Mary of old came to the sepulchre on the first day of the week, instead of finding Jesus she saw two angels in white, 'And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou?' She said unto them,' Because they have taken away my Lord,' or husband, 'and I know not where they have laid him.' And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.' Is there not here manifested the affections of a wife. These words speak the kindred ties and sympathies that are common to that relation of husband and wife".


From The Seer:

Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt agreed with his contemporary when he wrote, "One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that greatly loved Jesus -- such as Mary, and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene; and Jesus greatly loved them, and associated with them much; and when He arose from the dead, instead of showing Himself to His chosen witnesses, the Apostles, He appeared first to these women, or at least to one of them -- namely, Mary Magdalene. Now it would be natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were His wives" (The Seer, p.159).


There are other references but I won't bother with them.

But the Church itself doesn't exactly deal with or address these "shifting sands" or "changes" either, does it? I am still wondering about the feelings underlying the vitriol directed towards this film. To me, the cartoon, while perhaps a bit disrespectful, seems to be mostly harmless. A differing, and somewhat humorous perspective at the worst. I just don't understand why so many people react to it in such a vicious, angry manner.


No, it doesn't always deal with the issues. No clarifications on polygamy, no repudiation of the curse of Cain, which went from doctrine to "policy", no idea why PH was denied in the first place, up in the air about "God was once a man", no revelation of where the Book of Mormon took place, and seemingly in two minds about Mesoamerica or North America. The church is officially silent on a lot. All I would like is one definitive statement from the First Presidency about polygamy, not "it's behind us". That could mean anything. Even if they said "we still believe in polygamy in principle", I would be happy with that. Instead the policy is to say as little as possible, as if one thing is believed in private, another in public.

I don't feel any vitriol towards the cartoon rendition. I just think you cannot give an accurate portrayal of Mormonism through cartoons, anti-Mormon films, or even pro-Mormon films. They are all going to omit things which suit their interests.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Ray A wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Yes, I caught the mention of that, but the narrator says, "Early Church leaders taught that..." I.e., the film doesn't say this is "definitive" doctrine per se, but rather that this was something that was legit LDS doctrine at one point.


The film also claims to be a representation of "what Mormon theology is really all about". That's the title. Are they talking about now, or "what early leaders taught"? Maybe it should be "what Mormon theology was really all about", or "we don't know what Mormons believe now, and we're not sure they do either".

I think that this is a good, and really very interesting point. It makes me wonder if Pres. Hinckley's "I don't know that we teach that" was actually a subtle means of dismissing the claims---not to mention the title---of Decker's film, or at the very least to downplay this aspect of Church teachings.


I think that is the case.

I am curious what you think an accurate portrayal might look like. In fact, I suspect that many of the criticisms leveled against the film have to do precisely with the fact that these doctrines have been portrayed at all. I think that most TBMs would prefer that these teachings remain abstract, and would rather that things such as the (immaculate?) conception not be given a "screen treatment" at all.


An accurate portrayal will take a lot more than 6 minutes 17 seconds of a cartoon. I saw the original and didn't find it to be as distorted as was claimed by many, but still distorted.

7) The idea of Jesus having three wives has never been LDS doctrine. It was speculation. You know, Brigham also taught that people live in the sun.


Speculation by whom? I wasn't aware that this had ever been taught or "speculated upon" at all.


From the John Dehlin 2:81

On October 6, 1854, Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde stated, "How was it with Mary and Martha, and other women that followed him [Jesus]? In old times, and it is common in this day, the women, even as Sarah, called their husbands Lord; the word Lord is tantamount to husband in some languages, master, lord, husband, are about synonymous... When Mary of old came to the sepulchre on the first day of the week, instead of finding Jesus she saw two angels in white, 'And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou?' She said unto them,' Because they have taken away my Lord,' or husband, 'and I know not where they have laid him.' And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.' Is there not here manifested the affections of a wife. These words speak the kindred ties and sympathies that are common to that relation of husband and wife".


From The Seer:

Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt agreed with his contemporary when he wrote, "One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that greatly loved Jesus -- such as Mary, and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene; and Jesus greatly loved them, and associated with them much; and when He arose from the dead, instead of showing Himself to His chosen witnesses, the Apostles, He appeared first to these women, or at least to one of them -- namely, Mary Magdalene. Now it would be natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were His wives" (The Seer, p.159).


There are other references but I won't bother with them.

But the Church itself doesn't exactly deal with or address these "shifting sands" or "changes" either, does it? I am still wondering about the feelings underlying the vitriol directed towards this film. To me, the cartoon, while perhaps a bit disrespectful, seems to be mostly harmless. A differing, and somewhat humorous perspective at the worst. I just don't understand why so many people react to it in such a vicious, angry manner.


No, it doesn't always deal with the issues. No clarifications on polygamy, no repudiation of the curse of Cain, which went from doctrine to "policy", no idea why PH was denied in the first place, up in the air about "God was once a man", no revelation of where the Book of Mormon took place, and seemingly in two minds about Mesoamerica or North America. The church is officially silent on a lot. All I would like is one definitive statement from the First Presidency about polygamy, not "it's behind us". That could mean anything. Even if they said "we still believe in polygamy in principle", I would be happy with that. Instead the policy is to say as little as possible, as if one thing is believed in private, another in public.

I don't feel any vitriol towards the cartoon rendition. I just think you cannot give an accurate portrayal of Mormonism through cartoons, anti-Mormon films, or even pro-Mormon films. They are all going to omit things which suit their interests.


A great post, Ray, and I really feel that it cuts right to the heart of my questions on this matter: Why do people get so unbelievably angry about this movie? I'm totally with you: I thought the cartoon was basically kind of goofy and funny, that it was at least as accurate as the typical Sunday School lesson, and ultimately that it's not worth foaming at the mouth over. But clearly there's something else to all this.
Post Reply