I wrote the following review, not to cry evil and argue that the documentary was ‘completely biased’ or ‘wrong’ or anything to that effect. I believe in questioning and thinking deeply on information presented to me and just wanted to point out some failings that I saw that should make us stop and think.  The letter:

I was disappointed in the quality of journalism displayed in “The Mormons” documentary. It really made me question the objectivity in other programs backed by Frontline and American Experience. I do not think the filmmakers were actively trying to push an agenda but I do feel they fell into the same pitfalls and stereotypical biased reporting of the Church on the most controversial topics.  Evidence of perpetuating stereotypes and poor journalism:

Perpetuating Stereotypes:

Mormons worship Joseph Smith: The narrator, who should be most objective, says Joseph Smith is the “Alpha and Omega” of the Latter-day Saints. No Latter-day Saint would agree with such a statement. Taking Biblical language used for Christ and applying it to Joseph Smith has clear connotations of old, false notions that Mormons worship Joseph Smith or are not Biblical Christians.

Mormons practice polygamy: Even after showing a clip of the leader of the Mormon church saying categorically that Mormons do not practice polygamy the filmmakers proceed to show a long segment on the lifestyles of “fundamentalist” Mormons. I believe that modern day practicing polygamists are newsworthy and interesting but not clearly separating such practitioners from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only perpetuates the stereotypes.

Mormonism contains witchcraft: The translation of Book of Mormon is portrayed as mystical with a strong focus on use of a seer stone with repeated ‘looming’ images. They do not mention elements of the translation that are perhaps most remarkable: the speed in which a 500 page book was produced, accounts of witnesses of the translation process, or showing of the original manuscripts showing no editing, no breakage in dictation yet remarkable internal consistency and external consistency to things not known in Joseph’s day about Near Eastern or Mesoamerican culture and language.

Missionaries are annoying: showing outward stereotype of missionaries ‘harassing people on the streets and not showing the “inside” view that missionaries do not like street contacting, are taught it is the least effective way of finding people to teach, nor do they show missionaries inside a person’s home who actually enjoy and welcomed them.

The Amount of Airtime given to topics:

Airtime given to ex-mormons or historical critics vs. practicing believers. Why do journalists covering the Mormons continually go to ex-mormons or historical critics for the final say in Mormon doctrine and Mormon living. Why would you ask a Quaker to define Islam? Or a Catholic priest to be the expert on Buddhist philosophy?

The amount of airtime given to widespread systematized persecution, murder, and rape of the Mormons vs. the amount given to a one-time incident of a isolated small group of Mormons.

Airtime given to the sexual overtones of polygamy with added commentary vs. brief statement by narrator that many (if not most) plural marriages were not sexual at all.

Not allowing believing LDS commentaries on the most controversial topics:

No LDS commentary allowed after claim of “no archaeological evidence” of the Book of Mormon.

No LDS commentary allowed after claim that the Book of Mormon has no ancient elements, a “nineteenth century creation”.

No LDS commentary about Joseph Smith and ‘golddigging’ claims only that of an ex-mormon.

No LDS commentary in regards to a strong statement of a scholar saying Joseph was “faking it” in relation to the creation of the Book of Mormon.

No LDS commentary allowed on the issue of the blacks and the priesthood. Why not interview someone like Jessie Embry who is well known researcher on the topic.

No examples of believing LDS intellectuals. How about a Truman Madsen, Havard trained philosopher yet believing Mormon?

No active LDS perspective on the excommunication process.  No story from the perspective of someone who had a positive experience and eventually returned to the church. All of this coupled with a completely false image of a lone chair in front of a wall of judges.

No active LDS commentary allowed to an ex-mormon’s strong claim that “his (Joseph’s) sexual desire drove his practice (of polygamy)”

No active LDS commentary allowed to claims that Joseph had an “affair” with a nineteen year old girl.

No LDS opinion allowed in regards to the decision to end polygamy.

It’s right and proper to allow differing opinions but to not give voice, particularly, to the accused is poor documentation.  Helen Whitney and Frontline, you lost a certain amount of credibility in my eyes.

ShareThis

I have a lot of respect for Buddhism. There is something quite beautiful about the mediation, concentration, and unity with the natural world found in Zen Buddhism. The traditional teachings of Buddhism are quite simple and beautiful, i.e. the 8 fold path, and when practiced are conducive to a harmonious society.

The Cambodians I worked with were Theravada Buddhists and for the lay people it was more a matter of culture than religion. A lay practitioner likely didn’t know the theology, history, or teachings of the Buddha. For most it meant an altar in the home dedicated to one’s deceased parents, Buddhist ceremonies at times of weddings or funerals and certain phrases with Buddhist overtones incorporated into language. So I didn’t always see the best of Buddhism working with poor refugees in the States, it was very complicated with lost faith because of the holocaust, generational gaps, the allure of prosperity for the first time in their life, etc. We did have some positive experiences, we actually taught English at a Buddhist temple/community center and ended up becoming friends with one of the monks. When I was on my mission the church finished building a new temple and had an open house for the public. We took our monk friend to give him a tour. The best part of it though was just traveling throughout the city, the sight of two mormon missionaries in their white shirts and ties and a little cambodian buddhist monk dressed in bright orange robes strolling along as friends.  Onlookers appeared utterly confused.

Upon further inquiry:

Some of my thoughts… In a lot of ways I don’t see Buddhism as a religion strictly speaking because it doesn’t speak about the ultimate questions of life (life after death, issues of creation/cosmos, etc). Sakyamuni stayed away from those questions on purpose, I think to pull his audience back to the present of how to control their thoughts and behaviors to develop goodness and a good society. I think of it more as philosophy; a way-of-living philosophy. I think Gautama was particularly upset by the extremes, the extreme of ease and comfort he grew up in, the extreme of suffering and death, and the extreme of radical ascetics; all of which are extremely applicable in our modern time.

As I see modern Buddhism practiced (keeping in mind that there are endless shades and expressions of Buddhism) I think one thing that I don’t like, and I don’t think was the original intention of Sakyamuni, is the tendency to withdraw from society into the mind. Similar to Grant’s thoughts about the monks who lived in the caves in Ukraine (do you remember his remarks?)-

[we had traveled to the Ukraine previously touring multiple underground monastery caves, a common friend had delivered a very moving discourse at one point in which, although with utmost respect, expressed the error of these medieval monks to think that the highest enlightenment in Christian teachings called for them to remove themselves from the world and live their entire lives in these caves in meditation]

-Basically that the principles taught by Christ begin with the control of self but rise to the high interaction of human relations, that ‘enlightenment’ or ‘christian living’ is to be experienced in the human interaction of charity and love.  There are a lot of similar teachings between the two, particularly the basic teachings of the Sermon on the Mount and the 8-fold path.  Buddha stopped way short of claiming to be the Son of God or coming back to life after death, but those are thoughts for another discussion. So I don’t think the intention, even in the present-minded thinking of Zen, was to turn completely inward in thought.

I also found Buddhism as practiced by the people I was interacting with frustrating because it was so intertwined with culture and national identity. They did not act out of conscious choice, they were not Buddhist because they ‘believed’ it, they were Buddhist because they were Cambodian and it closed off the mind.  And it wasn’t just that I wanted them to listen to the message I was sharing but just the frustration that they weren’t thinking deeply about life, deciding for themselves what they thought/believed, like you say you like the freedom it gives you to create your own reality, unfortunately I often saw it have the opposite effect when it was strictly a cultural ‘religion’. So, the ‘the unexamined life if not worth living’ type frustration.

As far as living in the moment, savoring every aspect of life, that has been a particular challenge for me as well, and it took a kind of wake up call to get me to look at life with different eyes. I have become much more relaxed since then, hopefully been more pleasant to be around as well. Two places I see it most strongly is the value I give to human relationships and my feelings about the natural world. I think modern living in many ways pulls us away from enjoying those aspects so that it must be a conscious repeated decision based on what we want to value.

Well, this is getting quite long, of course you’ve hit topics I could go on and on about.

ShareThis

ShareThis

(If you do not wish to read the original post, his analogy centered around using a flashlight in the dark to find his way but how it created tunnel vision and blinded him to things around him. He turned off the flashlight and after time his eyes adjusted and he could see more clearly. Then he rejoiced in his emancipation from the crutch of a flashlight) I took the liberty of adding to the parable:

“As I sat there proud of my discovery, happy and free from my artificial light, being able to see more wonders and beauties in the night, I continued on my way and it dawned on me that the reason I could see in the dark was because of the light reflecting off the moon originally sourced from the sun. It sunk deep into my soul and I felt a sense of humility. I did not have any choice that my body amazingly adjusted to the lower levels of light by small muscles changing the diameter of my iris, it was a gift. My little flashlight, the greatest achievement in human innovation was comparatively pathetic to this currently unseen light source. it was a gift. I finally recognized that I originally misunderstood the entire methodologies and meanings relating to maneuvering through the dark. I had supposed that I had the power to choose a brand of flashlight, I had the power to turn it on and off, and decide where I go, it was all about me.

I continued on my journey pondering, with gratitude, still enjoying my walks lit by the reflection of light sourced from the sun, I noticed the small bits of light that dotted the sky started to disappear. I looked to the east and saw mesmerizing beautiful colors in the sky, the darkness around me started to fade, I heard the forest around around me coming alive, then there was a moment that caused me to squint as this brilliant ball of light broke out from beneath the horizon. I could feel its warmth, my eyes adjusted again, I no longer had to squint and I could see all around me: color, hues, fine details; it was more beautiful and wondrous than I could ever have imagined. I looked at my measly little flashlight and thought how foolish I had been, I had completely misunderstood the way to harness light to light my way. With the added light I saw other people in the distance, they enjoyed being outside in the light as well, I went to them and we enjoyed our time together exploring the beautiful world around us- all grateful that we had been given such a wonderful gift, all realizing that the true light came from the sun. Now I could understand everything in its proper context, sure the world is a large place and it will take me a lifetime to go around and explore, but now I had faith that I could find answers and that my current lack of knowledge could all be illuminated in due time if I continued to rely on the sun.”

ShareThis

I typically would not comment further but I do feel I made some mistakes in expressing myself that could lead to some misunderstanding. That is not to say that everyone reading this discussion will agree with my views but I do feel looking back at my post that my language was perhaps too strong and without explanation behind the words so that they could lend themselves to being offensive or meanspirited, which was not my intent. And so particularly for those who read but not post I want to clarify myself:

In terms of atheism as a religion, perhaps that is a mis-categorization. I would however argue that it is a philosophy or worldview. I suppose I act under the assumption that the questions of life are universal and inherent in our very existence. Some of those questions I would propose are: ‘is this all there is?’ ‘how can I account for this experience I am living?’ which could translate into such questions as ‘how did this earth come to be’ or even ‘the universe?’. And atheism while defining itself in not believing in the supernatural as a suitable explanation must nonetheless answer those fundamental questions, and in my understanding the philosophy turns to reason and science.

I suppose in the strictest sense the word atheism can simply mean the absence of belief. And I think it can be true that there are those that can live life without thinking of those questions or perpetually putting off such questions, and/or choosing not to believe in any explanation they are presented with. But I think the core questions are built into our very nature and existence. Perhaps the only thing we know for sure is the reality of our own existence “i think, therefore I am” and we are left to our own to explain our existence. This is where the stamp analogy falls short because not everyone has to collect stamps but we are all faced with the reality of our own existence. It is almost as if we are forced to be collectors of something and even deciding not to collect is still a decision about collection.

In terms of meaning, again I think I was unclear and therefore misunderstood. I think an atheist can live a meaningful life in the terms prescribing and finding meaning to their life. They can naturally be good family members, good members of society, kind individuals. And I suspect I would be similar in thought and action were it not for the breakthrough of experience. But when we consider the philosophy or worldview of atheism, which is left to reason and science, there is no inherent value or meaning in life or an individual beyond what they create. The cosmic understanding of our individual-self is meaningless. Although seemingly harsh, the earth and all of us on it are but a statistical anomaly and this earth and sun will meet the same fate as other observed stars and galaxies, namely destruction and reorganization. In such a philosophy everything, from our personal lives, to the existence of the earth can be seen as a ‘soap bubble’. You can rub your hands together, blow, create a glistening bubble, with floats for a brief moment then disappears in a blink of an eye to have no more individual reality. Again that is from a cosmic understanding of the individual and not seen from the individual self as they see their life. Again I would argue that there is something deep inside us that wants to deny that thought, that when we look into the eye of someone we love, or hold a newborn baby in our hand, or sit at the deathbed of a friend, we want that hope that it is inherent meaning and death is not an absolute end.

And perhaps an atheist would say it is a false hope. If so, fine. That adheres to their philosophy, and they lived a meaningful life as they saw it and they can choose that. Why then do many atheists seem to be troubled by those that do believe and do claim experience with the divine? Under their own philosophy meaning is created as we prescribe it. And to what end? Often I hear that we as a society and civilization would be more peaceful and better off without religion. And I can certainly understand that argument considering the atrocities committed in the name of religion throughout history. I would argue that such acts are the result of the imperfections of man and a result of free will and not something inherently wrong with all prospect of a true religion and/or explanation. And that can be disagreed or agreed with. But back to that question of ‘to what end?’, if the atheist argues that society and life would be better for all if religion were removed, again the question remains ‘to what end?’ Is it happiness and fulfillment? If someone therefore claims happiness and fulfillment with religion then what does it matter, we will all meet the same fate in the end. The atheist by his very philosophy should accept all choices of belief or non-belief as an individual choice to maximize personal happiness or fulfillment as an attempt to prescribe meaning to their life.

Which leads to clarifying my last misunderstood point about a complete openness to ‘personal pleasure maximization’. I do not believe that this is what every atheist does or suggests, I am just saying that the philosophy or worldview itself has no built in reason for withholding an individual from doing so. The fact that most don’t brings up whole new discussions of natural law and or evolutionary benefits of positive social behavior but we can leave that for another time and place. But in terms of the argument that society would be better off if everyone were atheists and religion disappeared I think the fact that religion does play a role in creating moral standards and positive social behavior, when practiced properly, give it a stronger case for making a more ideal society than a society created on a philosophy that fundamentally does not prescribe a behavioral code.

Again I don’t mean to be offensive. I think there are many wonderful atheists and in many ways are better members of society in terms of building happiness and fulfillment than a lot of the religious zealots we come across. But as a philosophy I wanted to bring up points that I think deserve consideration. I have pointed out where I have made some basic assumptions and people can disagree with those assumptions. But let’s not get to the point where we have hatred or ill-spirit Atheist to Believer or Believer to Atheist because it truly does go counter to both philosophies.

ShareThis