Mormons discussing “Mormons”

14 Responses to Mormons discussing “Mormons”

1. Geoff B on May 1, 2007 at 3:53 pm

   Kaimi, you’re missing a small, very modest thread at this blog:

   http://www.millennialstar.org

2. Aaron Brown on May 1, 2007 at 4:59 pm

   Kaimi, I am feeling sorry for you and the lack of comments on your thread, so I am making this comment for you.

   Aaron B

3. Aaron Brown on May 1, 2007 at 4:59 pm

   And this one.

   Aaron B

4. Geoff B on May 1, 2007 at 5:06 pm

   Aaron B, you crack me up. See, there’s another comment for Kaimi. Whee!!!

5. Mark B. on May 1, 2007 at 5:10 pm

   I presume that comments on this post constitute Mormons commenting on Mormons discussing The Mormons.

6. Ardis Parshall on May 1, 2007 at 5:13 pm

   Mark B, I applaud your perspicacity, thereby becoming a Mormon applauding a Mormon commenting on Mormons discussing The Mormons.

7. Eric Nielson on May 1, 2007 at 5:17 pm

   And here.

   We are a little under the radar, and the title of the post is not obvious. Thanks for the links.

8. FoxyJ on May 1, 2007 at 5:28 pm

   I’m not totally sure how to do links in comments, but Ken Jennings actually weighed in on all the hoopla in his blog today too:

   http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=414

9. Rusty on May 1, 2007 at 5:51 pm

   Ardis,
   I applaud your use of the word “perspicacity”. Very nice.

10. Jacob J on May 1, 2007 at 5:54 pm

    Actually, Ken Jennings piece is pretty good.

11. Connor on May 1, 2007 at 6:51 pm

    ::: raises hand :::

    http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-mormons-part-one

12. Ken Kuykendall on May 2, 2007 at 11:53 am

    Well, Kaimi, allow me to jump in. I thought the documentary turned out fairly well, which surprised me. I had been interviewed by telephone by Helen Whitney (the film’s writer/director/producer), and the first words out of her mouth were: “I love to speak with intelligent people, people of faith, people of strong belief — who can be so fascinating when they express their doubts. I just find it so enlightening to listen to that kind of thoughtful, engaging candor. So tell me — when it comes to the Mormon Church, what are your doubts?”

    That is known as a “leading question.” In fact, though Ms. Whitney seemed extremely gracious throughout the interview, that is probably the most comically over-the-top leading question that I had ever heard. I’m a lawyer, and in law you are allowed to ask leading questions only to someone who is an adversary, someone considered a “hostile witness.” So her question immediately made me very wary, though I doubt that was her intent.

    I told her I didn’t have any doubts about the Church, that one thing a testimony brings is a certainty that allows me to make personal sacrifices for the gospel, etc. “Oh, everyone has doubts!” she insisted. She then named a prominent writer who had expressed doubts to her, and she invited me again to be more “engaging” and “intelligent” by expressing mine. I told her a personal experience I had had with the Spirit as a young man, which forever erased any doubts about the truthfulness of the gospel, and I added that other experiences since had only reinforced my conviction that the Church is true, that the gospel Joseph Smith restored is in reality pristine Christianity.

    “Hm, you sound just like President Hinckley,” she said, with just a hint of disappointment. If she intended that last as a veiled insult, she REALLY missed the mark! I was smiling all day that someone would say that about me. It’s probably the nicest compliment I’ve ever received.

    Now, again, I want to stress that Ms. Whitney was extremely gracious in talking by phone with me, and I was left with the impression that I would like her personally. But she also spoke with disdain about FARMS (the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) at BYU, saying that though the professors themselves are kindly in person, she finds their work “mean.” (I could not disagree more about the work/research done by FARMS.) She also seemed positively shocked when, at the end of the interview, she attempted to find common ground with me by mentioning what an awful disappointment it was that Pres. Bush had been re-elected in 2004. “I voted for him,” I noted. She very clearly equated functioning human intelligence with “Democrat.”

    Anyway, she got in touch with me later, wanting to do more interviews, but I begged off. I did not at all have high hopes for the documentary, but all in all I thought it went all right. Parts of it were maddening, but other parts were deeply moving and favorable to the Church (i.e., accurate).

    Best regards,

    Ken Kuykendall
    MormonCentury.org

13. Stirling on May 2, 2007 at 12:10 pm

    But Kaimi, isn’t “The Blog of Satan” a descriptive mark? And as such, it seems it wouldn’t receive trademark protection without acquiring secondary meaning.

14. Alison Moore Smith on May 2, 2007 at 3:50 pm

    As per Geoff #1: Didn’t blog it, as I had nothing to add to the other 4,000 posts, but there is also a teeny thread at Mormon Momma as well.

    We DVRed it so that my husband and I could watch it together when he got back in town, but I always get a knot in my stomach over stuff the “maddening” stuff that Ken referred to. I have to get psyched up to watch such things.

    Apparently WE are all talking about it. How was it received by the non-LDS community? From the blog reading I’ve done, I’m confused about what stereotypes it was supposed to have blasted apart.