As for your second point, I don’t think saying that “in some ways it was more democratic than the U.S. [because Utah at least allowed women to vote and the U.S. revoked that right]” amounts to asserting that Utah was more democratic in absolute terms than the U.S or of trying to prove “the advanced democratic ideals of the church.” I was merely suggesting some ways in which the documentary could have added some balancing information.

J. Max, this is mistaken—ERS was not married before she was sealed to Joseph.

Also, I think it’s misleading to say that Utah’s giving women the vote was evidence of Utah’s being more “democratic” than the U.S.–they needed the women to vote because they knew women would vote with the church, and tip the balance of Mormon-Gentile voting in the state. And plenty of church leaders opposed allowing women to vote, anyway. I’m not complaining I love that enough leaders believed in women’s suffrage that it happened early in Utah–but it’s an oversimplification to suggest that this is evidence for the advanced democratic ideals of the church.

Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I am aware that the angel artwork used in the documentary when referring to the visit of Moroni is by the LDS artist J. Kirk Richards. However, as far as I have been able to determine, it was not intended to be a depiction of the angel Moroni and so its use in the program was inappropriate to the context. Whether or not the artwork is by a Mormon artist, and whether or not the music and art are in and of themselves beautiful, well conceived, or well performed is completely irrelevant to my point. The point is that when the music and art where purposefully joined together along with the specific topic of the documentary in which they appeared, they become a new entity that must be evaluated as a whole. Together they created an ambiance and context that communicated a negative subtext and reinforced stereotypes rather than breaking them down. Like you, members will easily recognize the incongruity because they have a larger context with which to contrast (they have seen Del Parson’s style representations). But my concern is for the larger audience that is being presented the story for perhaps the first time. Is the presentation, including the musical and visual ambiance unbiased from that point of view? Absolutely not!

I too know the appeal of “interestingness.” However, it is better to be true and good than to be interesting. “Interestingness” is a completely useless measurement if compared to accuracy and balance. A lie can certainly make things more “interesting.” But in the eternal scheme of things the pursuit of “interestingness” is a worthless endeavor. We should seek after truth and good, even if it makes things “far less interesting.”

There were things I learned… Mountain Meadows details. As a member of the Church in the early days – I can only imagine how hard it was. The gospel is true…but people are human…and prone to mistakes.

In the first part they mention that Joseph married women that were already married… is that true? Some things I couldn’t tell if they were true or not.

I liked the second half of the presentation (tues) better… there were some funky parts… but overall thought it was somewhat better.