Fringes Only Please!
Posted by Eric Nielson on April 30th, 2007
I have just finished watching the first episode of ‘The Mormons’ on PBS. I imagine that many members of the church who are viewing this experienced a wide range of emotions and reactions. From my perspective the show seems to be exaggerating the fringes of what the church is about. Sure the fringes are there, but to me they are fringes. For me the program is missing the mark. It will be interesting to see what comes tomorrow.
One of the difficulties of the program for me was seeing Ken Clark. When his face was shown I knew exactly who it was. I pointed him out to my wife with excitement. Someone I knew! An institute teacher from Moscow Idaho! Listening to him explain how he felt that Joseph Smith was intentionally making himself more important with each version of his first vision, and later hearing him say that polygamy was motivated by Joseph’s sex drive, and that the revelations relating to polygamy were revelations of convenience were profoundly disappointing.
I went to the University of Idaho in the mid 90’s, and the institute there was one of my favorite places. I would stop by the building on my way home from a class or a test and buy a soda, and play a few games of pool with some friends. I would also shoot baskets in the gym nearly every day.
Ken Clark was one of the institute teachers at the time. He was an enthusiastic, energetic and exciting teacher of the gospel. The favorite of many. He had a big, booming confident voice that could not be mistaken. He was charming, funny and beloved. We were in his ward. His son was my home teaching companion. He knew me by name. We played basketball and racquetball together.
Based on his comments I assume that he must have left the church at some level. I know nothing of his apostasy. But his spot on the program was an example of the fringe I am speaking of. Why him? I imagine that if he were still a faithful institute teacher at the University of Idaho he would not even be on the radar screen for this program. But because he has left the church (I assume) he is now relevant to what Mormonism is.
So I morn whatever fall Ken Clark has made, and that so many think that what is on the fringes of Mormonism is what is most important to Mormonism. In a way the program reminds me of some of the things I could do without on the bloggernacle.
What was your experience like?
I have since done a search and have read Ken Clark’s de-conversion story. No links are necessary.
Comment # 1 left by Eric Nielson on April 30th, 2007
Yeah, Ken’s statements rubbed me the wrong way. To be sure, this evening’s segment was quite negatively biased. Will Bagley’s anti-Brigham statements were portrayed as authoritative and sound. Ex-LDS and non-member historians were painted as wise is their assertions of Smith’s rampant libido and spontaneous, crafted doctrines.
I was very disappointed in this evening’s broadcast. At least it will be fodder for a blog post tomorrow…
Comment # 2 left by Connor on April 30th, 2007
I only saw the first and last parts, but frankly, I was disappointed with what I saw. For a documentary whose proclaimed purpose was to help eliminate stereotypes, I think this one missed its mark. I think the effect was only to reflect different points of view on stereotypical issues, not actually get rid of stereotypes. What I saw seemed tipped to the non-Mormon side of things (few voices I heard were supportive; most were distant, analytical and some were flat out antagonistic). The clip for tomorrow’s piece didn’t seem too encouraging, either.
Sad to hear about your former institute teacher. Those are the kinds of clips that I think hurt the stated goal of helping eliminate misunderstanding. I wouldn’t have been nearly as disappointed had Helen Whitney not been so emphatic about that goal. Had she said she simply wanted to bring together different points of view on Mormonism, I might not have entered with such expectations. Ah, well. We’ll see what happens tomorrow.
Comment # 3 left by Michelle on April 30th, 2007
I totally agree with your surprise at seeing Ken Clark on the documentary “The Mormons”. We also lived in Moscow, leaving in 1996, and Ken and his family were in our ward.
It is interesting to me and saddens me at the same time to see faithful, active people lose their testimonies.
Comment # 4 left by Deborah on April 30th, 2007
I also recognized Ken Clark and then did a search and found out that he no longer is a member of the church. I was in his seminary class in Yakima, Washington. He was a wonderful teacher and had such a love for the church. It is hard to believe that he is anti-mormon now. But I am grateful that he influenced my life for the better.
Comment # 5 left by Erin on April 30th, 2007
A very disappointing broadcast. I agree with the previous comment–that the program focused on fringe issues, which were portrayed as material and with a clearly non-mormon slant. Oh well. No unhallowed hand…
Comment # 6 left by Brad on April 30th, 2007
No unhallowed hand…
Indeed!
Comment # 7 left by Connor on April 30th, 2007
doing searches to find out who all these people on tv are. ken clark is typical, you can leave the church but you can’t leave it alone. as for the documentary, since we are very active and could be described as devout believers, i’m not sure we can comment on the sterotypes since we’re really too close to the trees to see the forest. i think a film by a non-member, with all its faults, when it is as good as this one, is ultimately better than one done by one of us. and as always, we mormons are far too sensitive and paranoid. even if they are out to get us, they won’t, so get over it.
Comment # 8 left by donny on May 1st, 2007
Ken Clark was a major influence for good in my life as a seminary teacher for three years in Paradise Valley Stake in Phoenix. It’s going to take me a while to deal with the fact that he no longer has a testimony. I’m still trying to take in that he’s left the church - something he cautioned us against quite often! He was a ray of light, and one of my favorite teachers. What I realized after the program was over, is that without his name on the screen, I would not have recognized him right away. It’s like he’s a different person, the light is not radiating from his eyes. He’s definitely not bouncing off the walls. I have scriptures I “earned” by memorizing all the Scripture Mastery scriptures (or whatever we called it then). They were presented to me at a seminary graduation, and he wrote in them. I’ll have to pull those out and see what he wrote. I also have a letter he wrote me asking me to help out the new seminary teacher who followed him - he was a tough act to follow. I don’t have any desire to debate the points of the gospel with him or anyone, but it would be very interesting to know when he left the church. Did Teresa leave also (my guess is yes). Their children also? It’s very sad when they take other people away from the gospel with them, and entire generations are lost. This just reminds me that Satan goes after the very elect.
Comment # 9 left by (Martha) on May 1st, 2007
Donny, FWIW, I personally am not too concerned about them being “out to get us.” As someone said above, no unhallowed hand…. I just think, though, that someone is not going to be able to really come away with anything concrete from this documentary except that there are a wiiiiiide variety of opinions about the Church. I realize that’s not unusual for a documentary, but that will make the goal of eliminating stereotypes difficult. She focused on them with such a wide range of opinions that the listener who has no testimony (a spiritual foundation) will have no idea what to think. Was the First Vision real or a concoction? Was polygamy a commandment or not, etc. One of the things that I doubt will come across to someone wondering about our faith is that you can’t figure out if it’s real from a historian’s review. Obviously, because they don’t agree.
Comment # 10 left by Michelle on May 1st, 2007
Eric,
I enjoyed reading your blog. I was surprised and saddened to see Ken Clark on this PBS show. I have read some of his information on the web and found he left the Church in 2002. I enjoyed him at the U of I institute but must admit I am not totally surprised to hear he has left the Church. I thought he did have some pretty liberal views.
As far as this PBS show is concerned, I was disappointed in it. Certainly there have been some things in Church history that are negative. Any organization that is run by imperfect people will have time where mistakes are made. However, this show seemed to only be concerned with the mistakes and presenting them in the most negative way possible.
Comment # 11 left by Dan on May 1st, 2007
I knew Ken Clark as a child in Yakima, Washington. I have been inactive at different times in my life. The difference between me and him is I would never say anything bad about the church. If I do something wrong, it’s because I did something wrong, and I’m not going to blame the church or people for it! The gospel is true, but people aren’t always! My father left the church because of some people, and your not hurting others by leaving, your hurting yourself! I’m so shocked at how far off Ken is now! I remember looking up to him, and wanting to marry someone just like him when I grew up! So many others looked up to him as well. It really saddens and sickens me. I would say to Ken, I know you had a testimony! You knew the gospel is true! Reading his article, made me see why it’s not a good idea to read anti Mormon books. They are filled with half truths and lies! I feel he started reading them and starting believing them. You don’t lose your testimony over night, it is small steps that can become big steps! I believe Ken and others who speak out against the church do so because if they stop, the spirit will start talking to them and reminding them that the gospel is true! Now he’s more famous for speaking out against the church, then when he was in it. My ex-husband served his mission in the Washington area and also knew Ken! We talked about that after the show, and he can’t believe it’s the same guy! But, remembers he was a bit of a hot head, and loved attention. In his article I was offended by so much of it, as a single parent in the church I do NOT feel I am forced to do anything, and I have my free agency to do as I please, and I have not always made good decisions, but I always feel Heavenly Father is a forgiving god! You pick yourself up and try and do better! I do not feel guilty, and if I did it’s not because the church made me feel that way! My life is so much better when I’m following the teachings of Christ! The church sets up guide lines, that if we follow we will be happier. If you are always questioning, and fighting, and feeling contentious towards others, I can see why you wouldn’t be happy in the church. It’s like so many of the things he wrote I’ve heard other non-members say, nothing new and earth shattering! I hope people watching the program on PBS will remember it’s just a show that is put on by man, truths mixed with lies!
Comment # 12 left by Carole on May 1st, 2007
Thanks everyone. I had no idea there were so many who knew Ken Clark and posted here. Small world.
Connor: Your reaction was much like mine.
Michelle: I agree with you. It almost seems like the goal was to exaggerate the stereotypes, and emphasize the problems.
Deborah: We may well have been in the same ward - Moscow 2nd. Were you there in 93 or so? As far as Ken goes, I guess this could happen to anyone.
Erin: He was a good and talented teacher.
Brad: I agree with your thoughts. Thank you for your comment.
Donny: I’ll get over it, someday :). I still believe in objectivity, and that it can exist inside and outside the church. This program seems to want to exaggerate the fringes of the church. I feel it is out of balance.
Martha: I recognized his features right away. But something was definitely missing. He ALWAYS had a big smile when I knew him. He ALWAYS had a twinkle in his eye. He ALWAYS wa funny. From a personality point of view he is not the same person. Reading his de-conversion, his wife left with him and they celebrated leaving the church by drinking iced tea. He mentioned one of his son’s was still active in the church.
Dan: This isn’t Dan Steiner is it? If so this is a small world. Yes, Ken was a bit liberal I suppose. For him everything was BIG and LOUD. Everything seemed an exaggeration for him. Big smile, big voice. big laugh, always funny, big stories. Everything was dramatic. It is part of what made him an entertaining teacher. He may have exaggerated a few things to far.
Carole: Thanks for your comment. It seems that you have a good perspective. Ken’s story strikes a chord with me at some level. He was someone I knew. Reading his de-conversion reminded me a bit about my ‘Damaged Goods’ post. Could the same thing have happened to me if I had reacted differently? We all need to be careful.
Comment # 13 left by Eric Nielson on May 1st, 2007
I thought that overall it was positive. There was only one completely negative voice last night (Clark). Even Bagley had some positive things to say. My impression, as a Mormon insider, was if the Mountain Meadows Massacre was the only negative thing to be discussed in the church’s history (and it is mightily negative) then we are doing ok. Even that was couched in terms of people in a bad situation trying to do the right thing (and it going horribly, horribly wrong).
I think that if you are expecting a huge change of approach tonight (like it magically transforming into a church-produced/Channel 5 video) you are setting yourself up for disappointment. Just remember that it was much more positive last night than negative, even when discussing the low points in church history. Don’t worry about the negative portrayals, instead think about the good that the words of Elder Oaks did at the end of the Mountain Meadows segment (we’ll remember the negative; people watching will remember the last word) or the repeated scenes of President Hinckley distancing us from modern polygamists (and all the sympathetic testimony given to the depiction of the lives of 19th century polygamists). In what other documentary are the typical watchers of Frontline and American Experience going to hear the simple/powerful testimonies of our Apostles and Prophets. It really was a fair minded piece.
Comment # 14 left by HP on May 1st, 2007
I should also say that I found the music choices jarring, especially the funky piano in the opening segments.
Comment # 15 left by HP on May 1st, 2007
I was also surprised to see that Ken Clark was on the program. I knew he had left the church, but was still saddened to see him so negative. Others have stated it very well. Ken was actually our Bishop of the married student ward - during an interview my wife and I had with him…he asked if we watched rated R movies - we just looked at each other and he said - “Well, I do.” It was an indication to me throughout the discussion that he may have been on the cafeteria plan, picking and choosing which counsel was to be followed. I don’t want to judge him, he had a great impact on my life as well. It is truly sad to see him in this situation.
Comment # 16 left by JR on May 1st, 2007
I wrote a post about this too, today. Brother Clark was also my Seminary teacher and a great friend through my high school years. He was someone I depended on and loved almost like family. I was devastated when I heard he’d left the Church. I watched him on this program last night and continue to be amazed that a man who seemed so strong, who figured so heavily in my developing a testimony, has so completely turned his back on the Church (and, I feel, on me). I also noticed that there is a definite change in him.
I contacted him shortly after hearing he’d apostasized and received an email from him. He, Teresa and their daughter Stephanie have all left the Church. Their story is heartbreaking.
Seeing him last night was very healing for me. Hearing him speak and seeing how much he’d changed, I realized this is not the same man who stood in front of me every day for four years of my life and preached the Gospel to me and all my friends. This is a different man entirely.
The program - pretty much what I expected.
Comment # 17 left by Millie on May 1st, 2007
HP:
Thanks for your comments here. The program certainly could have been worse, that’s for sure. There were parts that were really quite good. I liked the Givens guy. The music was really bad in parts. Why play horror movie music, and show awful pictures during the angle Moroni visits? But yes, my expectations were probably a bit high.
JR:
Thanks for your comment as well. I had no idea there were so many Idaho alums out there!
Comment # 18 left by Eric Nielson on May 1st, 2007
I was really surprised by the polygamy presentation. They presented an accurate picture of what it was really like, with real people struggling, but struggling out of a pure faith. I can only hope they portray current members in anywhere near the tone they used with the fundamentalists.
Comment # 19 left by Doc on May 1st, 2007
I was also surprised positively by how polygamy was portrayed. I was surprised negatively by how prominently it was portrayed.
Comment # 20 left by Eric Nielson on May 1st, 2007
I’m new to the blogging world, and I’ve enjoyed your posts. I really enjoyed the program last night because I really enjoy hearing others perspectives… but that’s certainly what much of it was… others perspectives. Particularly the bits on polygamy, but certainly not the kind of discussion that will “shatter stereotypes” as the program hoped to. Keep up the good work.
Comment # 21 left by Drew on May 1st, 2007
Do you think maybe it is possible that Ken Clark is a different man and that the light is out of his eyes not because he no longer believes, but because he is so saddened and angered that something he believed so strongly in and dedicated his life to, turned out to be a lie? Something to think about.
Comment # 22 left by beth on May 1st, 2007
If it turned out to be a lie, wouldn’t he be happier to be away from it? He’s been away from the Church for years now. You’d think he would be a little perkier, particularly when presented with the chance to “rescue” the rest of us.
Comment # 23 left by Millie on May 1st, 2007
Drew:
Thank you so much for leaving a comment, and the kind words. This program was probably more about what society thinks about us than what we have to say.
Beth:
I agree with Millie. The long term fruits of the spirit and all will generally lead to happiness, even if we have difficult times temporarily.
Comment # 24 left by Eric Nielson on May 1st, 2007
I have thought a little more about the lack of balance I saw. In the program we hear President Hinkley proclaim that anyone who practices polygamy is not a member of this church and is subject to ex-communication. And on the heels of that we get about 20 minutes of getting to know a polygamous family. WHY?! They seemed nice enough, but if one were interested in showing what Mormon families were like, then the ratio of typical Mormon families (with minor variations) to polygamous families ought to be something like 1000:1 in terms of time. Yet we get 20 minutes with the polygamists and pretty much nothing with a more typical Mormon family.
And with Ken Clark. He gets a few minutes because he is a former church educator who left the church. I don’t think there were any current church educators interviewed. To be balanced I again would say that current church educators should get about 1000 minutes to every one minute Ken Clark gets.
Nothing on Home teaching (yet) and about 20 minutes on the Mountain Meadows Masacre.
These things are why I feel people are getting exaggerated fringes regarding the church in this program.
Comment # 25 left by Eric Nielson on May 1st, 2007
I read Ken’s account of his departure and he stated that he and his family are more happy than ever. Who are you to make judgments to the contrary?
Comment # 26 left by beth on May 1st, 2007
Beth’s comments and the responses remind me of Robert Kirby’s recent piece http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_5768368
With respect to stereotypes, perhaps Whitney meant to shatter not only stereotypes and misconceptions that others hold about Mormons, but stereotypes and misconceptions that we hold about ourselves and our history.
It is true there were many positive things that were left out, but there were also many negative things that were left out as well.
Comment # 27 left by DavidH on May 1st, 2007
Beth,
I too, read Ken’s account of his departure. It seemed to me to be fairly implausible when he talked about the treatment he received from his Priesthood leaders. His overall statement was, frankly, at times petty and pretty juvenile.
To paraphrase something that I read somewhere else: Bitterness never was happiness.
The whole thing, sad. Really.
Comment # 28 left by Steph on May 1st, 2007
Implausible? Like God and Jesus coming to Joseph Smith, a known fortune seeker, and telling him that all churches were wrong and that he was to start his own religion? Implausible doesn’t make it not true.
Comment # 29 left by beth on May 1st, 2007
Implausible doesn’t make it not true.
You got me there. I should say that I hope it is not true and nothing in my experience with any Priesthood leaders (and I have a lot of dealings with all types of PLs) would lead me to believe that such behavior could be true.
Comment # 30 left by Steph on May 1st, 2007
His experiences could have been “true” to him (I’m sure there is another side of the story), but that doesn’t falsify the truthfulness of the Church. He seems mad about everything. He may claim to be happy, but someone with that kind of anger can’t fully be, IMO.
Comment # 31 left by Michelle on May 1st, 2007
Eric,
Several BYU faculty members were shown being interviewed as well as several members of the Quorums of the Seventy and the Twelve Apostles. I don’t know how we could have more Mormon educators present.
Comment # 32 left by HP on May 1st, 2007
Michelle, have you heard of righteous anger? Maybe he has something to be mad about.
Comment # 33 left by beth on May 1st, 2007
Beth, sorry, I don’t think we are going to see this in the same way. Best to just agree to disagree, methinks.
Comment # 34 left by Michelle on May 1st, 2007
BC was my seminary teacher too. (same time as Millie) It didn’t hit me as hard as it did her though. Different trials in our life at the time I suppose. I know BC really supported and helped her through a difficult time. But as for me, some how although I wanted to, he and I never seemed to mesh. And although some of my roots in the gospel were founded in his class, some how this didn’t shock me.
If I can respond to Beth. First, let me just complement you for a minute for not being vitriolic or rude even when you obviously are presenting a dissenting view. Too often that’s not the attitude I’ve encountered.
To your point about plausibility, I find it interesting that you would have a problem with our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appearing to Joseph Smith if you are a student of the Bible. You might want to reread the story of Moses, Abraham, Isaiah and others. Anytime the Lord needed to restart or reveal anew or as we call it restore His gospel He speaks in person. I find it remarkable that anyone with a Bible in their hands would expect the beginnings of a true church of Jesus Christ to begin any other way. Why would the great unchangeable change His pattern to one not represented in any scripture, one we could look for an example? Why give us scripture at all if not to help guide and inspire us to find a way and a path that leads to Him?
And as for the “fortune seeker” come on, that’s just silly. Not even hardcore Anti Mormon’s take us to task over that. Joseph Smith worked for Josiah Stole a treasure hunter or a money digger. He was a poor boy in a poor family and he needed a job and Mr. Stole was paying him to dig. But you should really familiarize yourself with 1700 and 1800 histories. Treasure seeking and magic in general was proliferating in Anglo-American historiography so it is evident that these practices were commonplace in the 17th century in all levels of society, in the 18th and 19th century among common people and the lower classes. So once you look at the time period instead of just looking anything that seems odd from our day and age about Joseph Smith, you realize that it was widely practiced suddenly it’s no longer a blot on his character or his family’s character.
In the time period, it was no more scandalous than say gambling–playing poker today. A little bit discredited and slightly morally disreputable but not really evil. Furthermore, with a little more research, you’ll find that all sorts of treasure seekers were also serious Christians, why not the Smith’s too? So instead of being a puzzle or a contradiction it was just one aspect of the Smith family culture and not really anything to be worried about. And that’s why it hasn’t been much of an issue for the past 20 years even with those who fight against the church, at least when they get into serious debates with LDS members who’ve studied a bit. I have no idea what they are saying to non-LDS members who in general have not studied any of this.
(Sorry for hijacking your blog!)
Comment # 35 left by Sketchy on May 1st, 2007
Sketchy,
As you have probably guessed, Iam not LDS. I do believe in God and the Bible. I believe that God did speak (literally) to men of the Old Testament. I do not believe that he speaks to men (literally) any more. I believe the Body of Christ as we know it (made up of Saints after the death of Jesus Christ) receives communication with God through scripture (the Bible). This is why it is implausible to me that God and Jesus (whom I believe to be one - part of the Trinity - to have appeared to JS.
I personally have a hard time justifying Joseph Smith’s behavior. But I admit, I say that as a Non-Mormon.
Comment # 36 left by beth on May 1st, 2007
BTW, Beth, my intent in that last interchange was to avoid a situation where we go back and forth (re: righteous anger), unable to convince each other of anything.
As to your beliefs, I can understand why, given where your beliefs stand, you might find the story of the restoration of the Church implausible. When I was a missionary, we used to use the word “incredible.” Just remember that this isn’t something we just rationalize in our minds…it’s something we feel God has told us is true and real, as implausible as it could appear to the mind or even to a belief based in the Bible as the source of God’s word. Had I not read the Book of Mormon and felt God confirming its reality as His word, I might be one who would think something similar, or who might analyze the Church as this documentary has…more with an eye to information and intellectualism. But when you feel God has told you it’s true, you can’t really argue with Him.
I think, though, that it’s a bit difficult to really come to a conclusion about Joseph Smith or the Church without an honest, open-hearted examination not of historical facts, but of the scriptures and teachings of the Restoration. (I’m assuming you haven’t read the Book of Mormon, for example, but if that is a wrong assumption, please forgive me.) With that assumption, I will just say that I hope before you come to a final judgment in your mind about our faith, that you might engage in such a quest…with at least some room in your heart left for the possibility that it could be true. I know it is.
Comment # 37 left by Michelle on May 1st, 2007
After watching the first half, I vowed to check the backgrounds on everyone in the second half and so far I have been pleased to see that the first three are more than just “historian” or “journalist”. The limited background on each person was a crucial ommission in the first installment and required viewers to take each person as a neutral when obviously some were not nueutral on either side. And the pictures and filming tequniques seemed on par with scary music in a horror story. All of this would be laughable if it had been done in a documentary about a subject that was not so close to the hearts of so many.
As for the appearance of Ken Clark in the show it came as a surprise because he is not an unbiased source in any way shape or form. If he had not left the church I would still believe that he was a biased source. I have never had an institute class from Ken, only an on campus class and my experience was relativelly bland. This is not so much a reflection on him as I find most professors bland and uninspiring. There are the exceptions and I am grateful for them. That said I was in Moscow when Ken left the church and was surprised as anyone. It was a sad day when it happened and I hope he and his family the best. Did it shake my faith when he left? No, I have yet to run into a core belief question or instance that did not have an answer, and I have looked.
As for the program, I just wish that in a program purported to be a documentary that the editor and director would have been more forth coming with the backgrounds and perspectives of each commentator.
After reading some of the comments, I know the religious leader (Bishop L.) that he is referring to and I can see some of that actually happening. Engineers and especially old PHD engineers are very logical and Ken was not behaving in a logical way, nor was he open with his leaders about what he was feeling. I am not placing the blame on Ken or the bishop, just that when dealing with human (moist robots) we should be aware that our perspectives rarely line up and openess in conversations is crucial. I don’t think that this would have appeased KC however, but it would have given his leaders a better understanding of what he was going through.
Comment # 38 left by stan on May 1st, 2007
I like what Elder Holland said in the interview published on the pbs.org/mormons site:
Comment # 39 left by Michelle on May 2nd, 2007
[…] Blogger of Jared Fringes Only Please […]
Comment # 40 left by PBS The Mormons--A Compendium « Messenger and Advocate on May 2nd, 2007
I first met Ken after he left the church and found him to be extremely intelligent, balanced, happy, and well-versed in the issues that had sent him in (what I consider to be) the right direction. God bless them for their courage to say ‘the Emperor has no clothes.’
Comment # 41 left by Travis on May 2nd, 2007
I must admit, when the documentary was negative, it was really negative. I see I wasn’t the only one that thought the portrayal of Joseph Smith wasn’t balanced at all. But, to give the director the benefit of the doubt, she isn’t a member. She can’t appreciate Joseph Smith the same way that members do. To her, he appears, at best, as a fascinating enigma that is so far out there, the best she could do is portray him as just that– an enigma. As a faithful Latter-day Saint, my disappointment only comes from the fact that Joseph Smith isn’t an enigma to me, and I feel she could have done more than to say that Smith was beloved by many. He loved too. He loved his Church and the people in it deeply. She didn’t even make an attempt to address that aspect of his nature.
What I thought was well-done, actually, was the conclusions she ultimately reached about polygamy. Her conclusion about it, as she defended the practice, was that the practice is misunderstood. As far as eliminating stereotypes, I believe that’s what she accomplished in that segment.
How about that second section where they talked about excommunication? Did that send chills up and down everyone else’s spine like it did mine?
Comment # 42 left by Paradox on May 2nd, 2007
Did that send chills up and down everyone else’s spine like it did mine?
::: raises hand :::
Comment # 43 left by Connor on May 2nd, 2007
But, to give the director the benefit of the doubt, she isn’t a member.
As to the director’s part in the final version, rumor has it that she wasn’t very happy. Read more here.
Re: Polygamy…to have the modern-day connection I think will still leave a lot of fuzziness in general. One of the hugest stereotypes is that somehow we are still connected to it and if you read Elder Holland’s interview, he makes it pretty clear how the church wants to be viewed in that regard. That is worth the read.
Comment # 44 left by Michelle on May 2nd, 2007
I am astounded at the number of people that have been affected by Ken Clark’s teaching and Church membership. He was the best Gospel Doctrine teacher my family ever had. I home taught Kenny and his family here in Kennewick, Wa for a couple of years. He also taught seminary here and institute at one of our local high schools. My youngest daughter (now 30+ and a mother of 2) literally cried for some time when she discovered that Ken had actually been excommunicated from the Church and read his website. He was a major influence in her life for good. I am reminded of the scripture that states, “In the last days, even the elect will be deceived.” I believe Ken has been deceived and I will pray for him to repent and come unto Him who is the healer of all. May God bless Ken and his family and help them through these tough times.
Comment # 45 left by Rick on May 3rd, 2007
Thanks Rick.
I am also amazed. I received an e-mail from a friend from my Idaho days who was a local to the Moscow area. This has definitely been a small world moment for me. How many lives does a person touch? Apparently quite a few.
Comment # 46 left by Eric Nielson on May 3rd, 2007
*wondering who Rick is*
Comment # 47 left by Millie on May 3rd, 2007
I knew Ken Clark. I was in his ward in Moscow and I recognized him immediately and just as immediately could tell that he was no longer a member — perhaps it was the “former church educator” that tipped me off. He taught Sunday School while I was there. I taught a youth class so I didn’t get to his class much — but when I did, it was what I would call a high octane performance: lots of energy mixed with humor and knowledge. I’m sure he’s still a good man. Maybe he will return to the fold one day.
Comment # 48 left by zerin hood on May 3rd, 2007
I also knew Ken Clark when he taught seminary in Kennewick, Wa. He was in my B ishopric and I babysat for his kids. I was also devastated to read his Ex-Mormon blog. I know that sounds odd to some, but he was a really major influence in my teen years. I do hope he finds the happiness he is desiring. I also know that he touched many lives due to exuberance for the gospel.
The show was disappointing to me, as I don’t think it did THING to dispell the myths that surround the LDS religion.
Comment # 49 left by Collette on May 4th, 2007
Beth-
On your comment on ‘I believe God talked to people in the old testiment but not today’, I say, why would god leave us alone today in these latter days? It totally makes sense to me that we would have a prophet today. Did everyone believe Moses was a prophet in his day?
Comment # 50 left by Carole on May 5th, 2007
Carole,
I beieve that because that is what the bible says. I beieve the bible (and the bible only) is the Word of God. I think a lot of the information you get about prophets is from the BOM.
Comment # 51 left by beth on May 5th, 2007
After reading everyone’s negative comments, I have no interest in wasting my time on an imbalanced misrepresentations, anomalies made to appear as mainstream, nonMormon lectures on our supposed doctrines, fabrications, and distortions.
Interesting isn’t it that Clark in leaving the Church became eligible for this show. Had he remained, he would have not. Curious also, that never do those who have left own up to their own mistakes, unrighteousness, but it is always something left in secrecy. And of course, they cannot leave it alone.
Comment # 52 left by Robin Bishop on May 5th, 2007
Ken Clark was my seminary teacher in Kennewick, WA. He was one of my favorite people; funny, exuberant, and smart, he made me want to know everything there was to know about the gospel. I read everything I could get my hands on about early church history.
Somewhat ironically, Ken was concerned that I not read too many non-LDS historians because it could have the effect of being testimony-challenging, because of the outsiders’ biases and inaccuracies. He both raised my enthusiasm for the subject and (I think quite unintentionally) piqued my curiosity about what nonmember researchers had to say. They couldn’t all have axes to grind, right? Plus, the glory of god is intelligence…
Well, he was totally right. Over the next few years I read more than I should, and it got me into trouble. I found out that Joseph Smith was not the most righteous man of the modern age, as I’d heard countless times in testimony meetings. He was an imaginative schemer with a criminal record and a divining rod, intensely interested in the supernatural and very interested in the religious mysteries of freemasonry and the then-fashionable theory that Native Americans were descended from the Hebrews. The religion he founded did not spring forth monolithically; it evolved piecemeal, and the pieces tended to contradiction: his revelation tells him to denounce polygamy consistently until 1843, and then (sometimes) even after that! And what kind of inspired prophet orders the destruction of printing presses?
These weren’t things I’d heard about in seminary, but I’m grateful to Ken for giving me the tools of inquiry, even if he cautioned me against using them too thoroughly.
I just read Ken’s account of leaving the church, and it did strike me as petty (and in need of an editor). It comes off as a crisis of personality that he bolsters with a crisis of faith, when the personality aspect should be immaterial. Why worry about politics if you have the truth, and conversely, if you find out that the truth has missed you entirely?
Comment # 53 left by Ryan on May 6th, 2007
Re: Ken Clark
I used to live in Moscow and I worked at the College of Engineering. My husband was going to law school, and we attended the married student ward. I never met Ken Clark.
I suspect that Ken Clark’s leaders and fellow workers suspected that he had lost his testimony and considered him dangerous. Obviously he was offering subtle challenges to his students to think too much for themselves, or delve into issues that aren’t encouraged by church authority. He obviously thought that he was assisting his students in a quest for the truth, or to be critical thinkers.
This is probably why they considered him a wolf in sheep’s clothing and obviously set out to get him fired. It sounds like his leaders were grasping at straws to get him fired, at lots of nit picky stuff. However, if you are on the payroll of the church, you are being paid to teach church orthodoxy, and should not try to deftly lead your students to see the other side. Obviously Ken felt threatened because that was his living - and he was good at it too.
All my life people warned me to never (1) delve into church history or (2) read literature critical of the church. And I never did until recently, and have discovered why they gave the warning. It is a rocky road.
Comment # 54 left by ktallamigo on May 6th, 2007
I received a link in an e-mail recently that explains why we should not base our testimonies on history.
The link is here.
Comment # 55 left by Eric Nielson on May 7th, 2007
I, too, was very shaken after seeing Ken Clark in this program. I was in his Seminary class in ‘89-90 in Kennewick and relied on him heavily to help me through a lot of trials I was enduring at the time. He refused to call me by name, instead calling me Grin-Ann Berrett, which fit my “if I smile I’ll be fine” attitude at the time.
Pretty quickly that year we realized that he had taught my mom in his first Seminary class in Yakima, at which point he announced that he had to quit teaching Seminary because he couldn’t handle teaching the child of a former student. Looking back, I have to wonder if inviting the local leader of the Anti-Mormon movement to Seminary class had anything to do with him being pressured out of Kennewick.
By senior year (’92-93) I had moved to Richland, where I was asked to bring something into my current Seminary teacher. He was having a discussion with a group of Institute teachers and introduced me to the class, then said “oh, you should remember Bro. Clark.” I have to admit I didn’t recognize him at first. He was not the happy, energetic man I remembered. Upon hearing my name he jumped out of his seat, pointed at me and started yelling “she’s the reason I stopped teaching Seminary!” I was so overwhelmed. This was not the same man I had looked up to and received counsel from.
Talking with my mom this morning she made the comment that he gave her a blessing that has positively affected the last 35 years of her life and that she will always be grateful to him for that. I have to agree with her. I’m saddened that someone with so much light and knowledge could turn away, but I’m grateful that he was a positive influence on me when I needed it the most.
Comment # 56 left by Michelle Berrett on May 7th, 2007
Eric, the link you provided was to an article written by Davis Bitton. Davis, who just died a couple of weeks ago, was the assistant church historian. That makes his article, “I Don’t Have a Testimony of
the History of the Church” all the more compelling.
Davis was a good friend of my parents. I’ve known him since I was tiny. He’s a great man and, even with all that information, was faithful to the church from the first to the last.
Comment # 57 left by Alison Moore Smith on May 11th, 2007