Teryl Givens unhappy with PBS doc

[MikeWaters]

according to this blog.

http://thepeepstone.blogspot.com/200...about-pbs.html

I personally don't have a problem with the inclusion of the fundamentalists. They fit under the umbrellla of the word "Mormon". They are like the uncle that we are too embarrassed to talk about or acknowledge.

I think some people were hoping that the doc would be a big coming out party for the church. I don't think that was ever the purpose.

If polygamy is what is most associated with Mormonism, it has to be given time. MMM would be largely irrelevant if we as Mormons had come to terms with it long ago. Instead we lied, made excuses and dissembled. Unfortunately, that makes it relevant.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I personally don't have a problem with the inclusion of the fundamentalists. They fit under the umbrellla of the word "Mormon". They are like the uncle that we are too embarrassed to talk about or acknowledge.

More truth there than you realize. I do have an uncle that joined with the Lebarrons. We called him Crazy George.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I personally don't have a problem with the inclusion of the fundamentalists. They fit under the umbrellla of the word "Mormon". They are like the uncle that we are too embarrassed to talk about or acknowledge.

The simple fact is that the fundamentalists are a part of the overall legacy of Joseph Smith. Without JS/BY, there are no polygamists in Utah/Arizona in 2007. I don't see how a historian could leave that out of any honest look at Mormonism's history.