Criticism of Mormonism/Video

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Analysis of videos and films critical of Mormonism

Jump to Subtopic:

• Response to 8: The Mormon Proposition
• Big Love's episode "Outer Darkness"
• Response to The Bible vs. Joseph Smith
• Response to The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon
• Response to Religulous
• Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith or Search for the Truth DVD
• Response to September Dawn
• Response to the 1982 anti-Mormon film The God Makers
• An analysis of "Why People Leave the LDS Church" (2008)
• A review of claims made in "Understanding Mormon Disbelief" by the Open Stories Foundation
• A review of claims made in Dr. Robert Ritner's three-episode interview with John Dehlin

Response to 8: The Mormon Proposition

Summary: A June 2010 documentary called "8: The Mormon Proposition," written and produced by Reed Cowan, claims to be an expose of the role that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints played in the passage of California Proposition 8. Reviews of the film generally agreed that it was a polemical treatment of the issue, pitting the Church as villain in a quest to limit or remove the rights of same-sex couples. FAIR reviews some of the individual claims made in the documentary.

Big Love's episode "Outer Darkness"

Summary: It is not our intention to discuss details of the portrayal of the temple ceremony here. We will, however, address some of the portrayals of other LDS beliefs and practices that were depicted in this episode. We found these portrayals to be highly inaccurate. In fact, there is ample evidence of anti-Mormon "advice" present in the episode. We treat some of these in the following sections.

Response to The Bible vs. Joseph Smith

Response to The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon

Question: How accurately does Bill Maher's film Religulous portray Latter-day Saints?

It is curious that Maher felt that the best way to ridicule Latter-day Saints was to enlist the help of those who would be guaranteed to mock the Church

It is curious that Maher felt that the best way to ridicule Latter-day Saints was to enlist the help of those who would be guaranteed to mock the Church. It raises the question: What was he afraid of that he could not solicit or use the opinions of believing Latter-day Saints? It may be just as well—those whom he chose to interview simply repeated the standard mockeries of the Church in true "God Makers" fashion. These criticisms have long been asked and answered. One movie critic alluded to Maher's approach to interviewing believers as similar to "shooting fish in a barrel." In the case of Mormonism, however, he appears to have simply chosen fish that were already caught.

The film follows Bill Maher as he travels to various locations throughout the world for the purpose of demonstrating the absurdity of religious belief

The film's title is a combination of the words "Religious" and "Ridiculous," thus providing a one-word summary of the film's tone and intent. The film follows Bill Maher as he travels to various locations throughout the world for the purpose of demonstrating the absurdity of religious belief. Maher accomplishes this by seeking out believers and posing questions which allow the respondents to appear foolish in their responses. As one reviewer put it:

Mr. Maher's M.O. involves getting in the face of a believer, making a mockery of his or her beliefs, asserting his own atheism and then waiting, in the hallowed tradition of "Candid Camera," for the amazed, outraged or, in some cases, amused response.

The bulk of the film is directed at Christianity, Judaism and Islam

The bulk of the film is directed at Christianity, Judaism and Islam, however, approximately four minutes of film time is directed at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Filming the Mormon segment was apparently a challenge for Maher, as his attempts to use subterfuge to obtain his interviews weren't always successful. According to Maher,

Maher: "We went to Salt Lake City, but no one would let us film there at all"

It was simple: We never, ever, used my name. We never told anybody it was me who was going to do the interviews. We even had a fake title for the film. We called it 'A Spiritual Journey.' It didn't work everywhere. We went to Salt Lake City, but no one would let us film there at all.'

Eventually, Maher had to settle for interviewing two ex-Mormons, who were more than willing to mock their former religion right along with him, noting that to leave Mormonism is to commit "social suicide."

It is interesting to note that while Maher interviewed believers for most of the film, for the LDS segment he chose to interview two ex-Mormons

It is interesting to note that while Maher interviewed believers for most of the film, for the LDS segment he chose to interview two ex-Mormons. The interviews, which lasted a total of three hours, were arranged by an officer of the Ex-Mormon Foundation. According to her, Maher's three hours of interview time with these two ex-Mormons "was a 3-hour laugh-fest!" According to one reviewer at the Baltimore Sun, Maher interviewed ex-Mormons because "no practicing Mormons would talk with him."

The film mocks temple garments, referring to them as "magic underwear." A still picture of a man and woman in garments (an earlier version of a photo originally posted in the "Undergarment" article in Wikipedia) is displayed.

Elements from Ed Decker's 1982 anti-Mormon film The God Makers are shown: Specifically, the animated portion that makes the rounds on YouTube under the heading Cartoon banned by the Mormon church.

Non-Mormon critics have also realized how biased and sensationalistic the film is

Non-Mormon critics have also realized how biased and sensationalistic the film is. It is interesting to note that many of these quotes come from reviewers who actually liked the film. A sample of media quotes about the film:

• "At one point the film presents a cartoon about Mormon beliefs almost as if it’s Sunday-school material — when it is in fact from a notorious anti-Mormon film."

—Mark Hemingway, Maherly Fair, National Review Online, Oct. 7, 2008.

• "He [Maher] loves the sound of his own voice and the intellect and seeming intelligence behind his own theories. Nowhere in this movie does he really attempt to get answers."

—Gary Wolcott, Religulous doesn't have much of a prayer, Tri-City Herald, Oct. 2, 2008.

• "If you can accept the comedian and talk show host's ill-mannered shtick and can stand a robust lecture from someone who speaks critically of what others hold sacred, Religulous will reinforce what you already think."

—Duane Dudek, There’s no doubt ‘Religulous’ rips faith, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Oct. 2, 2008.

• "I enjoyed Religulous, but I think it would be better if Maher had the confidence to spend more time talking to articulate believers."

—Chris Hewitt (St. Paul), 'Religulous' has a host so good, it will renew your faith in the docu-essay, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Oct. 4, 2008.

• "Thought is absent in Religulous, as is imagination. The movie is Maher's monument to Maher, as ugly and hateful as anything he decries in the film."

—Glenn Whipp, Maher ridiculous in 'Religulous', Los Angeles Daily News, Oct. 3, 2008.

• "Bill Maher does something amazing in Religulous. He makes Michael Moore look incredibly likable in comparison."

—Mick LaSalle, 'Religulous' - comic on a crusade, San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 3, 2008.

• "[Maher's] scattershot and ad hominem attacks against many different forms of religious hypocrisy don't add up to a coherent critique, and he's not qualified to provide one."

—Andrew O'Hehir, Bill Maher vs. the "talking snake", Salon.com, Oct. 2, 2008.

• "A provocation, thinly disguised as a documentary, that succeeds in being almost as funny as it is offensive."

—Joe Morgenstern, 'Religulous', Wall Street Journal, Oct. 3, 2008.

• "In the end, for all its genuflections towards free inquiry and rational debate, Maher is as close-minded as any of the preachers he despises."

—Stephen Whitty, Religious 'doco' funny but a fixed fight, Newark Star-Ledger, Sept. 30, 2008.

• "Maher’s first film project, Religulous, is a major disappointment because here, unlike on Real Time, he aims for laughs instead of insight—and aims low."

—J. R. Jones, Fishes and Loaves in a Barrel, Chicago Reader

• "One of the rules of satire is that you can't mock things you don't understand, and Religulous starts developing fault lines when it becomes clear that Maher's view of religious faith is based on a sophomoric reading of the Scriptures."

—Neely Tucker, Religulous, Washington Post, Oct. 3, 2008.

• "For most of the film, Maher uses the devout as straight men to set up his jokes. Though initially sidesplitting, over the course of Religulous, Maher has diminishing comic returns."

—Carrie Rickey, Comic Maher has faith in his lack of faith, Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 2, 2008.

• "Maher's antireligion documentary, Religulous, has numerous blasts of raucous humor amid passages that feel like a screed."

—Colin Covert, Maher finds 'Religulon' in documentary, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Oct. 2, 2008.

• "Being snarky and smug doesn't equate to providing insight, and there's more than one occasion when the filmmakers lose sight of this in their zeal to spread the Gospel According to Maher."

—James Berardinelli, Religulous, ReelViews

• "Employs a debilitating brand of smug disingenuousness, feigning interest in discussion while arrogantly and speciously preaching in the very same manner that its subjects are ridiculed for."

—Nick Schager, Religulous, Slant Magazine, Sept. 20, 2008.

• "The film is basically 100-plus minutes of Maher making fun of others for their beliefs. However, he does nothing to prove his own points and contentions."

—Jeff Vice, "Maher is Smug in 'Religulous'", Deseret News, Salt Lake City

• "In the end, Maher suffers from the same rigidity of thought - the certitude that he's right and those who disagree are wrong - that he dislikes in people of faith."

—Sean Means, Review: Maher takes on religion but sounds like he's preaching to the agnostic choir, Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 2, 2008.

• "Leaves the viewer wondering how much more interesting the movie might have been had Maher picked on more people his own intellectual size."

—Gary Thompson, "Maher's 'Religulous' fights to a draw", Philadelphia Daily News

• "This movie doesn’t seriously explore how religion affects politics; it’s just a snide attack on religious belief."

—Armond White, The Gospel According to Maher, New York Press

• "It's a nasty, condescending, small-minded film, self-amused and ultimately self-defeating. Its only accomplishment is to make atheists look bad—and in this political climate they didn't need Maher's help with that."

—Rafer Guzman, 'Religulous', Newsday, Oct. 1, 2008.

Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith or Search for the Truth DVD

Summary: This video claims to contrast the beliefs of Mormonism and the beliefs of Christianity. Although the producers of this video state that it was produced out of love, the numerous mischaracterizations, misrepresentations, errors, and outright falsehoods found on the DVD make it difficult for believing Latter-day Saints to see that expression of love as sincere.

Response to September Dawn

Summary: "When an independent film company produced a grossly distorted version of the Mountain Meadows Massacre two years ago, the Church ignored it. Perhaps partly as a result of that refusal to engender the controversy that the producers hoped for, the movie flopped at the box office and lost millions." (The Publicity Dilemma, LDS Newsroom, March 9, 2009.)

Jump to details:

• Question: Does the film "September Dawn" about the Mountain Meadows Massacre accurately portray the historical events?

Response to the 1982 anti-Mormon film The God Makers

Summary: The God Makers is an anti-Mormon film that was produced in 1982 by Jeremiah Films. The film represents an appeal to ridicule, by taking beliefs or doctrines of the church and presenting them in a manner which makes them appear so strange and bizarre that nobody could possibly accept them.

Jump to details:

• Question: Does the film The God Makers accurately represent Mormon beliefs?
• Question: Is there a YouTube cartoon which was "banned by the Mormon church"?

A FairMormon Analysis of "Why People Leave the LDS Church" (2008) by John Dehlin

Jump to details:

• Historical and doctrinal issues
• Social and cultural issues

A review of claims made in "Understanding Mormon Disbelief" by the Open Stories Foundation

A review of claims made in Dr. Robert Ritner's three-episode interview with John Dehlin

Summary: On July 31, 2020, critic John Dehlin was joined by Dr. Robert Ritner, an egyptologist at the University of Chicago and long-time critic of the Book of Abraham, to discuss the Book of Abraham and its authenticity. Dehlin and Dr. Ritner spent over twelve hours discussing different aspects of the Book of Abraham. This page was created as an index to all the major arguments made and to provide responses to claims that FAIR already had written material for. More responses will be forthcoming. Ritner spends most of his time criticizing the Book of Abraham generally but attempts character assassinations on Dr. John Gee of BYU and Michael Rhodes—former professor at BYU—and their scholarship on the Book of Abraham. This response will focus specifically on claims made about the Book of Abraham.

Thus we are reviewing the claims made in the following three episodes of Mormon Stories podcast:

• Mormon Stories #1339: Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 1
• Mormon Stories #1340: Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 2
• Mormon Stories #1341: Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 3