Didn’t Interpreter spend a small fortune upgrading their website not that long ago? Basic errors like links going to the wrong destination or not working, and donate buttons that don’t work, are unforgivable. Who the heck is (mis)managing the website?
I assume that the Interpreter Foundation spent many of the Relief Society Sister in Parowan’s mites to fund the website upgrade. I recall that one of the Foundation’s leaders famously claimed that “there's no other website on the internet, that I'm aware of, that has the resources and the complexity we do,” so heavy spending wouldn’t surprise me.
Incidentally, I am pleased to see that the Proprietor or one of his acolytes (perhaps a neighbor) read my earlier post and updated the link to episode 11 of Bowdlerizing Brigham. (I suspect that fixing the donation page link will be a longer-term project.)
As for the identity of the poor individuals who manage the Foundation’s mostly inert website, I cannot name names. The Foundation keeps such information private.
Posted from Correlation Junction, Utah
Tom wrote:I recall that one of the Foundation’s leaders famously claimed that “there's no other website on the internet, that I'm aware of, that has the resources and the complexity we do,” ...
I remember at the time being struck by said leader's willingness to so expose his lack of awareness. Brave fellow, don't you think?
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
Does each episode require a visit to the shooting site? Just curious.
Of course not. Anyone who has seen a Ken Burns documentary will know that it isn't necessary to physically travel to whatever location. You *can* do that. Maybe it will add a flair of "authenticity" or dramatic appeal. But it's certainly possible (and probably a lot cheaper) to pursue other alternatives.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
By the way, the powers-that-be at the Interpreter Foundation have still not fixed the “Donate” button link on the Bowdlerizing Brigham website. There remains no option to designate a donation to the series. !هذا جنون
Nearly two weeks have passed since I published my note directly above. The donate button on the series website (see here) still provides no option to donate to the series. I am not making this up. On the bright side, one may earmark a donation to the Witnesses film. Perhaps such donations will go to cover the film’s financial losses. Why else would that film remain a donation option? (I hope that the Proprietor can explain why the Interpreter Foundation is still soliciting funds to bring Six Days to the screen given that the film was released in 2024.) One may also make electronic donations to Witnesses or Six Days through the Interpreter Foundation’s main donation page here.
Does each episode require a visit to the shooting site? Just curious.
Of course not. Anyone who has seen a Ken Burns documentary will know that it isn't necessary to physically travel to whatever location. You *can* do that. Maybe it will add a flair of "authenticity" or dramatic appeal. But it's certainly possible (and probably a lot cheaper) to pursue other alternatives.
Generally speaking, and I’m not an expert, filming schedules are done by location priorty first. Even YouTube channels. People intending on producing a lengthy series on one topic would likely film many episodes in one filming date at that one location. They will capture content for all sorts of different episodes whilst at location, and then splice that in with other content filmed at home, or in another location where they are filming multiple pieces of content.
Surely Redbrick Filmworks are not so incompetent (yes, puffing smoke machines and cables and drainpipes etc suggest otherwise) as to not have considered the storyboard for the whole 18 months of content? I mean, the Afore & Co are not making this up on the hoof as it were, are they?
Posted from Saturated Flats Minnesoda.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
By the way, the powers-that-be at the Interpreter Foundation have still not fixed the “Donate” button link on the Bowdlerizing Brigham website. There remains no option to designate a donation to the series. !هذا جنون
Nearly two weeks have passed since I published my note directly above. The donate button on the series website (see here) still provides no option to donate to the series. I am not making this up. On the bright side, one may earmark a donation to the Witnesses film. Perhaps such donations will go to cover the film’s financial losses. Why else would that film remain a donation option? (I hope that the Proprietor can explain why the Interpreter Foundation is still soliciting funds to bring Six Days to the screen given that the film was released in 2024.) One may also make electronic donations to Witnesses or Six Days through the Interpreter Foundation’s main donation page here.
Posted from Afterglow, Utah
I am pleased to report that the powers-that-be read my posts and made some changes. The donation page on the Bowdlerizing Brighamwebsite now declares: “Your donation will help The Interpreter Foundation bring Becoming Brigham to the screen (or whatever you specify below).” I’m not sure it’s entirely accurate to say that the Interpreter Foundation is working to bring Bowdlerizing Brigham to the screen. That sounds like a movie shown in theaters. (It appears that the Interpreter Foundation IT interns simply replaced the words “Six Days in August” with “Becoming Brigham.”) In any case, it’s an improvement to include the name of the series on the donation page for the series.
Happily, the powers-that-be went a step further by adding Bowdlerizing Brigham as an option for directing donations. That’s good. On the other hand, it’s unclear why “Witnesses film” and “Six Days in August film” remain as donation options. What, exactly, does the Interpreter Foundation do with funds donated to either of these two categories? It is vitally important that donor wishes be respected. It would be fundamentally immoral to take substantial resources and donations that were originally given in good faith by donors to support the production of Witnesses and Six Days, and divert them to fund new initiatives.[/quote]
Another week has passed, and Bowdlerizing Brigham’s donation page continues to give donors options to give to the “Six Days in August” film and the “Witnesses” film. Both films, of course, were released in theaters sometime ago. What is the Interpreter Foundation doing with donations directed to the two films? It’s clear that the Interpreter Foundation’s finances need an independent audit.
Last edited by Tom on Thu May 07, 2026 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tom. I’m a little confused as to why they need more money to film a few Talking Head interviews that can be easily and professionally filmed and edited on an iPhone. Plus there’s really no need to travel to faraway locations hauling loads of kit for scenic backdrops for this kind of stuff. An iPhone tripod does just fine. Ask anyone running a professional YouTube these days. It smacks of Peterson playing at David Lean, and using donors money to do so. Surely downtown Salt Lake would avoid travel and accommodation costs. No need for the people involved to endure nights away from home. No need to cart heavy equipment anywhere. Why the big drama over filming a YouTube video?
28 Years Later was filmed on iPhones (yes they did some clever stuff with rigs etc, but it shows that simple scenes with people talking to each other don’t need anything other than an iPhone. As long ago as 2015 the sitcom “Modern Family” filmed an episode entirely using iPhones. Why hasn’t Redbrick Filmworks moved with the times? It would save Interpreter a lot of money if they had. In fact, you wouldn’t need Redbrick Filmworks for a YouTube series. Just recruit a couple of BYU journalism interns, job done. But maybe I’m missing the point…
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Tom. I’m a little confused as to why they need more money to film a few Talking Head interviews that can be easily and professionally filmed and edited on an iPhone. Plus there’s really no need to travel to faraway locations hauling loads of kit for scenic backdrops for this kind of stuff. An iPhone tripod does just fine. Ask anyone running a professional YouTube these days. It smacks of Peterson playing at David Lean, and using donors money to do so. Surely downtown Salt Lake would avoid travel and accommodation costs. No need for the people involved to endure nights away from home. No need to cart heavy equipment anywhere. Why the big drama over filming a YouTube video?
28 Years Later was filmed on iPhones (yes they did some clever stuff with rigs etc, but it shows that simple scenes with people talking to each other don’t need anything other than an iPhone. As long ago as 2015 the sitcom “Modern Family” filmed an episode entirely using iPhones. Why hasn’t Redbrick Filmworks moved with the times? It would save Interpreter a lot of money if they had. In fact, you wouldn’t need Redbrick Filmworks for a YouTube series. Just recruit a couple of BYU journalism interns, job done. But maybe I’m missing the point…
You make a good point. The Afore evidently aspires to play the role of a movie mogul, but it’s very possible that he possesses a dim vision of what types of quality moviemaking can be done on a budget today. The Interpreter Foundation is apparently turning over large sums of cash donated by faithful Saints to a very traditional movie production company, Redbrick, for this project, supposedly leaving $0.00 in the budget for advertising. I like your ideas. Why couldn’t the Interpreter Foundation conscript the Afore’s ministering brothers to do much of the filming with phones or inexpensive cameras on a volunteer basis? Youth in the Afore’s ward could undoubtedly operate a drone or two for aerial filming.
It’s obvious that the Interpreter Foundation needs to invest money in advertising and promotion. Blog posts aren’t doing it. The viewership numbers are not trending the way they should (see below). Simply put, the current production model is not working.
Tom. I’m a little confused as to why they need more money to film a few Talking Head interviews that can be easily and professionally filmed and edited on an iPhone. Plus there’s really no need to travel to faraway locations hauling loads of kit for scenic backdrops for this kind of stuff. An iPhone tripod does just fine. Ask anyone running a professional YouTube these days. It smacks of Peterson playing at David Lean, and using donors money to do so. Surely downtown Salt Lake would avoid travel and accommodation costs. No need for the people involved to endure nights away from home. No need to cart heavy equipment anywhere. Why the big drama over filming a YouTube video?
28 Years Later was filmed on iPhones (yes they did some clever stuff with rigs etc, but it shows that simple scenes with people talking to each other don’t need anything other than an iPhone. As long ago as 2015 the sitcom “Modern Family” filmed an episode entirely using iPhones. Why hasn’t Redbrick Filmworks moved with the times? It would save Interpreter a lot of money if they had. In fact, you wouldn’t need Redbrick Filmworks for a YouTube series. Just recruit a couple of BYU journalism interns, job done. But maybe I’m missing the point…
You make a good point. The Afore evidently aspires to play the role of a movie mogul, but it’s very possible that he possesses a dim vision of what types of quality moviemaking can be done on a budget today. The Interpreter Foundation is apparently turning over large sums of cash donated by faithful Saints to a very traditional movie production company, Redbrick, for this project, supposedly leaving $0.00 in the budget for advertising. I like your ideas. Why couldn’t the Interpreter Foundation conscript the Afore’s ministering brothers to do much of the filming with phones or inexpensive cameras on a volunteer basis? Youth in the Afore’s ward could undoubtedly operate a drone or two for aerial filming.
It’s obvious that the Interpreter Foundation needs to invest money in advertising and promotion. Blog posts aren’t doing it. The viewership numbers are not trending the way they should (see below). Simply put, the current production model is not working.
The Afore has chosen an outdated, grandiose, hellishly expensive way of producing some short YouTube videos. He’s opted for the least efficient and least cost effective options at every step of the way. It’s either a deliberate decision to rule out low cost but high quality iPhone video production, utilising willing volunteers from BYU’s media and journalism student cohorts (who would gain valuable course credits presumably for being involved in producing it), or he holds a grandiose self image and the hell with how much ut costs donors.
It’s an inexplicably reckless and flamboyant way for a charity to disburse donations. Especially as those significant sums of money have headed in only one direction, to Peterson’s chums.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
It's been a long time since I posted anything on this board, but I thought I'd add a few thoughts here, especially since I think Dr. Peterson uses this board for research, repartee (from afar on his blog), and content fodder.
I see that today Episode 14 of the Becoming Brigham series is up to 2.9 k views, but that is still way less than the 32k views of the first episode.
In the spirit of 'every viewer a witness' or something to that effect, I'll share some of my own idiosyncratic reactions to what I've seen and heard here and there.
When Peterson advertises the video episodes on his blog by saying something like they are all 'free' or "at absolutely no cost', that is jarring to me. I watch and/or follow quite a few you tube videos, and I have never paid to view or to follow. I have a couple of friends who offer regular you tube videos, and they spend a lot of time and money on equipment, production, editing, etc. It's true that they love and believe in what they do - so there's that personal satisfaction. But with most you tube videos I watch, there is a sense of inviting the viewers into their experience and expressing gratitude for the interest of others - along with hopes for some you tube financing that may come with increased viewership. But they never feel they are entitled to people's views or money (which to me, is implied, when you mention there's no cost as if there otherwise would be!) I know I'm overstating the issue of "no cost" here, but I do so because it causes me to see arrogant and entitled attitudes in the way Becoming Brigham is advertised - whether rightly and justly or not.
I also can't help but remember, when Peterson invites his blog readers to share the videos with people in their wards, that he's commented on the surprising and dismaying lack of interest in his cinematic work among many members of his own ward. I find that surprising too, especially as I would think these are the people who know him best and could be expected to be most supportive of what he and his wife have produced. If that were the case in my own life, it surely would lead to a lot of personal reflection and introspection.
While I have watched every episode of the Becoming Brigham videos and find them to be interesting and well done, I do sense a pervading aura of worshipful and 'beyond criticism' regard for Brigham Young and for the LDS church. For one thing, I see it in the eyes of John Wilson, especially. (It reminds me of the adoring soulful 'glaze' that would come into the eyes of one of the young missionaries - lovely guy he was! - who so devoutly wanted to convince me of the truth of Joseph Smith and the LDS church.) Otherwise, I see and hear it in the words and attitudes of the experts.
And it leads to a sense of "We're right and any naysayers are wrong".
In that vein, I picked up on a brief "throwaway" phrase that Peterson inserted when talking about how to correctly practice the gift of tongues in an earlier episode when he said something like "the gifts are not about rolling in the aisles". I'm not Pentecostal, but I heard the slight derision in that statement.
Over the years, I used to notice that Peterson, Midgley and Pahoran (kiwi)were often very quick to ridicule others who had different opinions, and especially fellow or former Mormons, as well as atheists. I always thought that Peterson was not as vicious as they were, but that he enjoyed and supported them, as well as he supported William Schryver (the guy whom Ms Jack exposed in his misogyny). Now it seems that Midgley is silent, and Pahoran (kiwi). who still appears occasionally on Peterson's blog as an intelligent observer of cultural/world affairs, no longer engages in personal insults or mockery. Perhaps Peterson alone is left to carry the torch?
Does that have anything to do with the declining numbers of the Becoming Brigham episodes?
Does it come across as a vanity project?
How much value does it have for the average LDS person? I expect the vast majority of people identifying as LDS are content to live their daily lives without you tubes and podcasts and the vast array of potential additional church activities and resources.
What I do wonder is how and why the views went from 32k for the first episode to under 3k now.
Last edited by Paloma on Fri May 01, 2026 7:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
When was it officially announced that there would be a large number of episodes of Becoming Brigham? It seems to me that if people knew there would only be six episodes, say, then a number of people would make a point of watching all six, to complete the set. And if the series were, say, a drama with an unknown story arc, then some people might follow the whole thing, and be all the happier for knowing in advance that it would be a long story.
With a long series on an obviously limited historical topic, though, I’d expect that almost everyone is going to think, when they learn that there will be dozens of episodes, “Well, there’s obviously no way I’m going to watch all of them. I’m going to quit watching at some point. So why not quit sooner rather than later?”
Asking people to invest time in a long series like this is like trying to sell a four-inch-thick paperback.
