Torches at High Noon: A Fog Machine, Power Lines, An Angry Extra and Brigham Young’s Electric Boogaloo

[Analytics]

The first sequence of Episode 1 is confusing. Judging by the light, torches, fog, and time of year, it shows some dastardly villains sneaking through the early-morning fog of the woods around 5:00 AM, apparently to kill Joseph and Hyrum.

NO!

This scene was filmed in Upper Canada Village in Ontario, Canada, in the afternoon. The camera was fixed along the waters of Crysler Beach facing due WEST which means the sun was setting as explained in several of my previous posts. DCP is a dope for having used that footage which is anything but accurate.

This is Christ Church (white building) from the Opening shot:

All I meant is that if it were a little bit dark and foggy in June anywhere near Carthage, it would be around 5:00 AM. I live on the other side of Missouri, but the weather is about the same. There would never be fog in the afternoon in the summer. Just doesn’t happen.

These details aside, what is the point of this scene? What are they trying to represent? Based on how untethered to plausibility this is, I’m more inclined to give the Willard-and-John-did-it hypothesis as serious look.

[Shulem]

All I meant is that if it were a little bit dark and foggy in June anywhere near Carthage, it would be around 5:00 AM. I live on the other side of Missouri, but the weather is about the same. There would never be fog at night in the summer. Just doesn’t happen.

These details aside, what is the point of this scene? What are they trying to represent? Based on how untethered to plausibility this is, I’m more inclined to give the Willard-and-John-did-it hypothesis as serious look.

Maybe I'm just too picky. But I expect better from historians and anything short of accuracy is downright error. They have every right to produce these films but should pay better attention to details and keep it real. We critics are going to point out the errors!

[Doctor Scratch]

Excellent review, Analytics. Lol. I admit that I haven’t yet summoned up the patience to watch any of the videos all the way through: I’ve only skimmed them.

Yes: the “BY plotted to kill Joseph Smith” theory is bonkers, but the way they are handling it is equally bizarre. They seem to find it legitimately dangerous and threatening, hence why they won't mention the film title.

[Gadianton]

I concur, Analytics' analysis was devastating. This is DPRK level propaganda. I can understand why Kim Jong Il was confused and thought he could simultaneously make a compelling movie and also celebrate the sanctity of his empire. But Dan's education level is significantly higher, not to mention his vast exposure to the world and other cultures. So how to explain it?

[Kishkumen]

He also mentioned your comments during the recent fireside. Here is a link to the segment: https://youtu.be/OEPfJWrtdbk?si=qt6ZlrS ... C&t=15m54s. Transcript: https://cdn.interpreterfoundation.org/i ... script.pdf (see page 5).

Thanks, Tom. I find to be both interesting and revealing the gist he provides of what I said:

Okay, I'm willing to put up with that and go forward. But there was a more
interesting criticism that struck me. From someone whose intelligence I respect,
and he's a former believer. He's now quite out of the church. But he says, "I just
don't have the stomach for this kind of hero worship that they're doing of Brigham
Young. It's a cult of personality. Why defend him?" He says, "I study..." He's in
Classics. "I study Julius Caesar and write about him and write about Constantine. I
have nothing invested in whether they were nice or anything like that. I just let the
chips fall where they may. Why should Latter-day Saints care about whether
Brigham and Joseph and people like that were honest, decent people?”
It's important to defend the character of the early witnesses to the Restoration
because a lot depends upon whether they're credible. If Joseph Smith was a
known habitual liar, well, that kind of weakens our confidence in him, right?
Brigham Young proclaims revelation. He does, more than you might think. Is he a
believable person when he talks about his witness of the truth? Is he believable? I
think much rests on that.

I still disagree with him. Either something is true, or it is not. To say that we need to have confidence in the person who said it is an admission of sorts that our trust resides in people, not in truth. I notice he does not mention my reference to Brigham Young's (!!!!) own belief that Joseph Smith's character did not matter in the end BECAUSE HE TAUGHT THE TRUTH.

What is so hard about that?

I get that all of this fuss is a concession to those who are incapable of separating the truth from the flawed human beings who speak it. Concessions MUST be made because, frankly, most people are incapable of doing that. It is a very human weakness to have. And so I share this criticism of the hero worship while recognizing the needs of most people and that this will drive the kind of thing we are talking about: hero worship and defense of personalities.

[Kishkumen]

He [Joseph Smith] may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, for I never embrace any man in my faith. But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me and the whole world.

[Shulem]

He [Joseph Smith] may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, for I never embrace any man in my faith. But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me and the whole world.

I learned something new. Wow, he said that? Really?

How about Saint Peter saying this:

Jesus may get pickled every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's pickled peppers every night, run pickled peppers, I do not care anything about that, for I never embrace any man in my faith. But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me and the whole world.

[malkie]

He also mentioned your comments during the recent fireside. Here is a link to the segment: https://youtu.be/OEPfJWrtdbk?si=qt6ZlrS ... C&t=15m54s. Transcript: https://cdn.interpreterfoundation.org/i ... script.pdf (see page 5).

Thanks, Tom. I find to be both interesting and revealing the gist he provides of what I said:

Okay, I'm willing to put up with that and go forward. But there was a more
interesting criticism that struck me. From someone whose intelligence I respect,
and he's a former believer. He's now quite out of the church. But he says, "I just
don't have the stomach for this kind of hero worship that they're doing of Brigham
Young. It's a cult of personality. Why defend him?" He says, "I study..." He's in
Classics. "I study Julius Caesar and write about him and write about Constantine. I
have nothing invested in whether they were nice or anything like that. I just let the
chips fall where they may. Why should Latter-day Saints care about whether
Brigham and Joseph and people like that were honest, decent people?”
It's important to defend the character of the early witnesses to the Restoration
because a lot depends upon whether they're credible. If Joseph Smith was a
known habitual liar, well, that kind of weakens our confidence in him, right?
Brigham Young proclaims revelation. He does, more than you might think. Is he a
believable person when he talks about his witness of the truth? Is he believable? I
think much rests on that.

I still disagree with him. Either something is true, or it is not. To say that we need to have confidence in the person who said it is an admission of sorts that our trust resides in people, not in truth. I notice he does not mention my reference to Brigham Young's (!!!!) own belief that Joseph Smith's character did not matter in the end BECAUSE HE TAUGHT THE TRUTH.

What is so hard about that?

I get that all of this fuss is a concession to those who are incapable of separating the truth from the flawed human beings who speak it. Concessions MUST be made because, frankly, most people are incapable of doing that. It is a very human weakness to have. And so I share this criticism of the hero worship while recognizing the needs of most people and that this will drive the kind of thing we are talking about: hero worship and defense of personalities.

The questions this raises in my mind are:

• could Mormon god not find someone better than Joseph - someone whose (presumably predictable) failing would not reflect badly on the church?
• was there no "Plan B"?

[Shulem]

The questions this raises in my mind are:

• could Mormon god not find someone better than Joseph - someone whose (presumably predictable) failing would not reflect badly on the church?
• was there no "Plan B"?

Smith appeased his followers by making up a contingency in which he could be replaced for failing to measure up.

And now, verily I say unto Joseph Smith, Jun.—You have not kept the commandments, and must needs stand rebuked before the Lord;

Your family must needs repent and forsake some things, and give more earnest heed unto your sayings, or be removed out of their place.

What I say unto one I say unto all; pray always lest that wicked one have power in you, and remove you out of your place.

[Doctor Scratch]

Viewership for Episode 1 = 23K views
Viewership for Episode 2 = 5.2K views

There is just no way they are going to sustain interest in this project for--what, a year and a half??

Who wants to wager a guess as to the view count for Episode 3? Do you think it'll make it to 3K? 2.5K?

Episode 3 has 3.7K views, so that represents a rough decrease of ~1,500 views compared to Episode 2.