DiscussMormonism.com

Lem wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:07 pm

Why was Peterson expecting only negative reviews? He stacked the audience, and at last check 23 of the 29 audience reviews on Rotten tomatoes were 5 stars.

Probably because people here and the exMormon reddit will be all over Rotten Tomatoes writing fake reviews.

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 03, 2021 8:46 pm

Tom wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 03, 2021 8:43 pm

The Facebook page for the film reports that "[m]ore than 1,000 people gathered for the nationwide premiere" and that "[d]ue to demand many theaters opened a day early." It quotes the following from Sean Means' review: "Dramatically compelling ... Spiritually inspirational."

Means gave the film 2 1/2 stars....

I see that a new movie poster highlights Means' review:

Sledge wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 04, 2021 7:47 pm

Philo Sofee wrote: I challenge you to read Rodger Anderson's book with a serious and as objective as possible mind as well. Richard Lloyd has been shown to play fast and loose with the evidence. My reading his fast and loose stuff is not going to make it any more credible, even if I read him another 22 times it won't change that fact of his scholarship

No. That just isn’t true. His book has been scrutinized by the best (yea even the Tanners) and has been found to be solid scholarship. You just don’t like it because it’s positive toward the church.

Philo's assertion: Rodger Anderson's book shows that Richard Lloyd played fast and loose with the evidence.

Sledge's counter: "No. That just isn't true."

Sledge, what support do you have for your contention that Philo is lying about what Rodger Anderson's book shows?

Putting a hashtag of "bearwitness" on the poster cheapens their accomplishment. The film is supposed to appeal to non-members under the assumption that the witnesses were everyday credible eye witnesses. linking it to witnessing, proclaiming a spiritual message under the promptings of the Holy Spirit, on the one hand might be revealing about what they really mean, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, it tells the non-member that Mormons can't give you five minutes of peace to listen to their side of the story in the most objective way they can frame it. It's like visiting temple square and enjoying it, and then out from nowhere the missionaries jump you to cram a Christ pamphlet down your throat. I can buy one of those Amish fireplaces and enjoy it on its own terms. I don't remember Battlefield Earth being this obvious about their intentions for the film.

Sledge, what support do you have for your contention that Philo is lying about what Rodger Anderson's book shows?

Sloppy, Equality. Read exactly what Philo said then get back to me.

Sledge wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 04, 2021 7:47 pm

Philo Sofee wrote: I challenge you to read Rodger Anderson's book with a serious and as objective as possible mind as well. Richard Lloyd has been shown to play fast and loose with the evidence. My reading his fast and loose stuff is not going to make it any more credible, even if I read him another 22 times it won't change that fact of his scholarship

No. That just isn’t true. His book has been scrutinized by the best (yea even the Tanners) and has been found to be solid scholarship. You just don’t like it because it’s positive toward the church.

No, that's not true, Rodger Anderson demonstrated with facts that Richard Lloyd plays fast and loose, as you would well know if you actually read his book like I have. You just don't like anything realistic against Mormon apologetic materials.

Sledge wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 04, 2021 9:00 pm

Sledge, what support do you have for your contention that Philo is lying about what Rodger Anderson's book shows?

Sloppy, Equality. Read exactly what Philo said then get back to me.

You need to read exactly what I advised and then get back with me.

Folks, you can’t make this stuff up. The proprietor of SeN is begging everyone to go over and post 5 star reviews on rottentomatoes.com. This is not a good look at all. I’m embarrassed for everyone involved in this project.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... -help.html

Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:55 am

Folks, you can’t make this stuff up. The proprietor of SeN is begging everyone to go over and post 5 star reviews on rottentomatoes.com. This is not a good look at all. I’m embarrassed for everyone involved in this project.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... -help.html

Well, luckily for “Dan P” this ringing endorsement landed hot and heavy by “Stephen M”, who has, yep, you guessed it, no other reviews under his belt:

“This movie was a wonderful portrayal of the lives of many early Latter-day Saints, including in particular Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris. The story was accurate and the acting and filmography were superb. The movie highlighted the integrity of the three witnesses who never denied their visionary experience when they saw the angel and the gold plates. Their persistent testimonies, even when they were out of the church, is something that critics of the story of the origin of the Book of Mormon have trouble coming to grips with.”



- Doc

Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:55 am

Folks, you can’t make this stuff up. The proprietor of SeN is begging everyone to go over and post 5 star reviews on rottentomatoes.com. This is not a good look at all. I’m embarrassed for everyone involved in this project.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... -help.html

It's all about image... perfect mini-Mormonism... Gosh, if only the Brethren would all go over there and review it and encourage the mob to do likewise. Where is the leadership when you need it, just sitting on their pile of money?