DiscussMormonism.com

At long last, the folks at "Mormon Interpreter" (i.e., the *other* "MI") have released the first of the "snippets" that were meant to accompany the feature film Witnesses, which had its theatrical run last year, and was a failure at the box office. For those who are interested, the new film clip can be accessed here. I have to say that at first glance, it's not all that interesting. It features the actress who played Emma Smith interviewing a "talking head" from BYU. Plus, the producers seem determined to milk the feature film as much as possible, and indeed, this "snippet" opens with a clip from the movie. At least, that's one way of looking at it.

But it seems to me that there is something far more provocative at play here. Surely there are some here who are familiar with D. Michael Quinn's Same-sex Dynamics book, which argued that there was a noticeable "homosocial" undercurrent to the activities of Mormonism's founders. And indeed, our very own Reverend Kiskumen observed that the movie Witnesses seemed to be, in actuality, a movie about how all the witnesses were actually in love with Joseph Smith. With the appearance of this latest clip, I find it difficult to argue with that interpretation, and I urge you to take a look.

The clip opens with Samuel darting down a dirt path, with Oliver Cowdery in tow. "You brought someone with you," Joseph observes. And at 0:28 in the clip, watch as a shy grin spreads across Cowdery's face. "I've come for the purpose of writing for you," he says, stammering slightly.

But then notice what Joseph does. "Have you?" he says with a wry smirk--and watch where his gaze goes. Right around 0:35 seconds in, Smith waggles his eyebrows lasciviously and he actually looks down at Cowdery's crotch. "Let's talk it over after we get you cleaned up," Smith says, looking back up.

Wow. It really doesn't get any more obvious than this, does it? Reverend Kishkumen has been vindicated beyond dispute. And you have to wonder: was this purposeful? Were the actors screwing with the production team, and secretly weaving a pro-LGBTQ+ agenda into their performances? Regardless, you have to imagine that Dr. Midgley, who is credited at the end as a person who "Made This Program Possible," is likely livid over this sort of thing. Very interesting, in any case, and I can't help but be interested in what the future episodes will offer.

Sharp eye, Doctor! Let’s get that handsome devil Oliver cleaned up inside, shall we? Joseph’s eyes are clearly focusing south of the border. I have to hand it to those actors—they managed to slip in so much gay-friendly material, and the folks at Interpreter can’t figure out why they love these clips so much!

Here's a link to a relevant Dialogue article by Quinn on the subject:

Male-Male Intimacy among
Nineteenth-century Mormons:
A Case Study

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... 04_119.pdf

Joseph Smith wrote:
Shulem, of course I like you. I'll have sex with you behind the barn. It will be our little secret. Nobody need know, ever.

Woohoo, Joseph is soooo sexy!



Special thanks to Daniel C. Peterson for getting rocks off!

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 25, 2022 10:59 pm

Wow. It really doesn't get any more obvious than this, does it? Reverend Kishkumen has been vindicated beyond dispute. And you have to wonder: was this purposeful? Were the actors screwing with the production team, and secretly weaving a pro-LGBTQ+ agenda into their performances? Regardless, you have to imagine that Dr. Midgley, who is credited at the end as a person who "Made This Program Possible," is likely livid over this sort of thing. Very interesting, in any case, and I can't help but be interested in what the future episodes will offer.

Could it be otherwise, Dr. Scratch? The subtext of Mormon Apologetics is pulsating with an unmistakable homoerotic energy. This actually reminded me of John Gee accusing his PhD supervisor at Yale of making homosexual advances on him, the kind of closeted behavior one might expected from a histrionic who actively suppresses his own desires.

This imagery is stunning though and awash with contradictions. We open to two handsome men in rather dapper clothing who were supposedly on the road for more than a day (indeed, Samuel has a bedroll slung over his broad shoulders), one must ask themselves, “How on God’s green earth did their shirts stay so spectacularly white?” Joseph is certainly toney in his costume, that neckerchief looks brand new! We’ve been lectured so many times by apologists that Joseph was a slow witted farm boy who couldn’t possibly have the skills to hoodwink people, it fascinating that they have him doing farm chores in what would be his Sunday best.

I think I got whiplash when Samuel runs to greet Joseph; his gait as he sprints towards his brother with peels of laughter is almost something out of ‘Little House on the Prairie’ and then suddenly when both men turn to look at Oliver, the mood and posture of both Joseph and Samnuel take on the spirit of Tom of Finland. What a total 180 pivot. It is almost like they are signaling that there is a subversion of Mormon norms in play here, from the wholesome to the taboo.

“Brought someone with you?” queries Joseph as he drives the shovel he was holding into the soil, a penetrative act that leaves the wooden handle standing erect. What is that all about? And then Oliver immediately initiates physical contact with Joseph by extending his hand. After they press their flesh for a brief moment, Oliver almost seems overcome by the physical contact and stumbles on his words, so he takes a beat to remove his hat. He’s come for Joseph. Writing for him, that is.

Has he? Then all three move into the privacy of the house.

Ten bucks says Daniel was on set that day.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 25, 2022 11:12 pm

Sharp eye, Doctor! Let’s get that handsome devil Oliver cleaned up inside, shall we? Joseph’s eyes are clearly focusing south of the border. I have to hand it to those actors—they managed to slip in so much gay-friendly material, and the folks at Interpreter can’t figure out why they love these clips so much!

You can clearly see Daniel’s influence splashed across the screen. The man is a dyed-in-the-wool Postmodernist, it is why his writings are just pastiche weavings of book excerpts, travelogs, and editorial hot takes from other people. Daniel’s mainstay is simply to create by assembling the work of others into something that transcends the sum of its parts, which is a common benchmark of postmodernism representations. Daniel even engages in the commodification of knowledge by giving those Indiana Jones tours; it is like he just went straight up to Jean-François Lyotard and said, “Tell me how to be!”

I like it, to be honest. Daniel’s ascetic isn’t the gritty realism of 19th century agriculture in rural upstate New York, but it is very much the kind of ascetic that has three twinks eyebanging each other before engaging in a secret project with esoteric overtones.

I firmly believe that the titular “Witnesses” are not the Book of Mormon witnesses, but a fourth-wall-breaking nod to the audience. We are the witnesses. Now what we are witnessing is kinda gay, but that’s okay!

It as Tacitus told us: “Rara temporum felicitate, ubi sentire quæ velis, et quæ sentias dicere licet”

DrStakhanovite wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 26, 2022 3:07 am

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 25, 2022 11:12 pm

Sharp eye, Doctor! Let’s get that handsome devil Oliver cleaned up inside, shall we? Joseph’s eyes are clearly focusing south of the border. I have to hand it to those actors—they managed to slip in so much gay-friendly material, and the folks at Interpreter can’t figure out why they love these clips so much!

You can clearly see Daniel’s influence splashed across the screen. The man is a dyed-in-the-wool Postmodernist, it is why his writings are just pastiche weavings of book excerpts, travelogs, and editorial hot takes from other people. Daniel’s mainstay is simply to create by assembling the work of others into something that transcends the sum of its parts, which is a common benchmark of postmodernism representations. Daniel even engages in the commodification of knowledge by giving those Indiana Jones tours; it is like he just went straight up to Jean-François Lyotard and said, “Tell me how to be!”

I like it, to be honest. Daniel’s ascetic isn’t the gritty realism of 19th century agriculture in rural upstate New York, but it is very much the kind of ascetic that has three twinks eyebanging each other before engaging in a secret project with esoteric overtones.

I firmly believe that the titular “Witnesses” are not the Book of Mormon witnesses, but a fourth-wall-breaking nod to the audience. We are the witnesses. Now what we are witnessing is kinda gay, but that’s okay!

It as Tacitus told us: “Rara temporum felicitate, ubi sentire quæ velis, et quæ sentias dicere licet”

Oh my

That really is an awkward line, and given that they all look like they'd just gotten dressed five minutes ago, the offer feels opportunistic.

Wouldn't offering a drink be a little more natural to transition the scene to the indoors when three young men reunite? It's a familiar-sounding line, but just not in this context. And so I googled, "let's get you cleaned up" to see how this line typically plays out. The first two hits were from cartoons where a parent figure is speaking to rambunctious kid. Doesn't really fit here does it? The third example comes from Fifty Shades of Grey, and we must be getting warmer.

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 25, 2022 10:59 pm

For those who are interested, the new film clip can be accessed here.

Why are LDS apologetics so essentially dishonest? That dishonesty is not written into the dictionary definition of apologetics. Instead, this dishonesty is a quality that always gets added. Not mentioning that Cowdery was a cousin to Joseph or that he was deeply offended to find Joseph boffing Fanny Alger in the hayloft or many other indiscretions. My goodness, be honest in your documentaries since this history is not just a twisty toy for apologetics.

I thought you lot were exaggerating for poking fun’s sake. So I watched the clip… it’s exactly as described. Clearly. In fact, Joseph openly stares at Olivers’ crotch and smiles with what appears to be satisfaction. It’s unbelievable.