DiscussMormonism.com

Tom wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:45 pm

I caught Dr. Peterson’s presentation. There were some technical difficulties. He made several references to comments made here about Witnesses and the new film, Six Days in August: The Story of Nauvoo Syndrome (without naming the board, of course).

Dr. Peterson talked about the decision to produce a film on the succession crisis. At first, he had some doubts about whether that was an important enough issue.

But I began to hear people saying things like… well, one returned mission president—this was something relayed to me by someone who heard him say, “You know, my wife and I have concluded that Brigham Young was not really the Lord’s choice.” And so I guess he means by that that the Twelve weren’t the Lord’s choice. And then I think, Think of the implications of this: every president of the church, and including Brigham Young, has functioned by apostolic authority. Every temple that we have was dedicated by virtue of apostolic authority. Every ordinance in the church is performed by virtue of authority transmitted through Brigham Young and the Twelve. Every baptism, every ordination, every marriage—you’re really wanting to say they’re all invalid? I mean, think of the implications of this.

There is a possibility that the new film will demonize James Strang.

I’ve said that I don’t want to demonize Sidney Rigdon. I’m ambivalent about James Jesse Strang. I’m wondering if Pee Wee Herman is still available to play the role. I have to confess, I’ve tried to view Strang as sympathetically as I can, but I really can’t do it very well.

That view is evident in his anti-Strangite writings.

He noted that the preliminary script is about 80 pages done.

I wonder if Peterson got his idea from RFM's Apostolic Coup D'Etat program? I also wonder if there is a danger of bringing too much notoriety to a messy subject? However, Witnesses didn't do that well. I think the faithful don't want to look at church history too deeply due to a fear of what they will find out.

In any event, God obviously didn't plan very well when Joseph Smith died and BY took his sweet time in assuming authority officially. Joseph Smith III, Strang, Marks and others had claims that were plausible enough to lead one to think this was ordinary men trying to figure out who would take over an ordinary organization that claimed authority from an absent God.

Tom wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 04, 2022 9:46 pm

I listened to Gary Lawrence's mystifying presentation on "How Comfortable Conversations About the Gift of Agency Lead to Interest in the Gospel."

I’m amused that Dr. Peterson’s recap of Thursday’s presentations makes no mention of Lawrence’s address. Aside from the inedible fourth course, it was a feast.

Dr Exiled wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 4:00 pm

Tom wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:45 pm

I caught Dr. Peterson’s presentation. There were some technical difficulties. He made several references to comments made here about Witnesses and the new film, Six Days in August: The Story of Nauvoo Syndrome (without naming the board, of course).

Dr. Peterson talked about the decision to produce a film on the succession crisis. At first, he had some doubts about whether that was an important enough issue.
There is a possibility that the new film will demonize James Strang.

That view is evident in his anti-Strangite writings.

He noted that the preliminary script is about 80 pages done.

I wonder if Peterson got his idea from RFM's Apostolic Coup D'Etat program? I also wonder if there is a danger of bringing too much notoriety to a messy subject? However, Witnesses didn't do that well. I think the faithful don't want to look at church history too deeply due to a fear of what they will find out.

In any event, God obviously didn't plan very well when Joseph Smith died and BY took his sweet time in assuming authority officially. Joseph Smith III, Strang, Marks and others had claims that were plausible enough to lead one to think this was ordinary men trying to figure out who would take over an ordinary organization that claimed authority from an absent God.

It’s possible that Peterson got his idea from, or was at least influenced by, RFM’s podcast. Peterson seems to like to play the role of Unmoved Mopologist Mover, however, so I doubt he’d ever admit it.

I expect that the new film will be a piece of propaganda designed to minimize the messiness of the succession crisis by cleaning up Young’s succession claim.

I hate to explain jokes,

But sometimes your jokes are waa-y out there.

Tom wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:45 pm

I caught Dr. Peterson’s presentation. There were some technical difficulties. (I feel sorry for Tom Pittman, who seems to be working a second job as an unpaid tech fall guy for every presentation by Dr. Peterson.) He made several references to comments made here about Witnesses and the new film, Six Days in August: The Story of Nauvoo Syndrome (without naming the board, of course).

Dr. Peterson talked about the decision to produce a film on the succession crisis. At first, he had some doubts about whether that was an important enough issue.

But I began to hear people saying things like… well, one returned mission president—this was something relayed to me by someone who heard him say, “You know, my wife and I have concluded that Brigham Young was not really the Lord’s choice.” And so I guess he means by that that the Twelve weren’t the Lord’s choice. And then I think, Think of the implications of this: every president of the church, and including Brigham Young, has functioned by apostolic authority. Every temple that we have was dedicated by virtue of apostolic authority. Every ordinance in the church is performed by virtue of authority transmitted through Brigham Young and the Twelve. Every baptism, every ordination, every marriage—you’re really wanting to say they’re all invalid? I mean, think of the implications of this.

There is a possibility that the new film will demonize James Strang.

I’ve said that I don’t want to demonize Sidney Rigdon. I’m ambivalent about James Jesse Strang. I’m wondering if Pee Wee Herman is still available to play the role. I have to confess, I’ve tried to view Strang as sympathetically as I can, but I really can’t do it very well.

That view is evident in his anti-Strangite writings.

He noted that the preliminary script is about 80 pages done.

Wow! That stuff about the ex-mission president is dynamite! Yes, clearly BY was not Joseph Smith’s divinely chosen successor. The problem with this line of thought is actually the idea that it was necessary to have one successor to Smith’s role. It is more likely the case that Smith left more than one option because having a single one would have been insufficient if that plan went wrong. In reality, anyone with the second anointing could operate independently having the priesthood authority from Smith. So, there is no single organization or leader that was *the* successor. Such was unnecessary.

And, no, the traveling missionaries known as the Q12 were NOT EVER designated Smith’s successors. They nevertheless had the authority to carry on based on their second anointing priesthood authority. It is that authority that is at the root of LDS authority today.

But the secret is that it was and is not exclusive if other claims that come through the same channel.

There’s the story that makes this whole question pointless. There is no single line of succession. There is no loss of authority. The question only lives on because people misunderstood what Smith was doing. BY took advantage of that. Only the false attempt to make the authority exclusively the property of one organization makes this an apparent issue. There is no issue in fact.

Tom wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:45 pm

I caught Dr. Peterson’s presentation. There were some technical difficulties. (I feel sorry for Tom Pittman, who seems to be working a second job as an unpaid tech fall guy for every presentation by Dr. Peterson.) He made several references to comments made here about Witnesses and the new film, Six Days in August: The Story of Nauvoo Syndrome (without naming the board, of course).

Very interesting! Yes: there is a short clip of the presentation on FAIR's YouTube channel, and you can indeed hear one of the technical snafus at around 7:20. I wonder if they will make the entirety of the talk available at some point. In the meantime, what were the references that he made, Tom?

Dr. Peterson talked about the decision to produce a film on the succession crisis. At first, he had some doubts about whether that was an important enough issue.

But I began to hear people saying things like… well, one returned mission president—this was something relayed to me by someone who heard him say, “You know, my wife and I have concluded that Brigham Young was not really the Lord’s choice.” And so I guess he means by that that the Twelve weren’t the Lord’s choice. And then I think, Think of the implications of this: every president of the church, and including Brigham Young, has functioned by apostolic authority. Every temple that we have was dedicated by virtue of apostolic authority. Every ordinance in the church is performed by virtue of authority transmitted through Brigham Young and the Twelve. Every baptism, every ordination, every marriage—you’re really wanting to say they’re all invalid? I mean, think of the implications of this.

Wow--this is devastating. And it sounds like Dr. Peterson and the filmmakers are wandering into some very murky territory. I can't help but wonder who the Mission President in question was...

There is a possibility that the new film will demonize James Strang.

I’ve said that I don’t want to demonize Sidney Rigdon. I’m ambivalent about James Jesse Strang. I’m wondering if Pee Wee Herman is still available to play the role. I have to confess, I’ve tried to view Strang as sympathetically as I can, but I really can’t do it very well.

That view is evident in his anti-Strangite writings.

He noted that the preliminary script is about 80 pages done.

Oh, wow. Pee Wee Herman? And Dr. Peterson claims that he doesn't ridicule or belittle other faiths?

I wonder if Mormon films can ever escape the aesthetic of the ward VHS video library.

Witnesses certainly had the opportunity to break out of the Aaron Copland orchestrated, stiltedly acted tropes that are common to all faithful Mormon videos. Joseph Smith, for example, is never actually portrayed as speaking like the frontier farm boy he was. He’s always shown with so much over the top reverence from the soundtrack and the actors around him.

It’s such a disconnect from reality that it just reminds you that you’re watching a piece of carefully crafted church propaganda. Rather than a piece of art.

drumdude wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 8:25 pm

I wonder if Mormon films can ever escape the aesthetic of the ward VHS video library.

Witnesses certainly had the opportunity to break out of the Aaron Copland orchestrated, stiltedly acted tropes that are common to all faithful Mormon videos. Joseph Smith, for example, is never actually portrayed as speaking like the frontier farm boy he was. He’s always shown with so much over the top reverence from the soundtrack and the actors around him.

It’s such a disconnect from reality that it just reminds you that you’re watching a piece of carefully crafted church propaganda. Rather than a piece of art.

That was my sense in watching this scene showing David Whitmer:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XilRsKVrC ... st&index=3

Oh, wow. Pee Wee Herman? And Dr. Peterson claims that he doesn't ridicule or belittle other faiths?

I wonder what made him say Pee Wee Herman. That’s pretty funny, I suppose. But I am not exactly sure what makes that comparison fit in his mind.

Tom wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 8:42 pm

drumdude wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 8:25 pm

I wonder if Mormon films can ever escape the aesthetic of the ward VHS video library.

Witnesses certainly had the opportunity to break out of the Aaron Copland orchestrated, stiltedly acted tropes that are common to all faithful Mormon videos. Joseph Smith, for example, is never actually portrayed as speaking like the frontier farm boy he was. He’s always shown with so much over the top reverence from the soundtrack and the actors around him.

It’s such a disconnect from reality that it just reminds you that you’re watching a piece of carefully crafted church propaganda. Rather than a piece of art.

That was my sense in watching this scene showing David Whitmer:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XilRsKVrC ... st&index=3

Mine too, that scene prompted the thought. Takes me back to seminary.