"If you had come to me in friendship, then this scum that ruined your daughter would be suffering this very day." --Don Corleone, or...?
On the one hand, it makes sense to photograph Mormonism's founders as if they were characters in Francis Ford Coppola's Oscar-winning crime epic. Why not make it seem as if they're plotting out their religious schemes in a murk of shadows? Or maybe this is a reaction to criticism? Not long ago, I commented:
The filmmakers have shown themselves in the past to be remarkably reactive to things that are written on this board. So who knows?Dr. Scratch wrote:“Witnesses”’ depiction of the historical era was totally unconvincing: everything was over-lit (remember: they didn’t have electric lights in the early 1800s) and it’s as if dust, grime, and smoke were completely absent.
Meanwhile, Dr. Peterson has decided to reveal his true cards at last. From the outset, I have predicted that the film was essentially an anti-Community of Christ propaganda film: a movie that will inevitably trash Joseph Smith III in an effort to prop up the Brighamite version of the "Succession Crisis." DCP denied many times that this was the case, and yet in this recent post, he now seems to be admitting that I was right all along:
The title of the blog post is "Why we're doing it." Yes: the whole point is to prove that the Brighamite version is right and everyone else's claim is wrong. It will be interesting to see what winds up happening with this sophomore effort from the Mopologists, but based on the posted images so far, things are not looking especially good. I mean, how do you make an interesting movie out of an event that, when you boil it down to its essence, is really little more than a matter of theological bureaucracy and administration? Remember: the scene in Harry Potter where the magical hat (coincidence?) sorts all the students into their various houses--Gryffindor, Slytherin, etc.--was just one tiny scene. They didn't try to make a whole movie out of that process. But the Mopologists have always been interested in carrying on and on and on and on about minutia, so perhaps this is just a case of history repeating itself. We shall see.SeN wrote:But, even then — for some, at least — there remains another decision-point that can pose a problem: Suppose that we’ve concluded, yes, that there is a personal God, that Jesus Christ is his atoning Son who rose from the dead, that Joseph Smith is a prophet, that God’s true church, accompanied by divine priesthood authority, was restored to the earth. The question then arises, Which, of the churches today that claim to possess that priesthood authority and to represent the Restoration that began with Joseph Smith, is the real one?
That is why it’s so pivotally important to revisit the story of the rise of the Twelve to leadership after the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.
We would very much welcome your help in bringing this project to full realization.