DiscussMormonism.com

In the latest, CWK, I review Six Days in August. I enjoyed doing this one, but I have to admit it is on the longish side for one of these.

https://youtu.be/KsZCaN17DX0

Here is my review of the Interpreter Foundation's film, "Six Days in August," which was made to support the leadership of today's LDS apostles by providing Mormons a new, more sympathetic portrait of Brigham Young while making the case that God ordained him and his fellow apostles to lead the Church after Smith's assassination.

Excellent review, Kishkumen. I appreciate your thought-provoking insights on a flawed movie.

(I also appreciate the Interpreter Foundation for posting the film online for free viewing. My soulmate and I have watched it several times.)

Kishkumen wrote:The Brigham of this film is almost a Brigham that never existed

I haven't seen the film and I have to say after this review, I probably won't see it. The review was very interesting and I learned a lot in that half hour, and I just don't think I'll get much out of the film. I can see why a historian might enjoy it -- what angle are they playing? etc.

I think the highlight was the revelation of Brigham's fascination with speaking in tongues. That this was a big motivating factor for him to explore Mormonism. Imagine how disappointed he be to see what has become of it! Next would be "Brigham's" Joseph, who strikes me as very conman like.

The description of Brigham and Joseph wrestling and Joseph barely winning was hilarious. I might fast forward and watch just that part one day. How the encounter was played by both men and then how the encounter is recounted poses an interesting theological problem. Are God and Jesus exactly the same height or is the Father just a hair taller?

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 24, 2025 3:51 am

I haven't seen the film and I have to say after this review, I probably won't see it. The review was very interesting and I learned a lot in that half hour, and I just don't think I'll get much out of the film. I can see why a historian might enjoy it -- what angle are they playing? etc.

I think the highlight was the revelation of Brigham's fascination with speaking in tongues. That this was a big motivating factor for him to explore Mormonism. Imagine how disappointed he be to see what has become of it! Next would be "Brigham's" Joseph, who strikes me as very conman like.

The description of Brigham and Joseph wrestling and Joseph barely winning was hilarious. I might fast forward and watch just that part one day. How the encounter was played by both men and then how the encounter is recounted poses an interesting theological problem. Are God and Jesus exactly the same height or is the Father just a hair taller?

Tree-felling contest, by the way. Not wrestling.

Thanks for watching, Gad. I genuinely enjoyed the movie, but I am a sucker for historical movies.

Tom wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 23, 2025 11:46 pm

Excellent review, Kishkumen. I appreciate your thought-provoking insights on a flawed movie.

(I also appreciate the Interpreter Foundation for posting the film online for free viewing. My soulmate and I have watched it several times.)

Thank you, Tom!

How embarrassing, where is my mind? Tree felling. That's even better because it matters less. What if it were baking cookies? The fact that the Afore was challenged by this scene is very interesting. If Brigham were slightly better at tree felling than Joseph, would that be appropriate? What could Brigham be better at such that it wouldn't be deemed inappropriate by either Joseph or later historians? Joseph was just slightly taller than Brigham, which was fortunate for Brigham.

As a historian, do you find any parallels to the dynamic between Josef Stalin and Vladimir Lenin? And what about the faithful historians who tell the tale long after the fact? Are they somewhat like hagiographers of the state of no principle who cover up the crimes of their dictators?

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 24, 2025 2:45 pm

As a historian, do you find any parallels to the dynamic between Josef Stalin and Vladimir Lenin? And what about the faithful historians who tell the tale long after the fact? Are they somewhat like hagiographers of the state of no principle who cover up the crimes of their dictators?

Great questions, Dean Robbers, but unfortunately ones I feel hardly qualified to answer at present. I think a certain measure of hagiography in religious history is almost inevitable, especially in the Christian tradition. The New Testament book Acts sets the precedent by giving Paul Odyssean adventures that are written to impress the faithful. Paul's sins are minimized in the tradition, at least after he becomes Paul. Joseph Smith is mythologized in similar fantastical ways, while many unflattering details are usually left out.

Great review, Reverend--very fair-minded. (No pun intended.) I have to say, there is something very satisfying about the idea that the Interpreter Foundation is promulgating a film that depicts Joseph Smith as a "cult leader."

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 01, 2025 9:19 pm

Great review, Reverend--very fair-minded. (No pun intended.) I have to say, there is something very satisfying about the idea that the Interpreter Foundation is promulgating a film that depicts Joseph Smith as a "cult leader."

Why, thank you, Doctor! I found the contrast drawn between Joseph and Brigham in the film to be extremely fascinating.