The Mopologists Face a "Do Or Die" Moment as "Witnesses" Hits Theaters

[Sledge]

Rodger I. Anderson's Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined, so mopped the floor with Richard Lloyd Anderson's chinsy apologetics it isn't funny. But lets let Sledge at least enjoy a phony moment of claimed victory before we tell him shall we?

I challenge you to read “Investigating...” with a serious and (as) objective (as possible) mind. Find something there that isn’t true, or is “chinsy ” as you say. (By the way, I would advise against using that word; it borders on racism, harkening back to cheap fabrics made in India in the olden days.)

[Dr Moore]

That's a good point, Dr. Moore, and it takes me back to a point I made earlier about the potential consequences if the film is successful. I'm reminded of the events that transpired back in the 1990s when the Mopologists managed to drum up something like $7 million in order to build a Ziggurat-shaped building to house their endeavors. Of course, the Church swooped in to absorb FARMS into BYU at that point. You have to wonder if something similar would happen in this case.

Hmm, if the church were to nationalize Witnesses then I suppose Dan would call that a win for the home team, and a win for Interpreter’s ultimate mission. As a separate organization the church can’t really nationalize anything however, but I bet simply asking nice would get the desired response first try. Especially considering the millions of eyeballs worth in distribution, who would all see Producer credits.

[IHAQ]

The reviewer (Sean P. Means*) on Twitter headlines the link to his review with "An uneven telling that will appeal to the faithful."

Wait. Wasn't this supposed to be a tell all totality of explanation from all sides, covering every issue, with no stone unturned, and a full disclosure?? It appears it has already failed to live up to its billing. If you can't make it so full disclosure as to shut the mouths of critics, then that is a fail isn't it?

It was supposed to not shy away from dealing with the controversial subjects - plural marriage, Kirtland Bank fiasco etc.

[IHAQ]

According to the photographs posted by Megaplex on Twitter, the Premiere was not that close to a sell out...
https://Twitter.com/megaplextheatre/sta ... 2580819968

[IHAQ]

I find it interesting that the Interpreter Foundation's official Twitter feed hasn't posted anything about its' Witnesses movie project or launch. It is an Interpreter project, right?
https://Twitter.com/InterpreterFnd/with_replies

[IHAQ]

The Executive Co Producer reviews the Premiere...

The premiere for the Interpreter Foundation’s Witnesses film went well last night, I think — except for a problem with the main theater’s projector with which our filmmakers had to struggle for about an hour. (The projector apparently hadn’t been functioning properly during its showings of Cruella last week, either.). It delayed things just a bit, and there were a couple of scenes in the movie in which things may have been slightly blurry. Whether anybody noticed that or not, I have no idea. Anyhow, the audiences in the various theaters were sizable — I’m told that there were more than a thousand people in attendance — and they seemed, as far as I could tell, to receive the film quite well and even enthusiastically.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... imony.html

[Moksha]

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... imony.html

Really interesting to follow the link and listen to Hanna Seariac interviewing Dr. Peterson on FAIR Voices. They both excoriated the Church publications and other Saints for pushing the false narrative that Joseph did not exclusively use the Seer Stone (although they noted that seer stones are but prophecy and translation training wheels).

[Philo Sofee]

Rodger I. Anderson's Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined, so mopped the floor with Richard Lloyd Anderson's chinsy apologetics it isn't funny. But lets let Sledge at least enjoy a phony moment of claimed victory before we tell him shall we?

I challenge you to read “Investigating...” with a serious and (as) objective (as possible) mind. Find something there that isn’t true, or is “chinsy ” as you say. (By the way, I would advise against using that word; it borders on racism, harkening back to cheap fabrics made in India in the olden days.)

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

[Sledge]

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.

[Lem]

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.