Is "Witnesses" an Attempt to Usurp the Brethren's Authority?

[Doctor Scratch]

The promotional campaign for Dr. Peterson's and the Mopologists' "Witnesses" film has really been ramping up lately, with repeated calls for donations, and a demand that the film "reach the widest possible audience." Shameless self-promotion has always been a defining feature of Mopologetics, I suppose, but I wonder about the inherent risks in this latest venture. I mean, the story surrounding the Gold Plates and the Witnesses is one of the defining narratives in the Church: something that really oughtn't to be trifled with. And the Mopologists have taken "heavy fire" from Meldrum, Neville, and the Heartlanders for allegedly contradicting the Brethren's statements on the location of the Book of Mormon events. Plus, we can't forget that Royal Skousen was "called on the carpet" for effectively creating and editing his own (Mopologetic) version of the Book of Mormon. And yet, now we have this movie, with Dr. Peterson rather boldly (and sans irony) announcing that those able to tune in can see "Joseph Smith [sic] on KTVX, Channel R, in Salt Lake City."

Is it just me, or does he sound like a carnival barker here, attempting to lure people in to see the bearded lady, or some other such thing? Of course, it's not the *real* Joseph Smith, nor even the Church-sanctioned version of the prophet. Instead, it's "Paul Wuthrich, who plays the Prophet Joseph Smith in the forthcoming Interpreter Foundation theatrical film, Witnesses."

This strikes me as being problematic in all sorts of ways. First of all, why does he think he's got the right to reinterpret the central, founding stories of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? We already know that Wuthrich has a decent-sized rap sheet of petty, mostly traffic-related crimes, and yet here is DCP, peddling him as basically the second coming of the Church's founding father. And notice his punctuation: he doesn't put "scare quotes" around the prophet's name (something that he later corrects in a subsequent blog post). It seems to me that this may be a case of hubris run amok, and that the Mopologists are taking quite a big risk here. This is a subject that is rightfully left in the hands of official Church leaders: those who actually hold the keys. Taking it upon oneself to reinterpret the founding stories of Mormonism--and using it in such an egotistical fashion--strikes me as something that is at least skirting along the borders of apostasy.

It will be interesting to see how this develops.

[Gadianton]

If you think about it, if the Book of Mormon is the keystone to the faith, and the Witnesses validate the keystone, then he who controls the witnesses, controls the universe. Those few who control the witnesses are the most powerful people in the world, if the Book of Mormon is true. If the Book of Mormon is the path to eternal life, you've got to deal with muscle who ultimately decides who can step foot on that path.

[Doctor Scratch]

If you think about it, if the Book of Mormon is the keystone to the faith, and the Witnesses validate the keystone, then he who controls the witnesses, controls the universe. Those few who control the witnesses are the most powerful people in the world, if the Book of Mormon is true. If the Book of Mormon is the path to eternal life, you've got to deal with muscle who ultimately decides who can step foot on that path.

Maybe this helps explain why Dr. Peterson insists that he's not making any money off of the movie? I.e., he was ordered to "render unto Caesar," as it were? I mean, in this sort of economic system, it's not unheard of for the people at the top to demand "protection money," right? So the only way that they get to make the money is if they fork over any and all profits to the Church. Sort of a "back-end" form of tithing, I suppose.

[IHAQ]

Of course we can only speculate what the underlying driving force is that promoted the making of “Witnesses” but we can draw some conclusions about some potential thinking from the fact it’s being made unprompted by the Church.

First we can conclude that the Producer of it thinks it’s an important topic that the Church, CES, Church Media, BYU etc haven’t communicated correctly or well enough and that the members and interested others deserve better. So in that respect it’s very much a direct criticism of the Brethren.

The alternative to this is to consider that the topic didn’t matter. A person hungry for notoriety, having been passed over for the high office he believed he deserved and then summarily rejected by the apologetic and scholarly home team, was simply scanning around for a neglected subject with which to “make their mark” in Mormon circles. In this regard Witnesses is simply a vehicle for an attention whore.

Ultimately people always do what suits them best. So you can safely say the making of Witnesses is something that suits Peterson above all over things.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

It strikes me as odd that the Mopologists have such a hard on for Meldrum and the "liberties" he takes with Book of Mormon history, and then we have this. This is straight up fiction when compared with LDS lore. Double standards much?

- Doc

[Lem]

It strikes me as odd that the Mopologists have such a hard on for Meldrum and the "liberties" he takes with Book of Mormon history, and then we have this. This is straight up fiction when compared with LDS lore. Double standards much?

- Doc

I've wondered too. this pic is from the IMDB movie listing. It doesn't seem to fit the current story told about seer stones and hats:

[kairos]

Wait a minute! Did Danny boy get a "pass" from correlation on the doctrine underlying this tragedy of a movie Witnesses?

by the way does anyone know the runtime for Witnesses? To get into a largeplex cinema venue i would venture a runtime of at least 90 minutes!

Unlike Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ where hardly a bucket of popcorn was sold, i expect strong sales to go with the comedic scenes especially the race for Joseph Smith life jaunt through the woods carrying a cinderblock-type of plates in a pillow case-don't just smile ,laugh you paid good money for a ticket !

The only way correlation could be shut out of commenting on the movie is if one or more of the FP saw the movie and gave it a thumbs up!

k

[IHAQ]

Interestingly, this does now seem to be developing into a "coup" of sorts by Interpreter with regards to the Witnesses narrative.

Interpreter has set up a new website titled Witnesses of the Book of Mormon which happens to be the same as the title of the official Gospel Topics section on the Church website Here.

I note there is no disclaimer on the new Interpreter-owned website about not being affiliated with the Church. An oversight perhaps?

ABOUT US
Watch the feature film Witnesses, and then the documentary, Undaunted: Witnesses of the Book of Mormon (Summer, 2021). Explore the history of the Three Witnesses as well as other witnesses of the Book of Mormon here, and then leave your own witness of the Book of Mormon!

STAY CONNECTED
Become a subscriber to our emails
Follow us on Facebook or Twitter
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

What's next, an Interpreter Flag being traipsed through the lobby of the Church Administration Building after it's been ransacked by Interpreter donors?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well. When you make an authoritative statement like this on your personal vanity blog:

However, his handing of a heavy box to Isaac Hale in which, he claimed, the plates were hidden gives a tangibility to the matter that makes it more difficult — not quite impossible yet, but definitely more difficult — to maintain that Joseph’s experiences were purely personal and subjective. This palpable object seems to point, instead, to either genuine authenticity or deliberate fraud. It begins to confront us with a very stark either/or choice.

You’re pretty much forcing the Brethren’s hands. Do they just accept Brother Peterson is a de facto Internet General Authority? Seems that way.

- Doc

[IHAQ]

Well. When you make an authoritative statement like this on your personal vanity blog:

However, his handing of a heavy box to Isaac Hale in which, he claimed, the plates were hidden gives a tangibility to the matter that makes it more difficult — not quite impossible yet, but definitely more difficult — to maintain that Joseph’s experiences were purely personal and subjective. This palpable object seems to point, instead, to either genuine authenticity or deliberate fraud. It begins to confront us with a very stark either/or choice.

You’re pretty much forcing the Brethren’s hands. Do they just accept Brother Peterson is a de facto Internet General Authority? Seems that way.

- Doc

Peterson cannot pick and choose what words of Isaac Hale's are important or not, nor should he be intellectually dishonest in taking them out of context. One of his posts commenters added the rest of the affidavit that Isaac Hale swore, from which Peterson cherry picked. Let's consider the showing of a wooden box into which Isaac Hales was forbidden from looking alongside this other incident...

His appearance at this time, was that of a careless young man -- not very well educated, and very saucy and insolent to his father. Smith, and his father, with several other "money-diggers" boarded at my house while they were employed in digging for a mine that they supposed had been opened and worked by the Spaniards, many years since. Young Smith gave the "money-diggers" great encouragement, at first, but when they had arrived in digging, to near the place where he had stated an immense treasure would be found -- he said the enchantment was so powerful that he could not see. They then became discouraged, and soon after dispersed.

The choice between genuine authenticity or likely deliberate fraud becomes easier to make when you consider Joseph's track record on honesty and reliability.

Joseph Smith Jr. resided near me for some time after this, and I had a good opportunity of becoming acquainted with him, and somewhat acquainted with his associates, and I conscientiously believe from the facts I have detailed, and from many other circumstances, which I do not deem it necessary to relate, that the whole "Book of Mormon" (so called) is a silly fabrication of falsehood and wickedness, got up for speculation, and with a design to dupe the credulous and unwary -- and in order that its fabricators may live upon the spoils of those who swallow the deception.

ISAAC HALE.

Affirmed to and subscribed before me, March 20th, 1834.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... qus_thread
And that's the testimony of an independent witness. Bet that's not in the film.