WITNESSES CRASHES AND BURNS!

[Philo Sofee]

Did we expect stem’s review to be anything but negative? I certainly didn’t. Unfortunately the closest cinema to me is 75+ miles away so I’ll have to wait for it to be available on the BYUTV app.

Well, you could always hope in that school bus of yours and get thee hence to a cineplex.

- Doc

Oh that's way too expensive just to strengthen your testimony. Far better for the church to just skip the movie, but donate the extra amount you save to the church as extra tithing.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

“Kimball D” with a whopping zero prior reviews under his belt offered this hot and wholesome take:

“It was a fantastic depiction very inspiring. Every bit of it was historically accurate and therefore it never strained believability. It never lost my attention. Great film!”



- Doc

[Sledge]

Okay but people who have never reviewed a movie before can have opinions, right?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Okay but people who have never reviewed a movie before can have opinions, right?

[Sledge]

It’s down to 81%, folks.

Brayden says

The Fanny Alger scene with Joseph Smith was uncomfortable to watch and also historically misleading.

And Fred says

For a PG movie this film was ultra-violent. Mob violence, knocking multiple people out by hitting them in the head with various objects, etc. Not a feel good movie.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

It’s still dropping. It’s now showing a 78% audience approval rating.

[Sledge]

SeN’s own gemli says:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This film makes extraordinary claims without any credible evidence. These witnesses were not credible.

I doubt they even watched the film. Not cool, gemli!

[Fence Sitter]

You don't really need to actually see the movie, as long as you have seen it with your spiritual eyes you can give it a review.

[Dr Moore]

I see Witnesses available in my home theater in CA. Also available in a private watch party for $249.00. Tempting...

[dastardly stem]

SeN’s own gemli says:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This film makes extraordinary claims without any credible evidence. These witnesses were not credible.

I doubt they even watched the film. Not cool, gemli!

Gemli's point resonates well. As far as I can see the movie is pushing two main points regarding the validity of the Book of Mormon.

1. The witnesses maintained their support for the Book of Mormon throughout their lives.
2. Someone (the reporter) said David Whitmer seems like a pretty honest person, at least late in his life.

Neither point addresses the credibility of the witnesses. The main problem with the witnesses and why they aren't useful (granted believers have no choice but to see them as useful) is they are products of their 19th century superstitious environment. Anyone watching the movie, particularly i they have a skeptical mind at all, will see the glowing faces, as the supposed angel appeared to them and be like, those poor dupes. Of course the additional problem is the experience they each had in the woods comes off, as they tell, far more as an inner experience.