Torches at High Noon: A Fog Machine, Power Lines, An Angry Extra and Brigham Young’s Electric Boogaloo

[Shulem]

Dan, which is the greater number, perks or donations?

He wants to follow The Brethren and be as financially opaque as possible. It’s what Jesus would want.

That makes perfect sense. So we will never know. The brethren have been shown to be dishonest in hiding funds and were fined millions of dollars by the US government for breaking the law. Let us assume that Mr. Peterson is just as guilty for following their example. Should anyone know of any wrong doing on his part, may they step forward and snitch on him. If he's guilty of any financial wrongdoing, it will be revealed. If he's clean, then so be it -- good for him.

[Tom]

A few comments on the production:

1. As Everybody Wang Chung notes, a power line is clearly visible at 00:00:32. The line is gone in a similar shot at 00:00:52. The production team should have caught the inconsistency.

2. There are some distracting shadows in several shots. They seem to be the shadows of a camera/camera operator. See 00:02:15, 00:02:22, and, especially, 00:02:58 (notice the movement).

3. It’s unclear why the film team opted to use footage from Joseph Smith: American Prophet (2017) rather than Six Days.

The opening 80 seconds of the first Bowdlerizing Brigham episode includes footage from the 2017 documentary Joseph Smith: American Prophet, but that is not made clear. (Viewers will note, for example, the scene with the fog machine in the 2017 documentary.) Compare the acknowledgment at 6:07 of the episode. (The first 80 seconds of this initial Bowdlerizing Brigham episode may also include footage from Interpreter Foundation feature films, but I am not in a position to verify.) Why Bowdlerizing Brigham uses footage from a 2017 documentary is unclear, but I assume the Proprietor will address the issue shortly.

Posted from Cat Scratch Fever, Utah

[Shulem]

A few comments on the production:

1. As Everybody Wang Chung notes, a power line is clearly visible at 00:00:32. The line is gone in a similar shot at 00:00:52. The production team should have caught the inconsistency.

2. There are some distracting shadows in several shots. They seem to be the shadows of a camera/camera operator. See 00:02:15, 00:02:22, and, especially, 00:02:58 (notice the movement).

3. It’s unclear why the film team opted to use footage from American Prophet: Joseph Smith: American Prophet (2017) rather than Six Days.

The opening 80 seconds of the first Bowdlerizing Brigham episode includes footage from the 2017 documentary Joseph Smith: American Prophet, but that is not made clear. (Viewers will note, for example, the scene with the fog machine in the 2017 documentary.) Compare the acknowledgment at 6:07 of the episode. (The first 80 seconds of this initial Bowdlerizing Brigham episode may also include footage from Interpreter Foundation feature films, but I am not in a position to verify.) Why Bowdlerizing Brigham uses footage from a 2017 documentary is unclear, but I assume the Proprietor will address the issue shortly.

Posted from Cat Scratch Fever, Utah

I'm tired of the BS.



Where are the sweat rags in which to wipe their f-ing brows?

U, Peterson, kiss my gay ass -- you liar for the Lord.

U fat ass.

[Gadianton]

Hard to disagree with this. Then again, there has been a lot of verbiage boasting about how the whole operation is 100% reliant on volunteers. So, would that claim be rendered false if they were to allow Martin Tanner & Co. to get reimbursed for donuts?

I had a thought. A way to avoid breaking any policy that doesn't allow a simple treat for the podcasters. You know how on Fast Sunday you give a donation for the amount of the meal that you skipped? I was looking at the expense form, and given there was that optional snack, what if one of the senior executives voluntarily forgoes their optional snack, and that value goes to Martin Tanner &Co? Do you think that would work?

[I Have Questions]

A few comments on the production:

1. As Everybody Wang Chung notes, a power line is clearly visible at 00:00:32. The line is gone in a similar shot at 00:00:52. The production team should have caught the inconsistency.

2. There are some distracting shadows in several shots. They seem to be the shadows of a camera/camera operator. See 00:02:15, 00:02:22, and, especially, 00:02:58 (notice the movement).

3. It’s unclear why the film team opted to use footage from Joseph Smith: American Prophet (2017) rather than Six Days.

The opening 80 seconds of the first Bowdlerizing Brigham episode includes footage from the 2017 documentary Joseph Smith: American Prophet, but that is not made clear. (Viewers will note, for example, the scene with the fog machine in the 2017 documentary.) Compare the acknowledgment at 6:07 of the episode. (The first 80 seconds of this initial Bowdlerizing Brigham episode may also include footage from Interpreter Foundation feature films, but I am not in a position to verify.) Why Bowdlerizing Brigham uses footage from a 2017 documentary is unclear, but I assume the Proprietor will address the issue shortly.

Posted from Cat Scratch Fever, Utah

So when Dan says Interpreter has filmed a new series of documentaries about Brigham Young, he means he’s cut and pasted other people’s work and claimed it as his own? Folks, you couldn’t make this up.

[Shulem]

So when Dan says Interpreter has filmed a new series of documentaries about Brigham Young, he means he’s cut and pasted other people’s work and claimed it as his own? Folks, you couldn’t make this up.

It feels like a put-on, like we've been played and that's why I snapped in my earlier comments towards Dan. Lie, lie, lie. That's how the Church operates. I don't like that one bit. I want nothing but the truth and the whole truth. Mormon productions are a put-on -- for faith minded people only. But I want realism and transparency and anything less than that gets a failed (F) grade from me or maybe a D.

rant over

[Doctor Scratch]

Lots and lots of promotion for Interpreter and Interpreter's projects--notably Bowdlerizing Brigham--over at SeN. Gotta make sure the donations keep rolling in so that the free travel funds don't dry up!

I had a thought. A way to avoid breaking any policy that doesn't allow a simple treat for the podcasters. You know how on Fast Sunday you give a donation for the amount of the meal that you skipped? I was looking at the expense form, and given there was that optional snack, what if one of the senior executives voluntarily forgoes their optional snack, and that value goes to Martin Tanner &Co? Do you think that would work?

It's a good idea, but I don't see it happening. I think that the senior executives view the volunteers with contempt. Sure: they'll let the "peons" come to the annual Interpreter party, but that's only because the senior execs are getting to partake of the "goodies" themselves. The lower-ranking folks can share the freebies, but by no means are they permitted to have them on their own. The expense account and the reimbursements are first and foremost for the President and his fellow senior executives.

Meanwhile, I wonder a bit about your analogy. Does the fast offering funding actually go to needy families? I was under the impression that the money just went into some general fund--maybe into Ensign Peak's holdings, for example--and then Ensign Peak would single out some charity or another to throw some money at as a tax write-off. Maybe something similar could work for Interpreter?

[Kishkumen]

Welp . . . .


I really liked it. I thought it was good. I don't come away from watching this with a sense that it is some kind of buffoonish disaster.

The focus of this video is a discussion between Dr. Peterson and actors from the Interpreter's Brigham Young movie about the assassination of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

I thought that discussion was pretty informative and helpful. It helped me see things in a new light.

Moreover, what it is seeking to combat are ludicrous conspiracy theories that none of us should give the time of day to.

So, I don't see what the problem is, or why people are taking time to make fun of this.

[I Have Questions]

Welp . . . .


I really liked it. I thought it was good. I don't come away from watching this with a sense that it is some kind of buffoonish disaster.

The focus of this video is a discussion between Dr. Peterson and actors from the Interpreter's Brigham Young movie about the assassination of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

I thought that discussion was pretty informative and helpful. It helped me see things in a new light.

Moreover, what it is seeking to combat are ludicrous conspiracy theories that none of us should give the time of day to.

So, I don't see what the problem is, or why people are taking time to make fun of this.

In what way(s) do you now think differently about the murder of Joseph Smith as a result of Episode 1?

[drumdude]

I don't see what the problem is, or why people are taking time to make fun of this.

He's one of the core focuses of this board, being the most prominent Mopologist. He makes a lot of unsubstantiated quick snips at this board, and ex-Mormons in general. This board often does the same.

Personally I'm not that bothered by it, and I think it's mostly amusing and taken with a big grain of salt on both sides.