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

[huckelberry]

Gee shulem you can get nasty sometimes. Drinking a bit much?

Wow huckelberry. That’s a pretty horrible thing to say. Why so mean to somebody who wasn’t being mean to you?

I do not have anything against drinking. I do it myself. I have long noticed that people can get a bit carried away when drinking.

[Shulem]

I do not have anything against drinking. I do it myself. I have long noticed that people can get a bit carried away when drinking.

Thank you for that, Huck. You recall there have been a couple of instances in the past when I got way too intoxicated and on one occasion was drinking tall glasses of whiskey with just ice but because I ran out of cola the drinks were too strong and things got swirly. I don't like to get too intoxicated/drunk but enjoy cocktails and wine and also gummies (THC). But I've found that when on gummies I lose interest in Mormonism because the high takes me to a place where religion and all the details about it don't matter anymore. It's very liberating and can be quite inspiring too.

Thanks for listening, Huck. No hard feelings, I hope.

PS. Have you tried gummies? Just asking.

[huckelberry]

Gee shulem you can get nasty sometimes. Drinking a bit much?

Listen, when I decided to quit Mormonism over 15 years ago I had a little run-in with Dan during some on-line arguing. I promised him that I would not go after him but would leave him alone. For the most part, I've kept that promise and have not gone after his apologetic works in any real depth and have not really followed him very much in what he does. But every once in a while he sets me off and I can't resist the urge to blast him and just let it all out. Can you understand that?

Look, in real life, I'm a pretty nice and respectful person and get along with people in general. But being on line and dealing with Mormonism can really bring out what vicious nature I do have within me as we all have our faults, and I snap, and scream like a crazy man!

Regarding my last post, I'm quite confident Dan is lying and rejoiced in his church taking over the Kirtland temple and figured the CofC was the loser. Dan is a habitual liar and a sneaky apologist in his own right. Anyway, that's that, and I'm sorry if my post was over the top and disturbed you, but I'm not sorry that it disturbs Dan. I'm sure it does and that was my real purpose! I can be sneaky too and do so right out in the open!

shulem, I certainly meant no personal attack towards you. I think there are real reasons for your feelings about Dan. Marcus brought up a further reason of importance. I think Dan's indifference to his plagiarizing is an expression of disrespect towards his audience.

With your open response I will risk a personal explanation. Calling people fatty hits a hot button for me. My family including mothers ancestors have had weight problems which they have dealt with to varying success. For a few years around 11 to 13 I became blimpo. I decided I was not going to tolerate that and made a concerted campaign to change. It took more than a year but keeping a reasonable weight has lasted me many years now. I could ask myself if the insults and exclusions I experienced when fat were the reason I changed. Perhaps some small bit but it is almost entirely a matter of deciding I wanted to change. I am left with sympathy for fat people of have to endure the insults.

[I Have Questions]

Wow huckelberry. That’s a pretty horrible thing to say. Why so mean to somebody who wasn’t being mean to you?

I do not have anything against drinking. I do it myself. I have long noticed that people can get a bit carried away when drinking.

I think my shock came from the fact that it was you that said it. I see you as one of the kinder posters on the board. So I was disappointed that you of all people would snark about something that maybe a personal challenge for someone. Even more so given some of the backstory you’ve shared.

[Shulem]

Calling people fatty hits a hot button for me.

I do not have anything against drinking. I do it myself. I have long noticed that people can get a bit carried away when drinking.

I think my shock came from the fact that it was you that said it. I see you as one of the kinder posters on the board. So I was disappointed that you of all people would snark about something that maybe a personal challenge for someone. Even more so given some of the backstory you’ve shared.

Huck is a good guy with not very many mean bones if any, in my opinion.

Don't let the "fatty" comment bother you, Huck. It's was directed solely at Mr. Blimp (Peterson) who has eaten more than his fair share of donuts, God only knows! I do realize that making fun or mocking someone's weight is in very bad taste and is generally offensive -- but, it's one of those nasty cards that gets pulled once in while to make a point. I'm not fat and have a pretty good body but I would still use the "fat" card even if I was fat! Apologists beware because Shulem can get down and dirty, baby! I am the apologst buster!

Ain't that right, Marcus?

[I Have Questions]

The problem with Peterson, and why he gets stick for his morbid obesity, is not because he’s fat. It’s his supercilious pontificating about Mormons being healthier than others due to the word of wisdom and how he himself is pleased to have lived it his whole life. It’s akin to a chain smoker with lung cancer proclaiming how much healthier they are because they have never smoked due to religious reasons. It’s the public and unprovoked hypocrisy that’s the problem, not the weight.

[Shulem]

I recall the President lamenting the fact that he didn't get to enjoy any of the dessert... Perhaps it goes beyond FOMO and there is an element of guilt here as well?

"Didn't get to" could be taken two ways:

1. Didn't get to because he was hindered/prevented from doing so for whatever reason
2. Didn't get to because he's watching his weight and forfeited his share of the pie

Which do you think it was?

[Marcus]

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

That happened again??? They used footage from the same documentary in their Witnesses trailer!

The below was posted Tue May 12, 2020 1:28 pm, in the thread titled
"A New Trailer Drops for the "Witnesses" Movie":

And although the clip is shortened, there is STILL a scene from “Joseph Smith, American prophet,” in the Witness’ film “overview.” (STILL not a trailer.) It is a scene from a film previously worked on and released publicly by Peterson’s current director, among others...

The same director has done all of these films for Peterson, right? Is he still sneaking in old footage from the same old film, and still charging Interpreter for "filming" new stuff? How many times will Peterson let the Interpreter get scammed?

[drumdude]

An academic with whom I’m acquainted who is deeply critical of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, formerly active in the Church and now, sadly, quite alienated from it but, on many occasions, far more balanced, fair, intelligent, and lucid than those who surround him where he posts, has raised an interesting objection to Becoming Brigham. I know his identity in real life, but I’ll call him Alex (sic kishkumen):

Alex is inclined to fault Becoming Brigham as an instance of “hero worship” and a manifestation of the “cult of personality” that he regards as a negative characteristic of the culture of the Church. He writes, he observes, about such historical figures as Julius Caesar and Constantine, but he feels no need to defend them as honest, or nice, or good. He has nothing invested in them. He simply follows where the historical evidence leads.

I will grant that there are sometimes elements of undue hero worship in the Church (as elsewhere). While I’m not especially offended by them, I also don’t advocate such attitudes. Still, I do believe that there are real heroes, in the Church and beyond it.

But I think that, in this regard, Alex seriously misconceives what we’re doing with Becoming Brigham and what we did with Six Days in August. These are not ventures in “hero worship.” But they are attempts to tell an accurate story, to paint an accurate portrait as we see it. And to correct inaccurate perceptions where they occur.

Why does this matter? Because Brigham Young (and Joseph Smith and the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon) occupy a distinctly different place in Latter-day Saint historical self-understanding than Julius Caesar, Constantine, Napoleon, and Attila the Hun occupy in historical understanding more generally. Nobody orients his or her daily personal life according to a conception of Julius Caesar — though, I will confess, some current public figures begin to remind me of Attila the Hun. But the claims of Joseph Smith, the Witnesses, and Brigham Young do have life-orientational implications for those who accept them — and, for that matter, for those who reject them.


Moreover, to put it perhaps another way: Joseph and Brigham and other such pivotal figures in the story of the Restoration aren’t merely historical figures. They are witnesses, the value of whose testimony rests upon their credibility and moral character. Thus, as in a courtroom, defending (or questioning) their credibility and their character makes perfect sense and is actually quite important.

Reading Alex’s objection to Becoming Brigham, I immediately thought of a passage from a letter written by Oliver Cowdery to Phineas Young, on 23 March 1846. Oliver was negotiating his return to the Church, and he had some strong requests, even demands, to make before his rebaptism. During the turbulent and unpleasant time of his departure from the Church, in 1838, some very grave and intemperate accusations had been leveled against him and his character. The accusations were untrue, and he wanted explicit clarification that they were untrue. His reasons are of interest and of relevance here:

I have cherished a hope, and that one of my fondest, that I might leave such a character, as those who might believe in my testimony, after I should be called hence, might do so, not only for the sake of the truth, but might not blush for the private character of the man who bore that testimony. I have been sensitive on this subject, I admit; but I ought to be so—you would be, under the circumstances, had you stood in the presence of John, with our departed Brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood—and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater, and looked down through time, and witnessed the effects these two must produce,—you would feel what you have never felt, were wicked men conspiring to lessen the effects of your testimony on man, after you should have gone to your long sought rest.

I have nothing invested in arguing for the perfection of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or the Book of Mormon Witnesses. But a great deal rides for me (and for millions of others) on their credibility and on their having been morally adequate to the stewardships that I believe God assigned to them. Fortunately, I believe the historical evidence to be on my side, and on theirs

I don’t know why Dan can’t just use Kish’s chosen pseudonym.

[Shulem]

An academic with whom I’m acquainted who is deeply critical of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

I don’t know why Dan can’t just use Kish’s chosen pseudonym.

And after all these years the jack-ass still won't capitalize the "T". Mormon Jezus must be livid and it's a victory for Satan. I said earlier in another post that Dan has a junior high education but now it's more likely grade school.

Go to bed Dan. Take a nap.