Senator Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 I left the TV running on the BYUTV channel in between sessions on Satuday. My attention was briefly caught by a report of a building project going on recreating an elaborate rendering of a first century Jerusalem setting, all for the purpose of filming a new New Testament series of some sort. (forgive my brevity, but I only caught a short bit of the program).Does anyone have more information about this?And Good Heavens, who is paying for this? I gleamed that it was church sponsored.
LeSellers Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) I left the TV running on the BYUTV channel in between sessions on Satuday. My attention was briefly caught by a report of a building project going on recreating an elaborate rendering of a first century Jerusalem setting, all for the purpose of filming a new New Testament series of some sort. (forgive my brevity, but I only caught a short bit of the program).Does anyone have more information about this?And Good Heavens, who is paying for this? I gleamed that it was church sponsored.It's near Goshen, Utah, as I recall from the clip you mentioned.it is a Church project: the films will be for the CES, Sunday School and other Church programs, including missionary work. It's also going to be used for Old Testament films.That's all I recall, maybe someone else can fill us in with more detail.It would be nice if commerical films could be shot there, too, because it will be expensive to build, even if built of Styrofoam® and plaster. Of course, then people will bemoan the income side and claim it was all for the money. (I suppose they'll be wailing crocodile tears anyway about wasting it when it could have gone to feed the poor and on and on. Then those same people will lament that we Saints are ignorant of the Bible and Church History, and all that, too. We can't win in their eyes.)Lehi Edited October 3, 2011 by LeSellers
Senator Posted October 3, 2011 Author Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) Here's an interesting justification for the project, given by Scott Smiley, producer of the project: (from the SLT)“The goal of the church is to help people have a better understanding of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ,” said Scott Smiley, producer of the project. “To do that, the most realistic appearance helps someone be able to transport [himself] to that time period, and understand what his life was like, what the lives of those around him were like and have a better understanding of his mission.”What do you think? Is it really necessary to have realistic video productions in order to better understand the life and mission of Jesus? Edited October 3, 2011 by Senator
Scott Lloyd Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) I left the TV running on the BYUTV channel in between sessions on Satuday. My attention was briefly caught by a report of a building project going on recreating an elaborate rendering of a first century Jerusalem setting, all for the purpose of filming a new New Testament series of some sort. (forgive my brevity, but I only caught a short bit of the program).Does anyone have more information about this?And Good Heavens, who is paying for this? I gleamed that it was church sponsored.I toured the set and wrote a Church News story some months ago , link here. It was also fairly well publicized in other media outlets.As for who is paying for it, since the Church exists primarily to teach and testify of Christ, to invite all to come unto Him and to prepare for His Second Coming, I can think of no better or more appropriate expenditure of tithing funds than this motion picture project.And as you will note from my story, it's actually cost-efficient, because its permanent nature precludes continually building and then tearing down, only to build again. Edited October 5, 2011 by Scott Lloyd 1
KevinG Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) Is it really necessary to have realistic video productions in order to better understand the life and mission of Jesus?I think context helps our understanding. In particular for visual learners or in the case of language barriers.Here is a great example: I once home taught an illiterate man. I was ever so grateful for the expense the Church put into educational videos and scriptures on tape. Edited October 3, 2011 by DaddyG
Scott Lloyd Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) Here's an interesting justification for the project, given by Scott Smiley, producer of the project: (from the SLT)“The goal of the church is to help people have a better understanding of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ,” said Scott Smiley, producer of the project. “To do that, the most realistic appearance helps someone be able to transport [himself] to that time period, and understand what his life was like, what the lives of those around him were like and have a better understanding of his mission.”What do you think? Is it really necessary to have realistic video productions in order to better understand the life and mission of Jesus?I already answered this somewhat in my post that I was writing just as yours appeared, but I would say further that just as a lecture is more effective and more memorable if it is illustrated, the impact of teachings about Christ can be enhanced with effective use of audio-visual production. The Church for many years has used motion picture narrative and dramatization; I'm confident it will continue to do so for a long time to come. The benefit more than justifies the cost. Edited October 3, 2011 by Scott Lloyd
thesometimesaint Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Senator:Yes. While Jesus can wear anything he likes. Most of us don't visualize him wearing a three piece dark business suit. If we talking about the times and places of his mortal ministry downtown Chicago of 2011 wouldn't be high on my list of places to represent as his being there.
KevinG Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Senator:Yes. While Jesus can wear anything he likes. Most of us don't visualize him wearing a three piece dark business suit. If we talking about the times and places of his mortal ministry downtown Chicago of 2011 wouldn't be high on my list of places to represent as his being there.Ooooh... that could be a cool premise. Of course you could start a schism with New Yorkers if he was shown enjoying a deep dish Chicago style pizza.
Senator Posted October 3, 2011 Author Posted October 3, 2011 I can think of no better or more appropriate expenditure of tithing funds than this motion picture project.Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Just reflecting here on the irony. The Church sustains attacks from the critics for money spent on the City Creek commercial project in downtown Salt Lake.Now, here's an instance of expenditure of funds for a project directly related to the Church's mission, about as direct as it could get, and we see some carping about that.I feel obliged to conclude that critics would come at the Church no matter what it did.
KevinG Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Just reflecting here on the irony. The Church sustains attacks from the critics for money spent on the City Creek commercial project in downtown Salt Lake.Now, here's an instance of expenditure of funds for a project directly related to the Church's mission, about as direct as it could get, and we see some carping about that.I feel obliged to conclude that critics would come at the Church no matter what it did.Fish gotta swim. Birds gotta fly...Remember - a critic is like someone who hides in the woods until the battle is over then comes out to shoot the wounded.
LeSellers Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) I feel obliged to conclude that critics would come at the Church no matter what it did.Fish gotta swim. Birds gotta fly...Is there an echo in here?people will bemoan the income side and claim it was all for the money. (I suppose they'll be wailing crocodile tears anyway about wasting it when it could have gone to feed the poor and on and on. Then those same people will lament that we Saints are ignorant of the Bible and Church History, and all that, too. We can't win in their eyes.)Lehi Edited October 3, 2011 by LeSellers
thesometimesaint Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Daddy G:I'm not into big cities of any type. When I moved here there were more chickens than there were people. The chickens are now all but gone, and we've more than doubled in human population. It's starting to feel a little too crowded, but I too old to want to move again. Maybe if I was 20-30 years younger.Deep dish is ok, but I prefer thin crust pizza.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Is there an echo in here?LehiIt's so true that it bears restating.
Senator Posted October 3, 2011 Author Posted October 3, 2011 Just reflecting here on the irony. The Church sustains attacks from the critics for money spent on the City Creek commercial project in downtown Salt Lake.Now, here's an instance of expenditure of funds for a project directly related to the Church's mission, about as direct as it could get, and we see some carping about that.I feel obliged to conclude that critics would come at the Church no matter what it did.Carping?Scott, let me ask you. Is it wrong to have felt, and then expressed in a question the appropriateness of something the church does? If one does this, must he then expect to be convicted as a critic.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Carping?Scott, let me ask you. Is it wrong to have felt, and then expressed in a question the appropriateness of something the church does? If one does this, must he then expect to be convicted as a critic.A critic, by definition, is one who criticizes.
Senator Posted October 3, 2011 Author Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) Fish gotta swim. Birds gotta fly...Remember - a critic is like someone who hides in the woods until the battle is over then comes out to shoot the wounded.I suppose that was directed at me since I am the only "critic" in this thread.What an insulting post. Edited October 3, 2011 by Senator
Senator Posted October 3, 2011 Author Posted October 3, 2011 A critic, by definition, is one who criticizes.You didn't answer my question.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) You didn't answer my question.Continuing my thought: And carping is, by definition, petty criticism.To further answer your question, criticism can be, and very often is, wrongheaded, unjustified and misapplied. Edited October 3, 2011 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) duplicate Edited October 3, 2011 by Scott Lloyd
Senator Posted October 3, 2011 Author Posted October 3, 2011 Continuing my thought: And carping is, by definition, petty criticism.To further answer your question, criticism can be, and very often is, wrongheaded, unjustified and misapplied.So obviously you judged my post as petty, wrongheaded, unjustified and/or misapplied.Perhaps your critique of me might more apply fit that description.Let me rephrase my question(criticism?). How can a member of the church question something and not be labeled a critic?
Scott Lloyd Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 So obviously you judged my post as petty, wrongheaded, unjustified and/or misapplied.Perhaps your critique of me might more apply fit that description.If, as you imply, it is not "wrong" for you to criticize the Church, then, by the same token, it is not "wrong" for me to assess and evaluate the nature and validity of your criticism.Let me rephrase my question(criticism?). How can a member of the church question something and not be labeled a critic?I think I've already answered that. One who engages in criticism has no standing to object to being called a critic, since that is what he/she is.
KevinG Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 I suppose that was directed at me since I am the only "critic" in this thread.What an insulting post.No - I was joking about the general tendency of some to criticize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no matter what path they take.It was not meant to be a personal shot at you. I'm sorry to have offended you by seeming to take a personal shot. That was not my intent.
Senator Posted October 3, 2011 Author Posted October 3, 2011 If, as you imply, it is not "wrong" for you to criticize the Church, then, by the same token, it is not "wrong" for me to assess and evaluate the nature and validity of your criticism. That is all well and acceptable. I take it then that the act of "assessing and evaluting" to be a valuable function, not necessarily to be judged as a perjorative.I think I've already answered that. One who engages in criticism has no standing to object to being called a critic, since that is what he/she is.So, it is not appropriate for me to ask the appropiateness of something. For to do so put me in the act of "assessing and evaluating".....which is ok to do? I'm confused.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) That is all well and acceptable. I take it then that the act of "assessing and evaluting" to be a valuable function, not necessarily to be judged as a perjorative.Call it what you will.I wasn't commenting on the rightness or wrongness of the act of criticizing the Church. I was commenting on the quality and validity of your criticism. And I don't see the term "critic" as necessarily being pejorative, though one's criticisms themselves certainly can warrant disapproval.I'm growing bored with this exchange, as you keep asking questions that, more or less, have already been addressed. Edited October 3, 2011 by Scott Lloyd
Recommended Posts