Reign Of Judges: Title Of Liberty

[ERayR]

 I watched 15 minutes of Noah and took it back to redbox, it sounds like your right this may be right down that same alley according to post #9.  What a mess. lol

 

Everybody is entitled to an opinion and if you have enough money you can spread it quite far.

[ROJ]

 

Darin, morally, societally, and politcally, I agree of the importance of films like The Title of Liberty. Unfortunately, when I created a post about why the majority academic and historical view within the church is still unsuccessful at packaging AND distributing the last century+ of scholarship in a way that is easily digested for today's world and needs to ensure truth and accuracy are maintained, you came in and used divisive language, showed a stark lack of understanding of the historical and textual issues, and then ask support so you can make a movie that appeals to a limited group within a limited group. I support you in doing as you wish. I support that your intent at heart is to make a movie with wide appeal that inspires both religiously and in terms of freedom and society. I struggle to support the direction you are taking though, as consulting a range of historians and scriptorians on a movie based on a scriptural text that I hold to be true, sacred, and historical seems prudent and yet you are not. Placing certain questionable elements in the film only serve to add fuel to the those who would make a mockery of the Book of Mormon. I support creative license in the life of Captain Moroni, in characters and events and battles.

 

What I ask is that you engage in dialog to see if some areas can be refined to at least reduce qualms on all sides, and thus ensure broader support for your film. 

 

Hi Matthew. This is probably the only additional comment I will be able to add (for time constraints). I just want to reiterate that the decisions on this film have everything to do with what is in the book itself. The moment we entertain opinions from sources besides the record or prophetic word, we run the risk of getting convoluted and confused. Although I am more than happy to have discussions, those discussions always must come back to the record. Nearly all of my conclusions (that I had to make while writing the script) were made before I even came across Meldrum's conclusions. I was completely unaware of them until my wife handed me his book after after I was about 3/4 done with the script already and I openly confess, from the moment I started reading it, it seemed congruent with what I had always felt - it rang true to me. How can I deny that I felt the Spirit of the Lord while reading it. Can you deny that truth revealed to me? No you cannot, nor can I. One thing is for certain, although I don't know if I accept ALL of the heartland conclusions, it is absolutely foolish to completely disregard it. Even the fact that these things have been obscure for SO long rings true. When the Lamanites destroyed the Nephites it makes perfect sense that they would want to destroy all evidence of the Nephite's "inferior" race, which would explain why Nephite evidence has seemed to be hidden (or nonexistent) for so long. It also rings true that, before the coming of the Lord, He would bring that evidence to light, after He had tried the faith of His people, after many had left the fold because of worldly theories purporting for years that no evidence of Nephites exists whatsoever, serving to shake the faith of many. Then out of nowhere, evidence begins surfacing in the twenty first century that defies archaeology. I think it is beautiful. In reality I feel the heartland theory is establishing what the BOM itself has spoken for years, namely that the Nephites were in North America in whole or in part. Have we thought about the possibility that the Nephites were in North American and the Lamanites were in Mexico, Central and South America? There's a discussion.

 

I cannot emphasize enough, decisions for this film are being made from the record itself. I find it ironic that in spite of the fact that the vast majority of the world does not know about or believe in the Book of Mormon, many of us want to appeal to the world's notions of history (horse's being the easiest example). Why should we care what popular theories are if they don't believe the book anyway? There are some who believe there was more than one Camorah. That's sort of akin to saying "I believe the BOM, but I don't believe the BOM." 

 

One final note on Meldrum's conclusions, I have received TONS of notes about where this film should be set. The ratio of those who feel this took place in America's heartland vs. those who say it was South/Central America is about 30 to 1. That's 30 notes for it being set in North America to 1 note for Central/South America. Most people are leaning toward the heartland theory-- at least from the notes I have received, and that fact MERITS consideration. Even the latest official church video has portrayed them in the heartland, and Keith Merryl is on record apologizing for his mesoamerican portrayal of the Testaments. As far as reading into what the scriptures don't say, I think it is far more important (and obvious) to read into what the scriptures DO say. The BOM is replete with horse references, when Nephite saw the founding of America he didn't say they sort of looked like his people he said they looked like this people, and when he said he saw them on the face of this land one must deduce the apparent facts that we know without doubt where AMERICA was established and is today... so logically we can deduce with a measure of surety that when Nephi said a mighty nation would be established "even upon the face of this land" that the Nephites must have been (at least in some part but more likely in large part) upon the face of what is now North America (much or part of which being the United States of America proper). I understand there are various climates in Central America for example, I lived there for two years, but those are micro climates, by and large the climate is tropical. The Nephites did not live on a mountain with seasons, they lived on "plains" as the record states and I know having lived in El Salvador for two years and Utah for over ten years, fevers and sickness are like clockwork and unavoidable during the temperature changes of winter... you can't even go to church during those seasons sometimes because of how prevalent and easily spread sickness and fevers are spread. I lived in several places of El Salvador, all areas in which I served were tropical, hot and HUMID, some more hot and humid than others. The colder climates were only in micro areas where elevation was higher, and even then the cold was usually mild. It seems to me far more of a stretch to say the climate in Moroni's time was more tropical when they directly related the climate to illness.

 

All squabbling aside, if we portray the book as accurately as possible (taking from the book itself), and put it together in an epic story of warfare, intrigue, slavery vs. freedom, and love-- these are universal themes that speak to all. We are all doing the best we can. That said, there will always be haters and we can't do anything about them but ignore them.

[Calm]

"There are some who believe there was more than one Camorah. That's sort of akin to saying "I believe the BOM, but I don't believe the BOM." "

And here is the big problem...because someone doesn't interpret the text in the same way you do, you assume they don't have faith in the BoM itself.

There are two Jerusalems in the Book of Mormon. People are naming places after other places all the time, sometimes intentionally, sometimes out of assuming it is the same place when it isn't. The text itself never says Moroni buried the plates in Cumorah, rather Mormon took the plates from Shim, buried all the plates save the ones he saved for Moroni from which we get the BoM in Cumorah, gave the rest to Moroni who then carried them around for at least 35 years (iirc) and then buried them in an unnamed place which may or may not have been Cumorah.

I know of some who hold the theory that ressurrected Moroni only buried the plates where Joseph found them after Joseph's family moved to the area. We know that Moroni took the plates away from Joseph and had them in his possession for awhile and they are now somewhere unknown in his custody so it is not contradictory to how we know Moroni handled the plates and it explains why the box was still in good shape where just a short time after the plates were removed it was known to have washed down the hill (not that the Lord couldn't have protected it, but that doesn't mean he did), we have no revelation on where the plates were from the time Moroni ends his writing without telling us his plans iirc to when Joseph first sees them.

Edited August 5, 2014 by calmoriah

[tonie]

"There are some who believe there was more than one Camorah. That's sort of akin to saying "I believe the BOM, but I don't believe the BOM." "

And here is the big problem...because someone doesn't interpret the text in the same way you do, you assume they don't have faith in the BoM itself.

Matthew Tandy gives a similar impression. Tandy's argument seems to hinge on his personal interpretation, and that ROJ might lead to shaken faith because it does not incorporate "scholarly" apologetics.

[Scott Lloyd]

Matthew Tandy gives a similar impression. Tandy's argument seems to hinge on his personal interpretation, and that ROJ might lead to shaken faith because it does not incorporate "scholarly" apologetics.

Wrong. Matthew Tandy does not call anyone's religious faith into question over an acceptance of any theory. Heartlanders consistently do that.

[Calm]

Matthew Tandy gives a similar impression. Tandy's argument seems to hinge on his personal interpretation, and that ROJ might lead to shaken faith because it does not incorporate "scholarly" apologetics.

The poster I quoted didn't just give an "impression", he came out and stated it. Please demonstrate where in your opinion Matthew gives this impression of doubting someone else's faith.

This is a CFR (call for reference meaning documentation of your claim and it is required by board rules to be followed through on or to withdraw the claim itself as unsupported).

Edited August 5, 2014 by calmoriah

[tonie]

The poster I quoted didn't just give an "impression", he came out and stated it. Please demonstrate where in your opinion Matthew gives this impression.

This is a CFR (call for reference meaning documentation of your claim and it is required by board rules to be followed through on or to withdraw the claim itself as unsupported).

I posted a "similar impression", and I documented the "why" in my opinion, Tandy gives the impression I referenced.

[ERayR]

Matthew Tandy gives a similar impression. Tandy's argument seems to hinge on his personal interpretation, and that ROJ might lead to shaken faith because it does not incorporate "scholarly" apologetics.

 

You should read for comprehension instead of projecting.

[tonie]

Wrong. Matthew Tandy does not call anyone's religious faith into question over an acceptance of any theory. Heartlanders consistently do that.

You may disagree with my opinion, but it is kind of silly to outright say my opinion is "wrong".

Tandy's "argument seems to hinge on his personal interpretation, and that ROJ might lead to shaken faith because it does not incorporate "scholarly" apologetics."

Tandy: [ROJ] "ignores pretty much all current scholarship even in the church in terms of settings and materials. Horses a plenty (not just a few), everyone has a steel sword (not a macuahuitl or anything along those lines), and form fitting armor based on the poster."

and

Tandy: "- Do you think it could have any impact on future testimonies and "shaken faith" syndrome down the road?"

Tandy: [To the writer of ROJ] "You...showed a stark lack of understanding of the historical and textual issues,..."

It is interesting that you and I agree that people are entitled to their various opinions where the Church is silent. I can not say Tandy is agreement with us on this point. Tandy and Darin both give off the vibe that their personal interpretations and opinions are the only valid or accurate opinions.

[Calm]

"Tandy and Darin both give off the vibe that their personal interpretations and opinions are the only valid or accurate opinions"

Whether or not this is true, in no way does it demonstrate that Matthew is questioning anyone else's faith in the Book of Mormon because they interpret it differently than he does.L

[tonie]

You should read for comprehension instead of projecting.

I see Tandy's position quite accurately. The personal views of Book of Mormon are not promoted or presented as he would like, thus his request to the writer of ROJ,

"What I ask is that you engage in dialog to see if some areas can be refined to at least reduce qualms on all sides, and thus ensure broader support for your film."

[Calm]

I posted a "similar impression", and I documented the "why" in my opinion, Tandy gives the impression I referenced.

Which is not actually "similar" in my opinion to what was claimed by ROJ.

ROJ was drawing conclusions about someone's actual faith based on how they interpreted the BoM differently than he did.

Matthew expressed concern that someone's faith might be damaged if they encountered contradictions between what they believed due to protrayals in film and literature and scholarship.

Besides dealing with faith, I don't see similarity.

[Scott Lloyd]

You may disagree with my opinion, but it is kind of silly to outright say my opinion is "wrong".

Tandy's "argument seems to hinge on his personal interpretation, and that ROJ might lead to shaken faith because it does not incorporate "scholarly" apologetics."

Tandy: [ROJ] "ignores pretty much all current scholarship even in the church in terms of settings and materials. Horses a plenty (not just a few), everyone has a steel sword (not a macuahuitl or anything along those lines), and form fitting armor based on the poster."

and

Tandy: "- Do you think it could have any impact on future testimonies and "shaken faith" syndrome down the road?"

Tandy: [To the writer of ROJ] "You...showed a stark lack of understanding of the historical and textual issues,..."

It is interesting that you and I agree that people are entitled to their various opinions where the Church is silent. I can not say Tandy is agreement with us on this point. Tandy and Darin both give off the vibe that their personal interpretations and opinions are the only valid or accurate opinions.

You've made several posts now, and you have yet to show that Matthew Tandy calls anyone's religious faith into question over a theory about Book of Mormon geography.

[ERayR]

You may disagree with my opinion, but it is kind of silly to outright say my opinion is "wrong".

Tandy's "argument seems to hinge on his personal interpretation, and that ROJ might lead to shaken faith because it does not incorporate "scholarly" apologetics."

Tandy: [ROJ] "ignores pretty much all current scholarship even in the church in terms of settings and materials. Horses a plenty (not just a few), everyone has a steel sword (not a macuahuitl or anything along those lines), and form fitting armor based on the poster."

and

Tandy: "- Do you think it could have any impact on future testimonies and "shaken faith" syndrome down the road?"

Tandy: [To the writer of ROJ] "You...showed a stark lack of understanding of the historical and textual issues,..."

It is interesting that you and I agree that people are entitled to their various opinions where the Church is silent. I can not say Tandy is agreement with us on this point. Tandy and Darin both give off the vibe that their personal interpretations and opinions are the only valid or accurate opinions.

 

To give a MormonFreeThinker type evidence, even Church produces videos and art using a central American Motif.

 

.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

tonie,

 

If you keep up this derailing, I will have you banned form the thread. This thread is about a few specific questions you have yet to discuss.

 

What I find most frustrating is that even though Darin graciously came on here, the writer of the screenplay itself, almost all engagement in the thread has instead been towards you and your tangents. While I disagree with Darin, he at least is engaging on some meaningful level. You are not.

 

As others have states, I in no place questioned Darin's testimony. It is unfortunate that he used a Meldrum tactic and questioned the testimony of those who believe otherwise. 

 

Reading the few quotes you pulled from mine does not give the impression that I question anyone's testimony. I do question whether failure to take into account current scholarship can lead to misconceptions and later be a contributing factor to shaken faith. This is a reasonable question, and can even be divorced from the actual topic of the Book of Mormon.

 

Further, Darin has demonstrated aptly one of the main thrusts of my OP. He is almost completely unaware of the leading scholarship. He uses Meldum's approach in essentially calling into question testimonies of those who have strong testimonies and such, but has stated he is too busy to engage in meaningful discussion on the Book of Mormon.

 

It is important to note that I also clearly said that I didn't think Darin would be "converted" to a model I believe is most likely (but I, in fact, still accept it could be eastern plains, I just don't see as strong of evidence for it), but that perhaps by dialogue his script could be slightly refined to remove areas that go beyond artistic license and would not be supported by either group.

[Calm]

My apologies for following the rabbit trail, will keep more focused now.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Going back to the original topic, and I think the most critical one:

 

I don't blame Darin for not being aware. Let's face it: Meldrum uses questionable tactics and even more questionable and sometimes outright manipulative approaches, but.. he is currently several magnitudes better at getting his views out.

 

Why?

 

Part I suspect is how he basically tells people that his way is right, and that anyone who believes otherwise disagrees with the prophet and doesn't really believe the Book of Mormon. Suddenly, everyone who doesn't agree is a closet apostate or cafeteria Mormon, even if all the evidence doesn't support it.

 

Also, he is a single-tune kind of guy. HIs whole organization is built around one thing: proving the Heartland model. There is (thankfully) not equivalent for those who support the Mesoamerican model. Organizations like FAIR and Maxwell and Interpreter are focused on broad academic and archaeological and historiographical issues. They are focused on deepening understanding across a broad range, and thus lose thought ground on areas where a specific group puts all their time and effort. 

 

What is a way to help make all the research more approachable. We have videos on Youtube, but they don't get the same traction. There is no fervent group who pushes every single video out. Is there a way to increase organic discovery and sharing?

[ERayR]

Going back to the original topic, and I think the most critical one:

 

I don't blame Darin for not being aware. Let's face it: Meldrum uses questionable tactics and even more questionable and sometimes outright manipulative approaches, but.. he is currently several magnitudes better at getting his views out.

 

Why?

 

Part I suspect is how he basically tells people that his way is right, and that anyone who believes otherwise disagrees with the prophet and doesn't really believe the Book of Mormon. Suddenly, everyone who doesn't agree is a closet apostate or cafeteria Mormon, even if all the evidence doesn't support it.

 

Also, he is a single-tune kind of guy. HIs whole organization is built around one thing: proving the Heartland model. There is (thankfully) not equivalent for those who support the Mesoamerican model. Organizations like FAIR and Maxwell and Interpreter are focused on broad academic and archaeological and historiographical issues. They are focused on deepening understanding across a broad range, and thus lose thought ground on areas where a specific group puts all their time and effort. 

 

What is a way to help make all the research more approachable. We have videos on Youtube, but they don't get the same traction. There is no fervent group who pushes every single video out. Is there a way to increase organic discovery and sharing?

 

Unfortutly I do not see any.  It would take an organization with a single minded focus and funding to do that.

[tonie]

tonie,

If you keep up this derailing, I will have you banned form the thread. This thread is about a few specific questions you have yet to discuss.

What I find most frustrating is that even though Darin graciously came on here, the writer of the screenplay itself, almost all engagement in the thread has instead been towards you and your tangents. While I disagree with Darin, he at least is engaging on some meaningful level. You are not.

As others have states, I in no place questioned Darin's testimony. It is unfortunate that he used a Meldrum tactic and questioned the testimony of those who believe otherwise.

Reading the few quotes you pulled from mine does not give the impression that I question anyone's testimony. I do question whether failure to take into account current scholarship can lead to misconceptions and later be a contributing factor to shaken faith. This is a reasonable question, and can even be divorced from the actual topic of the Book of Mormon.

Further, Darin has demonstrated aptly one of the main thrusts of my OP. He is almost completely unaware of the leading scholarship. He uses Meldum's approach in essentially calling into question testimonies of those who have strong testimonies and such, but has stated he is too busy to engage in meaningful discussion on the Book of Mormon.

It is important to note that I also clearly said that I didn't think Darin would be "converted" to a model I believe is most likely (but I, in fact, still accept it could be eastern plains, I just don't see as strong of evidence for it), but that perhaps by dialogue his script could be slightly refined to remove areas that go beyond artistic license and would not be supported by either group.

Matthew, is it your position that ROJ, in it current state, is inaccurate according to apologetics, thus presents a viewpoint of limited audience? Is it your position that incorporating apologetic viewpoints would make ROJ more palatable to broader audience? Is it your position that ROJ in its current state could lead to mockery of the Book of Mormon? Is it your position that incorporating apologetic viewpoints would lessen the likelyhood of mockery?

I ask that you please correct any errors in my reading of your posts.

Edited August 5, 2014 by tonie

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Going back to the original topic, and I think the most critical one:

 

I don't blame Darin for not being aware. Let's face it: Meldrum uses questionable tactics and even more questionable and sometimes outright manipulative approaches, but.. he is currently several magnitudes better at getting his views out.

 

Why?

 

Part I suspect is how he basically tells people that his way is right, and that anyone who believes otherwise disagrees with the prophet and doesn't really believe the Book of Mormon. Suddenly, everyone who doesn't agree is a closet apostate or cafeteria Mormon, even if all the evidence doesn't support it.

 

Also, he is a single-tune kind of guy. HIs whole organization is built around one thing: proving the Heartland model. There is (thankfully) not equivalent for those who support the Mesoamerican model. Organizations like FAIR and Maxwell and Interpreter are focused on broad academic and archaeological and historiographical issues. They are focused on deepening understanding across a broad range, and thus lose thought ground on areas where a specific group puts all their time and effort. 

 

What is a way to help make all the research more approachable. We have videos on Youtube, but they don't get the same traction. There is no fervent group who pushes every single video out. Is there a way to increase organic discovery and sharing?

Well, that's condescending.

[Calm]

 

Also, he is a single-tune kind of guy. HIs whole organization is built around one thing: proving the Heartland model. There is (thankfully) not equivalent for those who support the Mesoamerican model. Organizations like FAIR and Maxwell and Interpreter are focused on broad academic and archaeological and historiographical issues. They are focused on deepening understanding across a broad range, and thus lose thought ground on areas where a specific group puts all their time and effort. 

 

What is a way to help make all the research more approachable. We have videos on Youtube, but they don't get the same traction. There is no fervent group who pushes every single video out. Is there a way to increase organic discovery and sharing?

He also packages it all into one nicely fitting picture for the consumer which isn't done by more academic approaches which generally focus on one aspect and expect the reader to pull it all together for himself with effort and study.

Throw in entertainment and politics and you have a one stop all your needs filled here approach....very appealing.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Matthew, is it your position that ROJ, in it current state, is inaccurate according to apologetics, thus presents a viewpoint of limited audience? Is it your position that incorporating apologetic viewpoints would make ROJ more palatable to broader audience? Is it your position that ROJ in its current state could lead to mockery of the Book of Mormon? Is it your position that incorporating apologetic viewpoints would lessen the likelyhood of mockery? 

I ask that you please any errors in my reading of your posts. 

 

I will answer your questions, and this is my final warning. You have not addressed the questions of the topic. Unfortunately, your continued pursuance in asking your own questions at the expense of the topic forces me to answer or lose focus. If I see any more, you will not only be banned from this thread, but I will request your derailing posts to be removed.

 

1) Is it your position that ROJ, in it current state, is inaccurate according to apologetics, thus presents a viewpoint of limited audience?

A) It is my position that movies based on historical events and that seek to be true to the material and period should attempt to ensure historical accuracy. Apologetic is not the same as archaeology and historiography, though they may overlap at times. I view it to be inaccurate based on the evidence. 

 

2) Is it your position that incorporating apologetic viewpoints would make ROJ more palatable to broader audience?

A) Stop with the "apologetic" viewpoints. You are clearly using it derisively. I am a historian. One who reads Hebrew and whose degree was in Ancient Near Eastern Studies. While one can take artistic license in a film, there is a reason that major historical films has historical consultants for everything from dialect to hair style to clothing to architecture and fighting techniques. Whether or not Darin seeks for such rigor is part of the original question. Can one maintain a US Plains setting and yet decrease controversy by ensuring they are not wearing Roman armor (which Darin has already said they would not, so this is just a thought experiment)? Of course.

 

3) Is it your position that ROJ in its current state could lead to mockery of the Book of Mormon? Is it your position that incorporating apologetic viewpoints would lessen the likelyhood of mockery? 

A) Yes. Because I have former member friends and family who already mock on the same things. Would more rigor reduce it? Sure. Would it eliminate it? Not a chance.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

 Well, that's condescending.

 

 

No, it's not. I am not aware of a great many things. That isn't condescension There was no questioning of Darin's intelligence. He wrote an excellent screenplay, and historical aspects aside, I support the feel and theme of his film. Darin clearly is not aware or has not actively engaged in dialogue with the corpus of academic research for the last century within the church. That has no bearing on his character, abilities, intent, etc.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

... and expect the reader to pull it all together for himself with effort and study.

 

 

And that is one of the key problems I suspect. I agree that their "one package" approach of politics, religion, and entertainment on a single topic has been effective.

 

Perhaps though we can do better on the compiling. Just like the church itself used to take the academic approach of saying "it's out there, we've published it before of those interested to search" but now is putting out easy to digest essays and other tools. The church is taking a multi-forked approach: Academically neutral material (Joseph Smith Papers), Maxwell Institute via BYU where they remain somewhat disinterested but touch on a broad range of topics, and Mormon Message and YouTube covering a broad arrange of easily digested info for the younger generation, and the new essays that compile info for the curious who don't want to review the larger corpus due to time/interest.

 

I think something more can be done.

[tonie]

I will answer your questions, and this is my final warning. You have not addressed the questions of the topic. Unfortunately, your continued pursuance in asking your own questions at the expense of the topic forces me to answer or lose focus. If I see any more, you will not only be banned from this thread, but I will request your derailing posts to be removed.

1) Is it your position that ROJ, in it current state, is inaccurate according to apologetics, thus presents a viewpoint of limited audience?

A) It is my position that movies based on historical events and that seek to be true to the material and period should attempt to ensure historical accuracy. Apologetic is not the same as archaeology and historiography, though they may overlap at times. I view it to be inaccurate based on the evidence. 

2) Is it your position that incorporating apologetic viewpoints would make ROJ more palatable to broader audience?

A) Stop with the "apologetic" viewpoints. You are clearly using it derisively. I am a historian. One who reads Hebrew and whose degree was in Ancient Near Eastern Studies. While one can take artistic license in a film, there is a reason that major historical films has historical consultants for everything from dialect to hair style to clothing to architecture and fighting techniques. Whether or not Darin seeks for such rigor is part of the original question. Can one maintain a US Plains setting and yet decrease controversy by ensuring they are not wearing Roman armor (which Darin has already said they would not, so this is just a thought experiment)? Of course.

3) Is it your position that ROJ in its current state could lead to mockery of the Book of Mormon? Is it your position that incorporating apologetic viewpoints would lessen the likelyhood of mockery?

A) Yes. Because I have former member friends and family who already mock on the same things. Would more rigor reduce it? Sure. Would it eliminate it? Not a chance.

I think apologetics is the appropriate term for Fairmormon and former Maxwell Institute publications. Thank you for responding. You mention historical consultants, is it safe to say, that the only known historical record concerning the people found in the Book of Mormon, is the Book of Mormon itself? And from that record people differ on the text? If you are willing to entertain two more questions, doesn't the Book of Mormon mention that the Nephites created armor of some sort; is there any historical record of what the armor may have looked like? What source would a "historical consultant" look too to provide historically accurate or more accurate depictions (dress, weapons, every day items) of the Book of Mormon?