Jump to content

Witnesses: in theaters and more


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Agree that it has its flaws.

There needed to be more character development, and to me all the characters looked alike, I had trouble at first sorting out who was whom, between say who played "young" David Whitmer vs "old" David Whitmer. Multiply that by all the characters, with different actors playing each character at different life stages, for me, it was confusing.

Are you saying you need a seer stone to tell them apart? 😂

Link to post
2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Are you saying you need a seer stone to tell them apart? 😂

Probably no, I just need to be younger

You were supposed to set up that time machine visit for me, but you never delivered 

Link to post
57 minutes ago, ttribe said:

And it's your namesake - John Williams - who scored the 9 movie saga, as well as the Indiana Jones movies and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and E.T. and Jaws.  I think there's a connection.  You're trying to drum up more business for your secret relative!  What's your cut?! SPILL IT!

Don’t I wish?

Link to post

I am going to go to the movie. But wonder if things like burning cities is told much in history. Or is the meme in the link incorrect? First time I saw this or knew this about the church. Came from a critic of course, but truth is truth. And if anyone has context I'd love that and hope this doesn't derail, but cannot start threads. 

http://www.ldsdefector.com/fact-0936/?fbclid=IwAR08tp_m9C3vNYVmSXG9wKBmnNGVzBue2sgu3k1ySVbb7IL6UdJi2WUTP9E

Link to post
Posted (edited)

I would recommend reading Saints, Volume 1, at least Chapter 29, but better the surrounding chapters as well for full context.

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/saints?lang=eng

According to wiki, 21 Saints were killed and one nonMormon in all the fighting.  It wasn’t one sided in terms of destruction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838_Mormon_War

Edited by Calm
Link to post

I confess to being surprised at reported difficulty in telling Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Joseph Smith, and David Whitmer -- and the younger and older David Whitmer? -- apart.  That would never have occurred to me, and puzzles me considerably.  They don't look anything alike, and their mannerisms are quite distinct.

 

And I see the characters as changing considerably over the course of the film.

 

Obviously, though, people can see the movie and judge for themselves.

Link to post
24 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would recommend reading Saints, Volume 1, at least Chapter 29, but better the surrounding chapters as well for full context.

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/saints?lang=eng

According to wiki, 21 Saints were killed and one nonMormon in all the fighting.  It wasn’t one sided in terms of destruction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838_Mormon_War

Thanks Calm!

Link to post
1 hour ago, Daniel Peterson said:

I confess to being surprised at reported difficulty in telling Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Joseph Smith, and David Whitmer -- and the younger and older David Whitmer? -- apart.  That would never have occurred to me, and puzzles me considerably.  They don't look anything alike, and their mannerisms are quite distinct.

 

And I see the characters as changing considerably over the course of the film.

 

Obviously, though, people can see the movie and judge for themselves.

Well as I said earlier, I am just getting old, I guess.  I have not heard of anyone else who had that problem!

Link to post
5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well as I said earlier, I am just getting old, I guess.  I have not heard of anyone else who had that problem!

I wouldn’t be too concerned. I often look in the mirror and don’t recognize the old man looking back at me. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I wouldn’t be too concerned. I often look in the mirror and don’t recognize the old man looking back at me. 

What is odd is that, living in a VERY diverse community, and a very diverse Ward, all white people are starting to look the same to me, especially LDS missionaries!

That is probably part of the problem.

In our stake for example bishops can have beards, and some do.  I have not seen that before in the church.  Usually it is "missionary standards" for all leadership.  I think just in our ward we have every "race" of humanity represented.  

 

Link to post
On 6/6/2021 at 7:42 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

I saw the film yesterday at a big screen Cinemark theater.  Lots of people there.

The director was Mark Goodman, writer Mitch Davis, and it is rated PG.

There was a lot of beautiful location filming, and valuable use of historical sites.  The actor playing Joseph Smith looked very much like photos and paintings we have seen, but perhaps not so imposing and physically as powerful as Joseph actually was.

Writer Mitch Davis, who did an excellent job on "The Other Side of Heaven" I & II, and who is an experienced writer-director, dropped the ball on this one.

Davis should have worked with a serious historian in order to come up with a better, more accurate script.

For example, in the scene in which Joseph returns to the forest to retrieve the plates from a hollow log, he should have wrapped them in a farmer's smock -- which would have been substantial -- rather than the light-weight shirt he appeared to use.  In another scene (below), Joseph and Martin are depicted with cloth divider between them.  The best information we have is that there was no such divider, and no reason for one.

Publicity_7.0.jpeg

In this same photo (in the monitor on the right) one can see Joseph holding a black hat.  Witnesses consistently describe the hat as white, and that Joseph placed his face into the hat in order to block out the light.  In this film, Joseph never puts his face in the hat, but dictates with his face, as shown here.

Joseph was primarily successful because he surrounded himself with men of strength and character.  In writing his pious script, Davis seemed to miss that aspect in each case:  Martin Harris was a substantial, successful farmer.  He did not get that way by being a bumbling fool and henpecked husband.  A scene with him on the road, consulting with experts in New York City and en route might have been helpful.  Oliver could have been depicted as he actually was, a very smart young man, who rightly thought of himself as far more sophisticated than Joseph.  David Whitmer was a powerful and opinionated character who thought that anything Joseph did after producing the Book of Mormon was heresy.  He was a distinctive influence on Restorationists through the time of his death and beyond.  All three witnesses were very independent minded, which makes their story all the more potentially interesting.

My husband and I went to the movie yesterday. I was surprised they brought up Fanny Alger and him marrying her. Also, the hat situation seemed like it might not sit well with members that are unaware along with the mention of Fanny. 

I liked the character Martin Harris, in my mind I thought he'd be a off his rocker type guy, don't know why maybe because of some stories about him, not sure. But really liked the guy after seeing this film.

The movie kept me wanting for what seemed to be missing, like chunks of things missing. But I guess the focus was on the three witnesses entirely. Also, in the back of my mind I thought Joseph was related to Whitmer or Cowdery. Don't know where I got that notion. 

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

................ Also, in the back of my mind I thought Joseph was related to Whitmer or Cowdery. Don't know where I got that notion.

Oliver was related to the Whitmers by marriage:  He married Elizabeth Ann Whitmer, David Whitmer's sister. 

There is also a suggested connection between Joseph Smith Sr and the Cowdry family in and near Poultney, Vermont, during the Wood Scrape Affair of 1801.  See https://www.middletownspringshistoricalsociety.org/documents/may-2015.pdf

Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Cowdry

But no connection through them to Oliver, correct?  Just coincidence of spelling?

Link to post
24 minutes ago, Calm said:

But no connection through them to Oliver, correct?  Just coincidence of spelling?

Spelling in those days was not a settled matter.  The Cowderies were actually related to Lucy Mack, and Joseph Jr was born in Sharon, Vt, only about 5-6 miles from the Cowderies of Tunbridge, Vermont.  Indeed, Oliver's uncle Jabez Cowdery was the local Dr in that area.  See the genealogy at http://olivercowdery.com/family/Cdrygen1.htm  .  So Joseph and Oliver were actually related.  Whether they knew it or not is unknown.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Spelling in those days was not a settled matter.  The Cowderies were actually related to Lucy Mack, and Joseph Jr was born in Sharon, Vt, only about 5-6 miles from the Cowderies of Tunbridge, Vermont.  Indeed, Oliver's uncle Jabez Cowdery was the local Dr in that area.  See the genealogy at http://olivercowdery.com/family/Cdrygen1.htm  .  So Joseph and Oliver were actually related.  Whether they knew it or not is unknown.

Of the 8 siblings in my wife's family, 2 of the children of those 8 have found that they are 4th or 5th cousins of their spouses.

Not uncommon in the church.

Link to post
On 6/8/2021 at 11:14 AM, jkwilliams said:

I wouldn’t be too concerned. I often look in the mirror and don’t recognize the old man looking back at me. 

Looking in a mirror is one thing, but it is the unexpected "mirrors" in shop windows in malls etc that really get you.

I mean in your bathroom mirror, who else could it be?  But walking through a mall and passing a window, while other people are around walking by etc and suddenly you recognize the reflection of that old guy in the window-- THAT's when it really hits you!

  • Like 1
Link to post
10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Of the 8 siblings in my wife's family, 2 of the children of those 8 have found that they are 4th or 5th cousins of their spouses.

Not uncommon in the church.

Yes, and that is especially true when we go back to early Colonial America, when the population was quite small.  Cousins quickly lose track of each other as the generations go on.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and that is especially true when we go back to early Colonial America, when the population was quite small.  Cousins quickly lose track of each other as the generations go on.

Indeed. The Williams side of my family arrived in the Americas in the 1630s, so it's not surprising that we're related to a lot of prominent early Americans. My wife's paternal family arrived in the Intermountain West in the 1870s, and her mother's family were descendants of Acadians who settled in St. Louis. We're not remotely related. 

  • Like 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...