The difference between the average non-Mormon's interest in Mormonism and how Mormons think non-Mormons have an interest in Mormonism is huge. Mormons also think that Mormonism is inherently interesting. It isn't.MsJack wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 9:33 pmSo the contrast here is Carthage, which is now a Mormon tourist attraction, versus Nauvoo, which is . . . a much bigger Mormon tourist attraction?
I have no doubt Joseph Smith is far better known than Thomas Ford, but you would be surprised how many people neither know nor want to know about Joseph Smith. He is not known for his wisdom or charity or for advocacy of any political position that was ahead of his time; he is usually not cited approvingly by non-Mormons unless those non-Mormons have a quasi-Mormon background or are specifically engaged in friendly dialogue with Mormons. He is known for three things: (1) founding Mormonism (which most people are not interested in); (2) writing the Book of Mormon (which most people are not interested in); (3) polygamy (which many people are interested in, though the LDS church probably wishes they weren't).
Contrast that to people like Bartolomé de las Casas, Juana Inés de la Cruz, and William Wilberforce, who are known almost entirely for their virtue and for trying to leave the world a better place than it was when they found it.
There is one part of Mormonism that is inherently interesting, that could draw a crowd. And Dan, since he thinks himself a film auteur, actually could produce something cinematic that would make him a huge amount of cash and bring a lot of attention to the LDS church. He needs to produce a TV show called "Nauvoo" that tells the 1840-1844 history of Nauvoo, as long as he goes hard "R" in telling the full story. It would end up being "Game of Thrones" but costumed like "Pride and Prejudice." Plenty of violence, sex, and nudity. That's the real story of Nauvoo.