An “Insider” Speaks: “Six Days in August” is “Absolute garbage”

[Moksha]

How do you avoid connecting plural marriage with the destruction of the Expositor?

You do it as easily as making a video about 1945 Berlin without mentioning WWII.

This is designed for faith-promoting purposes, so actual history must be avoided.

[Tom]

More comments on the film from the executive producer:

[JP]: "It, of course, could briefly cover the martyrdom and the Expositor to give context to the thesis of the film, but the film is not about those two events and going into detail about either one would, in my opinion, be confusing and dilutive to its main focus."

[DP]: The movie both alludes to early plural marriage (via Tom Sharp, the editor of the Warsaw Signal) and depicts the suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor. Does it explicitly connect the two? Not as I recall. Nor need it do so. It's about neither of those incidents. Nor -- some critics are already complaining about this -- does it depict Joseph firing a pistol at the mob coming to kill him. The film is not about his death, either. It alludes to such incidents in order to create the setting for its actual focus.

The critics apparently think that I'm afraid of depicting Joseph trying to fight off the mob. But I'm not at all afraid of it. I don't see that Joseph was under any obligation to stand back and let them murder him and his brother Hyrum along with, potentially, John Taylor and Willard Richards.

“Not as I recall”? Hasn’t he seen the film several times? Didn’t he review the script? Does the film give an indication as to why the city council ordered the destruction of the printing press?

[Gadianton]

“Not as I recall”? Hasn’t he seen the film several times? Didn’t he review the script? Does the film give an indication as to why the city council ordered the destruction of the printing press?

Isn't it possible that the Afore was moved to tears because in the real reality, these things didn't happen?

[Tom]

“Not as I recall”? Hasn’t he seen the film several times? Didn’t he review the script? Does the film give an indication as to why the city council ordered the destruction of the printing press?

Isn't it possible that the Afore was moved to tears because in the real reality, these things didn't happen?

Entirely possible. I wonder if he was also moved to tears by the moment in which a blind man testifies of Brigham Young’s transfiguration. Perhaps Afore was moved to tears at the end of the film when he realized that his million-dollar project succeeds in “defanging” the historical Brigham.

[Doctor Scratch]

Sure: *he* is not afraid of seeing the pistol depicted. But he and his Mopologist comrades still haven’t forgotten the nightmare from the mid 2000s vis-a-vis The Rock in the Hat. How many times did he, Pahoran, Hamblin, Schryver, etc., have to pile drive some nincompoop who showed up online in order to complain about how disturbed they were to learn that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon with a rock in his hat? And then these whiners even sometimes had the gall to suggest that the Church was *hiding* this information! I mean, jeez—it was discussed in an issue of the Ensign back in the 70s! That’s hardly trying to “hide” it!

The thing is: I think that some of the apologists eventually came to realize that some of the people complaining about this were sincere, and they really did wind up getting their testimony shaken by this discovery. So why open up a fresh wound and expose unknowing Latter-day Saints to the fact that Joseph Smith had a pistol? Better to keep that particular fact hidden, no? Or “hidden,” rather, since the Church never hides its history.