The "Witnesses" Movie as Outright Mopologetics

[_Doctor Scratch]

An interesting update from the impresario of "Sic et Non":

I spoke at a small “cottage meeting” on Saturday night, along with the Interpreter Foundation’s fundraiser, Ed Snow, and Mark Goodman, the director of the Foundation’s current Witnesses film project. It was a real treat for me to see two brand new clips from the principal dramatic movie, which is now taking shape. This was the first time that they’ve been shown.

[. . . . ]

Mark was very apologetic to the group before showing the two clips, saying that their color was off, that the music was too loud, and so forth, and that this was only preliminary work. However, I have to say that I was quite pleased.

One aspect of the first clip that I like very much:

I’ve seen the criticism that the plates were too heavy, that Joseph Smith could not possibly have run through the woods carrying them.



Well. There were two prop sets of plates at the disposal of the filmmakers. One of them was quite light, for convenience. The second was roughly the weight of the real historical plates themselves. When our people were filming the scene in which young Joseph Smith runs through the woods while being pursued by money diggers who are intent on gaining possession of the Book of Mormon plates, they gave Paul Wuthrich the option of using the lighter prop.

[ . . . . ]

He tested the lighter set of plates, and then chose to go with the heavier ones so that the scene would be more realistic. Thus, again and again, he had to run down the hill carrying the plates, then climb up the hill once more, then run down the hill, then climb up the hill.

[ . . . . ]

And Joseph Smith was a young man who spent his days doing heavy manual labor, who never rode in an automobile, who had a reputation for unusual physical strength. If Paul Wuthrich could do it, Joseph could have done it, too.

(Nice dig at the actor there, DCP: this "nancy-boy," living this cushy, modern, 21st-Century life is so obviously weak and spoiled compared to the Great Physical Specimen that was Joseph Smith!)

But this is very interesting: it appears that Dr. Peterson likes what he's seeing because he views it as somehow validating his Mopologetic views. Hey, even though this is a movie, it allowed them to carry out this experiment where they had this actor carrying (for the sake of "realism") an actual, 60-lb. set of fake Golden Plates. (Well...were they 40 lbs.? Or 60? That twenty pound difference isn't insignificant. The image posted to the blog shows the actor with a bundle tucked underneath his left arm. Go ahead and stick a compact, 60 lb. weight under your arm and see how well you fare.) And if the actor can do it, then that means that Joseph Smith could have done it, too! So the delight here seems to lie primarily in the opportunity that the movie provides vis-a-vis "sticking it" to the critics. DCP has nothing to say about the actual movie clips, mind you--he says nothing about the quality of the acting, or the screenwriting, or the editing, or the cinematography. For him, this is solely about the Mopologetic argument that the movie enables. Except, of course, that this is a movie. If I believe that Bigfoot is seven feet tall and weighs 450 pounds, and critics argue that he would be immobile at this weight, and so and to prove this, I find an ex-NFL player willing to dress up like Bigfoot and weigh himself down with additional weight, and, hey, what do you know? He's able to walk and stuff! And this is supposed to support my argument somehow?

And I am wondering what our resident historians think about this (esp. Philo and Grindael): what do you make of the realism and historical accuracy of what has apparently been filmed? I'd be interested in seeing the legitimate, historical documents that support this "chase through the woods with Gold Plates in tow" by money diggers. Is there an account of this that was written by Smith himself? Is this a film that truly has a basis in history and reality? Not that it has to, of course, but it's worth thinking about what the movie is meant to accomplish. I mean, we certainly have to bear in mind that this project is coming from someone who's cinematic dream was to make a film entitled Dan and Bill's Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell. It would appear, though, that for the time being, we are going to have to settle for this "Witnesses" thing instead.

[_I have a question]

It’s interesting that, in a film called “Witnesses”, so much stock is being placed by Peterson in an event that was never actually witnessed. The weight or otherwise of an item that wasn’t actually used to produce the Book of Mormon seems like a deliberate red herring placed into the film. It should be renamed “Straw Men”.

[_Kishkumen]

Historical films are always and can only be a re-imagining of events as we would like to suppose they were. The farther back in time, the less chance that re-imagining will reflect in any sense the experience of the historical persons involved. This is nothing more or less than a propaganda film. Its central error is its reliance on the testimony of a man who has a well-established track record of lying egregiously to his most intimate associates. Joseph may say one thing or another to those around him, but we would be foolish to take him at his word, and even more foolish to take as historically accurate a film based on his claims.

[_Arc]

Historical films are always and can only be a re-imagining of events as we would like to suppose they were. The farther back in time, the less chance that re-imagining will reflect in any sense the experience of the historical persons involved. This is nothing more or less than a propaganda film. Its central error is its reliance on the testimony of a man who has a well-established track record of lying egregiously to his most intimate associates. Joseph may say one thing or another to those around him, but we would be foolish to take him at his word, and even more foolish to take as historically accurate a film based on his claims.

Could not have been better stated. They are moving forward with an underfunded and over-promised vanity project that is an apologetic piece for the best known sexual predator and religious con man in 19th century American. What could go wrong?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I’m just hoping the film has some awesome Liam Neesomesque Taken 3 jump cuts

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gCKhktcbfQM

as Joseph Smith is hauling those plates through the woods.

- Doc

[_Maksutov]

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/un ... dence.html

Eyewitness testimony is historically among the most convincing forms of evidence in criminal trials (e.g. Benton, Ross, Bradshaw, Thomas, & Bradshaw, 2006). Probably only a suspect’s signed confession can further convince a jury about that individual’s guilt. That iconic moment when a testifying witness points to the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime is iconic, and has been dramatized often on television and movies. It is easy to understand why it is so convincing. We trust our own perception and experience. “I’ll believe it when I see it” isn’t just a cliché, it is a statement of the most persuasive form of evidence we allow.

But being convincing isn’t the same as being accurate. Eyewitness testimony is more fallible than many people assume. The advent of DNA analysis in the late 1980s revolutionized forensic science, providing an unprecedented level of accuracy about the identity of actual perpetrators versus innocent people falsely accused of crime. DNA testing led to the review of many settled cases. According to the Innocence Project , 358 people who had been convicted and sentenced to death since 1989 have been exonerated through DNA evidence. Of these, 71% had been convicted through eyewitness misidentification and had served an average of 14 years in prison before exoneration. Of those false identifications, 41% involved cross-racial misidentifications (221 of the 358 people were African American). And 28% of the cases involved a false confession.

The claim that eyewitness testimony is reliable and accurate is testable, and the research is clear that eyewitness identification is vulnerable to distortion without the witness’s awareness. More specifically, the assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience, much like a video camera, is incorrect. Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions. We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others. Memory is malleable.

Why the Myth Persists
So why, despite all the news about misidentifications and wrongful convictions, do people continue to put such profound faith in eyewitness testimony?

Several reasons are likely. First, in popular media and literatary depictions, detectives (for example, Sherlock Holmes) and witnesses possess highly detailed and accurate memories. Second, crimes and accidents are unusual, distinctive, often stressful, and even terrifying events, and people believe those events therefore should automatically be memorable. In fact, stress and terror can actually inhibit memory formation, and memories continue to be constructed after the originating event on the basis of information learned afterward. People underestimate how quickly forgetting can take place. Third, eyewitnesses are often sincere and confident, which makes them persuasive but not necessarily correct. Memory distortion often happens unconsciously. Witnesses truly believe their version of events, no matter how inaccurate they may be.

Finally, confirmation bias is likely at play. People notice the times when they accurately remembered some person or detail in their past, but tend to forget the times when their memory failed them. With the prevalence of video cameras capturing most anything we do, it is easier than ever to check memories against actual recordings of events. You might ask students if they ever compared their memory of an event to an actual recording of the incident and discovered discrepancies. If so, this might reduce confirmation bias.

The Reality
Memory doesn’t record our experiences like a video camera. It creates stories based on those experiences. The stories are sometimes uncannily accurate, sometimes completely fictional, and often a mixture of the two; and they can change to suit the situation. Eyewitness testimony is a potent form of evidence for convicting the accused, but it is subject to unconscious memory distortions and biases even among the most confident of witnesses. So memory can be remarkably accurate or remarkably inaccurate. Without objective evidence, the two are indistinguishable.

Related Myths

People won’t confess to a crime they did not commit.
Flashbulb memories, vivid and emotionally compelling memories of the circumstances of learning about a subjectively important event, are more accurately remembered than mundane memories.
Accurate memories can be recovered or enhanced through hypnosis
We repress traumatic childhood memories but these memories can be recovered through therapy and they should be taken as valid and accurate (see the lesson plan on this myth.)
Lie detector tests reliably detect deception
Children make good eyewitnesses

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... s-have-it/

Many researchers have created false memories in normal individuals; what is more, many of these subjects are certain that the memories are real. In one well-known study, Loftus and her colleague Jacqueline Pickrell gave subjects written accounts of four events, three of which they had actually experienced. The fourth story was fiction; it centered on the subject being lost in a mall or another public place when he or she was between four and six years old. A relative provided realistic details for the false story, such as a description of the mall at which the subject’s parents shopped. After reading each story, subjects were asked to write down what else they remembered about the incident or to indicate that they did not remember it at all. Remarkably about one third of the subjects reported partially or fully remembering the false event. In two follow-up interviews, 25 percent still claimed that they remembered the untrue story, a figure consistent with the findings of similar studies.

[_Fence Sitter]

I always am amused by the weight modern members give these 11 witnesses as if getting 11 people to testify about a supernatural event is all that impressive.

Given their backgrounds and familial relationships, the 11 witnesses are about as reliable as 11 alien abduction witnesses from only two families at a convention on alien abduction.

[_Maksutov]

I always am amused by the weight modern members give these 11 witnesses as if getting 11 people to testify about a supernatural event is all that impressive.

Given their backgrounds and familial relationships, the 11 witnesses are about as reliable as 11 alien abduction witnesses from only two families at a convention on alien abduction.

Indeed. George Adamski, famous contactee, produced an affidavit signed by several witnesses to the fact that he met with the Venusian visitor Orthon in the California desert.


https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~coker2/inde ... damski.htm

Guess what? Warren Aston, LDS "scholar" and inventor of NHM, is an Adamski believer. He produced a whole book on his defense of flying saucers from a Mormon perspective.

[_I have a question]

I always am amused by the weight modern members give these 11 witnesses as if getting 11 people to testify about a supernatural event is all that impressive.

Given their backgrounds and familial relationships, the 11 witnesses are about as reliable as 11 alien abduction witnesses from only two families at a convention on alien abduction.

The 11 witnesses is the strongest supporting evidence the modern members have. Which is why Peterson's latest vain attempt at a legacy is about the Witnesses, because it can’t be about DNA or Archeology etc.

[_Symmachus]

For him, this is solely about the Mopologetic argument that the movie enables. Except, of course, that this is a movie. If I believe that Bigfoot is seven feet tall and weighs 450 pounds, and critics argue that he would be immobile at this weight, and so and to prove this, I find an ex-NFL player willing to dress up like Bigfoot and weigh himself down with additional weight, and, hey, what do you know? He's able to walk and stuff! And this is supposed to support my argument somehow?

I guess it was inevitable that Peterson would find a way into movie-making at some point, but I'm not sure even Dr. Scratch could have predicted that this would be a two-way street, with movies becoming the material for apologetic arguments.

I mean, we certainly have to bear in mind that this project is coming from someone who's cinematic dream was to make a film entitled Dan and Bill's Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell. It would appear, though, that for the time being, we are going to have to settle for this "Witnesses" thing instead.

The other movie sounds fantastic; why are they wasting time and money on this BS apologetic stuff!?

Historical films are always and can only be a re-imagining of events as we would like to suppose they were. The farther back in time, the less chance that re-imagining will reflect in any sense the experience of the historical persons involved. This is nothing more or less than a propaganda film. Its central error is its reliance on the testimony of a man who has a well-established track record of lying egregiously to his most intimate associates. Joseph may say one thing or another to those around him, but we would be foolish to take him at his word, and even more foolish to take as historically accurate a film based on his claims.

Well said. Historical accuracy in films is probably not even desirable, but anything about Joseph Smith that isn't primarily focused on the dramatic (or comic) potential buried here and there in his story is going to be pure propaganda one way or the other. From that perspective, there hasn't been much interest in Joseph Smith (Vardis Fisher's Children of God is only thing that comes to mind), but it seems like there should be more (perhaps along the lines of The Master, or surely there is an interesting tale in the last months of Nauvoo, which has enough in common with Euripides's Bacchae to be interesting).

It’s interesting that, in a film called “Witnesses”, so much stock is being placed by Peterson in an event that was never actually witnessed. The weight or otherwise of an item that wasn’t actually used to produce the Book of Mormon seems like a deliberate red herring placed into the film. It should be renamed “Straw Men”.

Yes, but a straw man wouldn't have had the strength to lift the Golden Plates, especially a contemporary straw-based man, and that could call Peterson's latest argument into question.