Is DCP's New Film Already Dead?

[Nomomo]

I am not so eager to see a greedy, murderous tyrant use someone else’s intellectual property to make himself a virtual monarch over thousands of impoverished immigrants. If I want to review the sad tale, I would rather do it by re-listening to RFM’s “Apostolic Coup.”

This.

[Father Francis]

I assume you're talking about Brigham Young? Such a description will not be received happily by some.

Of course, I am talking about Brigham Young! The man who used religion to make himself the wealthiest person in Western America.

Didn't he die with an extraordinary amount of debt, despite (or really due to) his lavish surroundings?

[Moksha]

Didn't he die with an extraordinary amount of debt, despite (or really due to) his lavish surroundings?

I think the Brethren found about $8 million in assets tucked away in his bank account, under his mattress, and in his private holdings worth about $181,990,839.69 today in 2023. It took several years for the Church to recover its money.

[Kishkumen]

I think the Brethren found about $8 million in assets tucked away in his bank account, under his mattress, and in his private holdings worth about $181,990,839.69 today in 2023. It took several years for the Church to recover its money.

[Kishkumen]

By the way, anyone who wants fair to the point of generous assessment of the situation should read Leonard J. Arrington's "The Settlement of the Brigham Young Estate, 1877-1879," Pacific Historical Review 21.1 (1952), 1-20.

https://doi.org/10.2307/3635175

Some interesting notes from the third volume of Quinn's Mormon Hierarchy:

Brigham Young's death-year value in this appendix ($1.6 million) is given as the formal appraisal of his estate, which was 88 percent higher than the value ultimately agreed upon. The valuation of $361,170 was a reduction demanded by John Taylor as the new trustee-in-trust for the church . . . . Taylor privately threatened to drop from the Quorum of the Twelve the three apostles who were the estate's formally appointed trustees if they did not agree to this compromise.

At Brigham Young's death, his favored son's remuneration was the equivalent of $344,000 a year today . . . . It is no surprise that the other apostles reduced John W's compensation by nearly 88 percent in October 1877 and began a permanent system of standardized compensation which apostle Woodruff called "wages" less than six years later.

[Tom]

I recently listened to an entertaining segment of the Interpreter Radio Show broadcast in January featuring Dr. Peterson, Steve Densley, and Mark Johnson discussing the Six Days film project. Severe technical difficulties aside (I think Dr. Peterson's connection dropped at least three times), I was surprised to hear Dr. Peterson's claim that Witnesses made money. He notes that the producers behind Witnesses always had the notion that if the film brought in any money, that money would be devoted to a new project. (He likens it to the way that the Perpetual Education Fund and the Perpetual Emigration Fund supposedly operated.)

Dr. Peterson gives a preview of the basic plot of Six Days in August, saying that there were two main competitors to lead the church in August 1844: Sidney Rigdon and Brigham Young (the latter representing the Twelve). The film will examine the events leading up to that time. He calls it a "very dramatic story," and says it "will make for a great film, just in and of itself."

According to Dr. Peterson, the script for the theatrical film is being put together. It's "substantially done but not quite finished." Dr. Peterson says he's out there raising money "because we won't have enough money from Witnesses to do another film." (He doesn't specify how much money Witnesses made or how much is needed for Six Days.) His connection goes dead at about that point.

Steve Densley tries to fill some time. He says that the scene in the documentary Undaunted in which Hiram Page is nearly beaten to death by a mob is "a great scene." A few moments later, he exclaims that it's a "great, great, great scene." I would go even further: it's a great, great, great, great scene.

In the most intriguing part of the show, Densley mentions that a second film was recently released regarding "this conspiracy theory that Brigham Young was behind the assassination of Joseph Smith." He asks Dr. Peterson whether he has heard of the film. Breaking into flawless Yiddish, Dr. Peterson laments, "Oy vey." Without taking a breath, Dr. Peterson effortlessly switches back to heavily muffled English (he sounds like he's speaking in code to his M2C citation cartel co-conspirators through a handkerchief using a gas-station pay phone): "I had heard the one was coming. I hadn't heard that it had actually dropped." Densley adds that apparently there will be a third volume coming "in the next little while."

Densley seems quite concerned with these developments: "From what I saw on Facebook--saw some pictures, look like they had a fairly packed audience at one of the local movie theaters. So they've got a little bit of a following of people who actually believe that Brigham Young orchestrated an assassination--the assassination--of Joseph Smith that's carried out, of course, by John Taylor and Willard Richards. They're there at the time and they're just doing Joseph Smith's--Brigham Young's bidding to try to get rid of Joseph Smith and make way for their own agenda, you know. And then, of course, there are people saying, you know, Brigham Young University should be renamed because Brigham Young, you know, was such a shameful figure. There are a lot of attacks against Brigham Young at this time, which, by extension, call into question the legitimacy and authority of the modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So I think that this is a very important time to be telling Brigham Young's story and how it is that he ascended to the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Dr. Peterson: "Yeah, I agree with that. I'm really shocked at the way that Brigham Young is being thrown under the bus by a lot of people now, and I do see it as--they may know what the people themselves intend [?]--and I hate to start, you know, citing Satanic conspiracies here--but what better way to undercut the authority of modern prophets and apostles than to call into question the apostolic succession of 1844 and delegitimize them entirely. I've had people tell me, 'Oh, I like Brigham Young, I like Russell M. Nelson, but I can't accept Brigham Young.' Well, if you cut Brigham Young off, you've just cut President Nelson off, too."

Dr. Peterson later indicates that he doesn't want the film to be a visitors' center film, in which everything is "sweetness and light." He says that the producers will attempt to be sympathetic to all the historical figures, including Rigdon and Emma Smith, although he immediately confesses that he's not a "big fan" of James Strang. "If Pee Wee Herman is available to play James Strang, I'd be fine with it," he jokes. Densley and Johnson don't laugh.

I think I am on safe ground in concluding that the producers of Six Days are jealous of the success of the Brigham Young conspiracy films (check out the January 20, 2023, photos on the "Who Killed Joseph Smith?" Facebook page) and in predicting that Six Days will demonize James Strang. (Perhaps Mike "Peter Pan" Parker is available to play Strang.)

In any case, I'm very much looking forward to the film's release in 2024.

[Kishkumen]

Well, DCP is wrong, of course. Joseph Smith is the conduit of priesthood authority, and through him the second anointing provided all the priesthood needed to run the church. Brigham had that authority, but so too did many others. You can technically choose to follow another line of transmission and not follow the leaders of the LDS Church at all. In any case, we know that the LDS Church is no longer fully organized since they put Eldred G. Smith on emeritus status, and that is according to Brigham Young’s views. So, you see, they don’t really follow what Brigham Young says, and that is mostly a good thing. It is not, however, on such a fundamental matter as this one. At this point leaders of the LDS branch of the Restoration use past leaders as little more than props to their own authority.

[malkie]

...
Steve Densley tries to fill some time. He says that the scene in the documentary Undaunted in which Hiram Page is nearly beaten to death by a mob is "a great scene." A few moments later, he exclaims that it's a "great, great, great scene." I would go even further: it's a great, great, great, great scene.
...

Am I alone in being concerned about the glaring omission in reporting here?

During these "few moments", Densley must have said, vehemently, that it was a "great, great scene!"!

[Moksha]

Using CGI to have Brigham take on the countenance of Joseph will be much easier for the Interpreter Studios to accomplish than using animatronics.

Hey, does anyone remember that neat transformation from An American Werewolf in London? Having Brigham run wild after the transformation and howl at the moon could help bring in more customers than relying on scheduled ward nights.

I hope the wealthy donors do not give up on this project. Dr. Peterson will continue to play nice in regard to Trump, and might even be amenable to the placement of a Trump 2024 poster somewhere in the background of the Nauvoo setting.

So, you see, they don’t really follow what Brigham Young says, and that is mostly a good thing.

Like Elder Haney said in Conference, the old words of prophets are not as valuable as old comics, especially issue #1 of the Fantastic Four.

[TwoCumorahFraud]

Well, DCP is wrong, of course. Joseph Smith is the conduit of priesthood authority, and through him the second anointing provided all the priesthood needed to run the church. Brigham had that authority, but so too did many others. You can technically choose to follow another line of transmission and not follow the leaders of the LDS Church at all. In any case, we know that the LDS Church is no longer fully organized since they put Eldred G. Smith on emeritus status, and that is according to Brigham Young’s views. So, you see, they don’t really follow what Brigham Young says, and that is mostly a good thing. It is not, however, on such a fundamental matter as this one. At this point leaders of the LDS branch of the Restoration use past leaders as little more than props to their own authority.

Oh I get it. DCP is pulling out old RLDS history documents to muddy up Church History.

M2C = Louis E. Hills books and map from 1917 - 1924. https://tinyurl.com/LEHills1924bookM2C
SITH = David Whitmer’s “An Address to All Believers in Chirst” https://archive.org/details/GR_4641

In which Whitmer constantly mentions Joseph Smith using a stone. Search it with the word “stone” and recall his “Witnesses Movie” was from the perspectice of David Whitmer. In the same book, Whitmer also called Joseph Smith a fallen prophet only after he translated the plates, due to plural marriage. Whitmer started his own Church rather than join the RLDS Church, because he knew Emma wasn’t correct about plural marriage.

Now 6DA will be from similar documents. How original.

Then all of you can argue how DCP represents The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then blame it for your unbelief. You’ll buy DCP’s stuff, watch his movies, to fill the coffers of his tax-free 501(c)(3) Interpreter Foundation, then complain about him while financing him. Then he laughs at you.