Time to Call It: "Witnesses" is a Box Office Flop

[Gadianton]

Meldrum and the heartland movement are part of the much bigger cult of vitamins and Trump, and a few years ago at that family reunion, there was talk about some huge "expo" that Included Meldrum and all this other stuff. Whatever that big glob of Captain Moroni and juicing patriotism is, it doesn't have anything to do with the Witnesses or Interpreter. I could find out a whole lot by asking a family member if they've heard about the film and why or why not they don't plan to go, but not sure if I want to broach anything church related. Hugely tempting though.

[dastardly stem]

Its tough for members, I'm sure, to see much of a point to a story about the witnesses. They don't really see controversy in the Book of Mormon translation, so why do the witnesses matter? I mean God made it happen so what do the witnesses add? That God showed some fellows the plates? Its not like it compares to Jesus' passion or Joseph's first vision even. It's just some lame event. As I asked about the movie while conversing with members all around me, none of them, as I recall even heard of it. That surprised me. I'd figure some of them would have known about it and some of them would have seen it. But nope. I don't recall any of the average members in my life even knowing about it. Maybe they would have seen it if they had heard of it, though.

I recommended it to a few, but none of them went to see it, as far as I know. Even though I thought it sucked from start to finish I think members would enjoy it, even if they would have left a bit confused. Ah well. I can see how it was a flop. But, it got made and got put out there. I mean donations not being recouped hardly seems to matter at this point. A few thousand people saw it. That's something.

[Doctor Scratch]

The lack luster interest from members tells me that in looking to the leadership for all these decades, they also are not all that interested in the witnesses. Theirs is a more accomodationist view, we can't convert the world after all, so we need to join it. That is what the members have been seeing from the upper crust in Salt Lake City throughout our lifetimes. I suspect that is a large part of the reason why excitement for the movie just didn't occur.

Yes!

It may seem like a fairly mundane point, but there is no priesthood GA calling of "Witness" as there is Prophet, or Apostle. So, the first hurdle would be helping LDS moviegoers understand what the heck this is all about. "Witnesses"? To what, a crime? Is it a sequel to the 1985 Peter Weir movie, Witness, starring Harrison Ford, Kelly McGillis, and Danny Glover?

What is perhaps even worse is that the Witnesses are depicted as being sad sacks, for the most part. The kind of losers who end up as marginal curiosities or organizational has-beens. They exist for Joseph Smith and for little other reason than Joseph Smith.

Exactly. Why should any modern Latter-day Saint give two squats about some witnesses from 200 years ago? Especially when one's testimony of the Gospel is meant to be primarily a personal thing? Dean Robbers is 100% right that this was a vanity project, and the problem is that the given hobby horse (or tapir?) of the Mopologists changes from year to year. First it's the LGT: "How can it be! Look at this! How interesting! Let's see critics tackle this!" Then it's chiasmus; then it's the ghost committee, etc. Then it's "Mormon Scholars Testify," and the notion that people with PhDs also believe in the Church's claims. They hop from topic to topic, hoping that something will stick, and meanwhile, as you and others have pointed out, they simply don't have their fingers on the pulse of the rank-and file. Meldrum & Co. are much, much better at this, and the Mopologists' attempts to portray him as driven by priestcraft, and as spearheading a schismatic movement, is a dead giveaway as to how desperate they are.

[Kishkumen]

Its tough for members, I'm sure, to see much of a point to a story about the witnesses. They don't really see controversy in the Book of Mormon translation, so why do the witnesses matter? I mean God made it happen so what do the witnesses add? That God showed some fellows the plates? Its not like it compares to Jesus' passion or Joseph's first vision even. It's just some lame event. As I asked about the movie while conversing with members all around me, none of them, as I recall even heard of it. That surprised me. I'd figure some of them would have known about it and some of them would have seen it. But nope. I don't recall any of the average members in my life even knowing about it. Maybe they would have seen it if they had heard of it, though.

I recommended it to a few, but none of them went to see it, as far as I know. Even though I thought it sucked from start to finish I think members would enjoy it, even if they would have left a bit confused. Ah well. I can see how it was a flop. But, it got made and got put out there. I mean donations not being recouped hardly seems to matter at this point. A few thousand people saw it. That's something.

This whole Witnesses event is one of the most fascinating historical moments, or, perhaps, non-moments in Mormondom in some years. I have previously opined--and I don't think I was far off here--that the film was nothing less than an attempt to change the Mormon narrative in a way as subtle yet dramatic as the elevation of the First Vision to the inaugural event of the Restoration in the early 20th century.

Think of it.

In an era of faltering faith, the witnesses to the Book of Mormon would become models of enduring in faith for all of those LDS people who at one time or another felt they had a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon. The idea is that once you see how this witness sticks with you and you can't shake it, you, like the witnesses, become one who will always live with the fact that you had a witness of the Book of Mormon, even if you try to walk away from it.

Could it be that we can blame this movie on Elder Holland's incensed rant over the pulpit about not being able to crawl around a witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon's divine origins?

But what is the *real* message here? That there is a bittersweetness in the inevitable end of the moment of faith? Some will recapture it, but most will not. The witnesses, are in a sense, abject failures. Does one imagine Oliver Cowdery wreathed in celestial glory for groveling to be baptized as a regular lowly member? Does anyone really think that Martin Harris and David Whitmer are LDS success stories?

These guys are royal bummers. In the Trump era they are total losers. The only time they amounted to anything was when they were riding Joseph Smith's coattails, and they couldn't even hold that together! This is what the movie shows its viewers, whether it intends to do so or not.

The question is not what was intended to be the message. The real question is what the message becomes in the current environment. I don't think this is a message that will resonate at all in the present moment. I see all kinds of good intentions and deep thought in the making of the movie, but we have to account, I think, for the failure of the film to catch on. If 70,000 LDS people saw it, why were they not successful in convincing 210,000 others to see it?

Another head scratcher.

[Kishkumen]

[A]s you and others have pointed out, they simply don't have their fingers on the pulse of the rank-and file. Meldrum & Co. are much, much better at this, and the Mopologists' attempts to portray him as driven by priestcraft, and as spearheading a schismatic movement, is a dead giveaway as to how desperate they are.

I think this is the core issue. It really pains me, honestly. Who imagines that the ideas cooked up by eggheads with degrees in medieval philosophy or Egyptology are going to connect with the average member? They aren't. The ideas that they come up with are barely scrutable to the well educated member, let alone to the Brother and Sister from Parowan who have never set foot into a graduate program in anything.

LGT? Ghost committee? I have to say that I find all of this to be a lot of fun, if only in a "what if Umberto Eco had written a satire about Mormonism" kind of way, but we have seen for years that this is DOA with most members of the Church. Two Cumorahs? Mesoamerican anthropological readings of the Book of Mormon? All of these tactics flop miserably. Tell LDS people that, no, the Book of Mormon is exactly what you assumed it to be and the Mopologists are just crypto-apostates and ark steadiers, and now you have something.

I can't see that the new MI will do much better than Mopologetics, as much as it pains me to say it. I am sympathetic to what they are doing, but it will get as much traction with the average person in the pew as Teilhard de Chardin does in Baptist Churches in the Midwest. Which is to say, "none."

[dastardly stem]

Its tough for members, I'm sure, to see much of a point to a story about the witnesses. They don't really see controversy in the Book of Mormon translation, so why do the witnesses matter? I mean God made it happen so what do the witnesses add? That God showed some fellows the plates? Its not like it compares to Jesus' passion or Joseph's first vision even. It's just some lame event. As I asked about the movie while conversing with members all around me, none of them, as I recall even heard of it. That surprised me. I'd figure some of them would have known about it and some of them would have seen it. But nope. I don't recall any of the average members in my life even knowing about it. Maybe they would have seen it if they had heard of it, though.

I recommended it to a few, but none of them went to see it, as far as I know. Even though I thought it sucked from start to finish I think members would enjoy it, even if they would have left a bit confused. Ah well. I can see how it was a flop. But, it got made and got put out there. I mean donations not being recouped hardly seems to matter at this point. A few thousand people saw it. That's something.

This whole Witnesses event is one of the most fascinating historical moments, or, perhaps, non-moments in Mormondom in some years. I have previously opined--and I don't think I was far off here--that the film was nothing less than an attempt to change the Mormon narrative in a way as subtle yet dramatic as the elevation of the First Vision to the inaugural event of the Restoration in the early 20th century.

Think of it.

In an era of faltering faith, the witnesses to the Book of Mormon would become models of enduring in faith for all of those LDS people who at one time or another felt they had a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon. The idea is that once you see how this witness sticks with you and you can't shake it, you, like the witnesses, become one who will always live with the fact that you had a witness of the Book of Mormon, even if you try to walk away from it.

Could it be that we can blame this movie on Elder Holland's incensed rant over the pulpit about not being able to crawl around a witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon's divine origins?

But what is the *real* message here? That there is a bittersweetness in the inevitable end of the moment of faith? Some will recapture it, but most will not. The witnesses, are in a sense, abject failures. Does one imagine Oliver Cowdery wreathed in celestial glory for groveling to be baptized as a regular lowly member? Does anyone really think that Martin Harris and David Whitmer are LDS success stories?

These guys are royal bummers. In the Trump era they are total losers. The only time they amounted to anything was when they were riding Joseph Smith's coattails, and they couldn't even hold that together! This is what the movie shows its viewers, whether it intends to do so or not.

The question is not what was intended to be the message. The real question is what the message becomes in the current environment. I don't think this is a message that will resonate at all in the present moment. I see all kinds of good intentions and deep thought in the making of the movie, but we have to account, I think, for the failure of the film to catch on. If 70,000 LDS people saw it, why were they not successful in convincing 210,000 others to see it?

Another head scratcher.

Excellent thoughts.

These moments driving us are flying by, it seems. And they hit like a sledge hammer. This story doesn't mean much because it doesn't speak loud. Like you say, the 3 witnesses are kind of drab. They aren't heroic or notable. Martin getting bested by his wife, Oliver with all the promise of Joseph was dropped as soon as Rigdon showed up. David? I mean he hardly seemed likeable, although the movie made him much more pleasant seeming.

I'd also agree that there does seem to be a concerted effort to really prioritize the witnesses. I mean it emphasizes the question of how could Joseph could have tricked his scribes and how could he have gotten 3 honest men to claim they saw the plates, an angel and heard the voice of God if it weren't true? I don't think that says a whole lot, but it speaks to a believer, I'd think. I mean in another way Joseph accomplished what Jesus never could. He might have gotten Paul to write letters, but none of his apostles testified of a thing, at least nothing that survived.

[malkie]

Do you think part of the reason the general LDS population have been largely disinterested in this movie is that it's too much like everyday church fare, whether sacrament service or Gospel Doctrine and Sunday school class, or even seminary classes?

That doesn't necessarily mean that people are unfaithful to the Gospel but perhaps just that when they're contemplating spending free time and money at the movie theatre, they want a break from real life activities and obligations?

When we were (non-LDS) missionaries in a relatively undeveloped African country, we'd sometimes enjoy vacations in South Africa where we had untold opportunities foreign to our daily experience in the African bush where we lived. While we'd sometimes stay at missionary Guesthouses because of the low cost, we never opted to attend all the chapels and prayer meetings onsite. Not that we didn't care about our faith, but we needed a break from our everyday lives that included daily and weekly Christian gatherings and ministry activities.

For those of you who were LDS missionaries ... what did you like to do on P-day??? Maybe some like young Smoot would relish opportunities for more exposure to and study of Gospel things. But the majority???

This is just one anecdote, but after we'd returned from Africa and during a cruise vacation in the Caribbean, I met a couple who were from Utah. I asked if they were LDS, and they responded they were but made it very clear they had no interest in talking about anything church related (I was gung-ho on learning more about Mormonism at that point). And it was evident they weren't wearing garments during their holiday. I feel badly now about even asking them about their faith and I wouldn't "go there" now. I think I picked up on their avoidant vibes quickly, and left it alone!

I was surprised to see the apparent lack of interest in the Witnesses movie on the MD&D board, and still wonder about that. It seems that people there are interested in discussing Mormonism. Why they showed so little interest in seeing Witnesses is a mystery to me. Maybe some of you have some insight into that.

When I was an active member, I was generally less than eager to talk to non-members about the church. I really didn't and don't see myself as a good representative of the LDS gospel.

However, as an apostate/heretic/inactive non-believing member, I've talked to several non-members about the church. And, just in case anyone may think that it was just so I'd have a chance to bad-mouth the organization, that is not the case. Certainly I've told some folks things that the missionaries might not mention, but I have often talked about positives of church membership as well.

I think it's simply that I no longer feel the need to be a gung-ho, everything-is-wonderful, be-like-me member missionary.

[Equality]

Exactly. Why should any modern Latter-day Saint give two squats about some witnesses from 200 years ago? Especially when one's testimony of the Gospel is meant to be primarily a personal thing? Dean Robbers is 100% right that this was a vanity project, and the problem is that the given hobby horse (or tapir?) of the Mopologists changes from year to year. First it's the LGT: "How can it be! Look at this! How interesting! Let's see critics tackle this!" Then it's chiasmus; then it's the ghost committee, etc. Then it's "Mormon Scholars Testify," and the notion that people with PhDs also believe in the Church's claims. They hop from topic to topic, hoping that something will stick, and meanwhile, as you and others have pointed out, they simply don't have their fingers on the pulse of the rank-and file. Meldrum & Co. are much, much better at this, and the Mopologists' attempts to portray him as driven by priestcraft, and as spearheading a schismatic movement, is a dead giveaway as to how desperate they are.

Has that ever truly been the FARMS/MI raison d'etre, though? Or was FARMS was just a grifting arm of the church designed to separate educated, high-net-worth church members from their money by encouraging them to include FARMS in their testamentary bequests? They just needed to make wealthy educated Mormons feel like being a member of the church wasn't something to be completely embarrassed about ("See, lots of smart, sophisticated people believe in it, too!"). The rank-and-file aren't the target audience for Mopologetics. And "proving" Mormonism true (or, at least, casting reasonable doubt on the strength of doubters' doubts) was never really the aim, either--that was all tangential to the central focus.

Follow the money; follow the money; follow the money--it leads the way!

[Gadianton]

Has that ever truly been the FARMS/MI raison d'etre, though?

It was closer at one time than it is today. Everybody knew who Hugh Nibley was. None of my relatives know who DCP is, and he's the most visible by far. There isn't a chance in hell anyone knows what Interpreter is.

As noted by Doctor Scratch, the Mopologists have called the Heartlander's out for apostasy. Likewise, the Heartlander's have declared the LTG as apostate. The heartland movement seems to have roots in Skousenism, but despite Lou Midgley clamoring to debate Skousen all the time at BYU, back in the day you could like both Skousen and Nibley. Now the legacy of Skousen has grown many, many times the size of the legacy of Nibley, and the groups are mutually exclusive.

[Doctor Scratch]

Exactly. Why should any modern Latter-day Saint give two squats about some witnesses from 200 years ago? Especially when one's testimony of the Gospel is meant to be primarily a personal thing? Dean Robbers is 100% right that this was a vanity project, and the problem is that the given hobby horse (or tapir?) of the Mopologists changes from year to year. First it's the LGT: "How can it be! Look at this! How interesting! Let's see critics tackle this!" Then it's chiasmus; then it's the ghost committee, etc. Then it's "Mormon Scholars Testify," and the notion that people with PhDs also believe in the Church's claims. They hop from topic to topic, hoping that something will stick, and meanwhile, as you and others have pointed out, they simply don't have their fingers on the pulse of the rank-and file. Meldrum & Co. are much, much better at this, and the Mopologists' attempts to portray him as driven by priestcraft, and as spearheading a schismatic movement, is a dead giveaway as to how desperate they are.

Has that ever truly been the FARMS/MI raison d'etre, though?

No, I wouldn't say that. I think their "reason for being" has shifted over time, but there have definitely been periods where there has been a strong desire to connect with the rank-and-file. Their big funding drive in the mid-1990s, e.g., was arguably aimed in that direction, and there were attempts at populism here and there, notably, perhaps, in the dabbling with message boards, the launch of FAIR, and so forth. DCP has declared in print more than once that their intention was to reach the largest possible audience. I also think that "Mormon Scholars Testify" was an attempt to "connect with" (though "condescend to," is more accurate) with the rank-and-file.

Or was FARMS was just a grifting arm of the church designed to separate educated, high-net-worth church members from their money by encouraging them to include FARMS in their testamentary bequests? They just needed to make wealthy educated Mormons feel like being a member of the church wasn't something to be completely embarrassed about ("See, lots of smart, sophisticated people believe in it, too!"). The rank-and-file aren't the target audience for Mopologetics. And "proving" Mormonism true (or, at least, casting reasonable doubt on the strength of doubters' doubts) was never really the aim, either--that was all tangential to the central focus.

Follow the money; follow the money; follow the money--it leads the way!

As much as I enjoy ribbing them over their greed (and they are very greedy in many ways), I don't think that was their main motivation. FARMS was launched by Jack Welch--i.e., "Mr. Chiasmus"--and one senses that a desire for revenge was always the main motivating factor. If he can find ancient chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, then doesn't that essentially flip the bird to all the critics who laughed at them? Throughout all the changes that have occurred over the years, the desire to get revenge on critics has been the one thing that has endured. It's more important to the movement, I would argue, than money or any other factor.