MovieChat Forums > Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration (2011) Discussion > Not Historical

Not Historical

posted 18 years ago by h-zimmy
49 replies | jump to latest

I feel the movie did not portray Smith historically. The goal of this movie was to tell Smith's life in a way that would be "comfortable" to the LDS Church leaders, historical accuracy seems to have been of little concern. The movie was designed to be a "faith promoting" experience, not a balanced view of Smith "as a man." I have taken it upon myself to study Smith's life and have read both LDS works and none LDS works. The movie, like most LDS projects, was beautifully filmed and well acted. However, this was not a realistic portrayal of either the beginnings of Mormonism or Smith's relatively short life.

A significant period of time was given to reenacting an accident that Smith had when he was seven. While this event was no doubt important in forming his mental outlook, it appears that the main reason for including it in the film is to help establish a sympathetic view of Joseph Smith. Another point is in portraying Smith's teen years the film is silent regarding the Smith family's involvement in magical practices during the 1820's. Another problem is while the movie shows Joseph Smith good-naturedly entering into wrestling contests, it fails to show how he sometimes lost his temper and became violent.

I could go on and on. This movie was not historical in any way and should be considered a fictional movie about a man. I would not recommend seeing this movie for any other purpose other then entertainment.

[–] Enchantress 18 years ago

Ummmmm, Are you even LDS or are you just here to try to discredit something that many to regard as spiritual and moving?

[–] merls_27 18 years ago

Excuse Me Violent ill tempered Man? All accounts of him regard him as a kind loving charitable man. This movie is very correct Not perfect very correct in joseph smith history and in many other biographies and journals written by saints at the time tell of joseph being a kind loving and generous man. Unless you have actual information (which does not include Anti-mormon information) don't try to post okay. Are you even LDS?

[–] FaustlovesGretchen 18 years ago

Actually quite accurate according to most accounts. True, there are ommissions to streamline the film and stick to a theme, but the events portrayed are based on accounts from several historical sources, not just Smith's own words. Check again, dude.

[–] jbatzel1 18 years ago

The film is extremely historically accurate the director is a personal friend of mine and i also played the father on the boat. The script took over 7 years to research and develop. The information was researched through journals, diaries, and church history to make it as accurate as possible. Joseph was a human being but i can assure you he was also a prophet. Joe

[–] gleebley2002 18 years ago

even if it weren't historically accurate, the movie is only shown in LDS Visitor's Centers. He is the Restorer of our religion, why would we want to paint him in a negative light?

Go read Fawn Brody if you want Joseph Smith's life examined with a negative agenda.

The man wasn't perfect, but he was a prophet and we honor him as such.

[–] h-zimmy 18 years ago

It is nice to know that all opinions are accepted. I don’t think it really matters if I am LDS or not. What does matter is that according to historians this movie did not portray Smith as he truly was. I never said what happened in the movie did not happen in really life (although some of it is left up to debate)….I did however state that there was a great deal of information left out. What amazes me is that I openly stated that I have read both LDS and non-LDS literature and with that being said I have looked at the facts (all of them). As you have stated…Smith was HUMAN. He did make mistakes….A great deal of them. But you all are over looking that part aren’t you?

So, Don’t jump down on me for stating ALL the facts. Of course you are going to say it was fact…that is what you have been taught to believe…but it left a great deal of other information out and that is what I am posting about.

I don’t need to be assured of anything. I know the facts.

One must be willing to consider all angles of there opinion before they can truly put there faith into it. I have not just studied the LDS organization I have also looked into the history of Baptist and Lutheran. Both of which have there downsides. But then those are not based off of a ‘prophet’.

(and by the way…I would rather you not refer to me as a Violent ill tempered Man…first, I did not post to start an argument I don’t argue, children do that [I have intellectual conversations with other adults]….secondly, I am not a man ;-)

[–] drdl_loves_golf 18 years ago

I have also seen this Film on the life of one of the greatest men to ever walk this earth. It's was both touching and accurate.

You say that you have read both LDS and Non-LDS Material and and decided for yourself what is fact and what is false. However, the only true way that one can find out for themselves if subjects like these are true is to put their pride aside and get down on their knees and ask our Father in Heaven of their truthfullness. If you do this will a true desire to know than you will.

You also say that the only reason that many of us say this film is fact, is that that is the way we were taught to believe (like some kind of mindless robots). I can tell you from the bottom of my soul the only reason I say it is true is I got on my knees and asked my Heavenly Father if it was. He made manifest to me of it's truthfullness.

May our Father in Heaven bless you in all the righteous things you seek.

David

[–] the--legend 16 years ago

Aaaaah!

What? We should understand fact by asking God about it and getting a spiritual feeling?

What? No! No! NOOOO!!!

I'm a VERY religious and spiritual person, and the last thing I want is for anyone to think that I get my facts from spiritual feelings and not from historical accounts.

We need to read the newspapers written during the time of Joseph Smith. We need to read the historic accounts. We need to read the diaries that spoke well of Smith and poorly of Smith. We need to assess the proof that Smith had of the plates and the character of the people who signed contracts to the existence of those plates. We need to research the archeology. We need to let the life and words of Joseph Smith prove themselves.

We should NOT be relying on spiritual feelings. That is not logical. How can we believe something that makes no sense and is based only on feelings? We shouldn't. We need the proof. That's what we should be seeking!!!

- Ed

[–] adamsmo 15 years ago

There is zero empirical evidence that Joseph's plates had any basis in reality.

I'm sorry you were likely raised in a cult.

[–] geode 17 years ago

(and by the way…I would rather you not refer to me as a Violent ill tempered Man…first, I did not post to start an argument I don’t argue, children do that [I have intellectual conversations with other adults]….secondly, I am not a man ;-)

You should have added: "And thirdly what I posted were not even my own ideas as I borrowed them from elsewhere. Perhaps you should be calling the Tanners or Michael Quinn ill-tempered instead of me."

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

[–] 2ManySecrets 17 years ago

Zimmy,

The poster wasn't calling you violent and ill tempered, he/she was questioning your description of Joseph Smith as violent and ill tempered. The relevant quote is:

"Excuse Me Violent ill tempered Man? All accounts of him regard him as a kind loving charitable man."

You took this personally when it wasn't directed to you at all.

[–] xredgarnetx 17 years ago

It's funny to read these messages. Smith was a huckster, plain and simple, who came to a bad end. He was the 19th century's answer to Ron Hubbard, a 20th century huckster who at least was a popular sci-fi writer of his period.

[–] mvfred 18 years ago

I saw the movie a couple weeks ago. To say it wasn't historical in any way is overstating the case. It was probably more historically accurate than A Beautiful Mind, for example, probably less accurate than if Richard Dutcher or Steven Spielberg had made it or even if it had been 120 minutes instead of 70.

I too have studied the life of Joseph Smith, and I found the film to be fairly accurate in what was included. However, it also left out a lot of things, polygamy being the big one, of course, but also some other potentially negative things such as some of Smith's financial blunders, some rash decisions and even the events that directly precipitated his martyrdom. Including such events would have made for a far more challenging and interesting film -- and, for me, just as uplifting.

But all good films have a point of view and/or an objective, and this case the purpose wasn't to challenge but to inspire. In that regard, I thought the film did a beautiful job with outstanding cinematography and strong acting. I also agree that a definitive film, if there can be such a thing, on the life of Joseph Smith has yet to be made.

[–] Anideos 18 years ago

I saw JOSEPH SMITH: PROPHET OF THE RESTORATION and was disappointed. I went into the screening expecting to be moved in some way, learn something, or simply be impressed somehow, but came out of with none of these things. I must agree with h-zimmy and come to her defense. Some pro-Mormon people jumped all over her for her post, yet there was absolutely nothing offensive or unfair or even the slightest bit hostile in what she wrote.

Obviously, the filmmakers of JOSEPH SMITH: PROPHET OF THE RESTORATION left out anything that might be deemed negative regarding the founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Church is using the film in its efforts to proselyte visitors and investigators, which is fine with me. However, I found the film to be not only too short, but watered down and romanticized in its portrayal of Joseph Smith.

In my opinion, if one (or a group) wants to make a film that provides an overview or document of the life of a very influential and interesting person, one (or the group) must strive to be historically accurate and must fearlessly include true aspects which may or may not flatter the person or subject. This means that the film must include at least a glimpse of ALL facets of the subject, not just those that show the subject in a favorable light. By not even mentioning polygamy in the film in question, the film essentially sweeps this controversial aspect under the rug, as if it never happened. This does not help the film, it hurts the film. It naturally makes some members of the audience feel like they were misled or that the whole truth was withheld from them.

The LDS Church calls those who are interested in learning about Joseph Smith and/or The Book of Mormon "investigators." To investigate means:

v. tr.
To observe or inquire into in detail; examine systematically.
v. intr.
To make a detailed inquiry or systematic examination.

Some synonymns of "investigate" are:

check out, examine, research, probe, assay, evaluate, figure out, scrutinize, inspect, challenge, pry into, verify, analyze, make sure, think through, study, review, query, test, prove, sort out, dig, scout, sift, go over

It is off-putting to me that some people do not want to actually investigate for themselves or have others truly investigate when the subject of the investigation, e.g., Jospeh Smith, is one that they believe to be beyond reproach.

[–] h-zimmy 18 years ago

All I can say is WOW! You worded that very well. Thank you.

[–] fjord_fox 17 years ago

Sorry, but I disagree. Did you see the movie The Ten Commandments, starring Charlton Heston? Would you say that was historically accurate? Based on your description above, it was not--however, if you do, there are many Christians, including myself, who would disagree with you.

I am using that movie because it, too, is a movie about a Prophet of God, except Moses is one that all Christians accept as a prophet. However, that movie did not show any of the negative aspects of the man either. It even over-glorifies the man, showing that he was a strong-willed man who spoke boldly and courageously to his people. They had to do that to get Charlton Heston play the starring role!

In reality, Moses was afraid to death to face the people and speak! He had to get his brother, Aaron to do the job for him! His initial excuse was that he stuttered, but when God told him He would fix his tongue, he complained again, which led God to say that he was to get his brother, Aaron to be his speaker, but he, MOSES, would be the PROPHET! That was not in the movie, however.

Another thing that was not in the movie was a place in the Bible that blatantly shows him losing his temper—and because of it, ALL of the people of Israel suffered for it when God got angry at him—not because of losing his temper (for they deserved it), but because of what he said to them, taking all the credit for himself for the miracles that he produced instead of giving the credit to God.

I will quickly use the Bible to illustrate my point: In Numbers 20:1-7 we find the people of Israel murmuring and chiding Moses, asking him what kind of God would take them out into the barren wilderness when they had everything they wanted and needed (including their “choice of Gods”) in Egypt? Then they complained about not having enough water.

In verses 7-8, we see that Moses and Aaron retreated into their portable tabernacle, which was designed so that God could appear to them in private without the rest of the people seeing HIM. God made His appearance and instructed Moses and Aaron to gather the people together and speak to the rock in front of all the people, and he promised that the rock would miraculously spring forth enough water for everyone to have plenty to drink—and even to water all their animals too.

What did Moses do? In verses 9-12, we see that Moses took the rod that the Lord had given him, and together with Aaron, they gathered the people together, just as the Lord had instructed them. However, what they did next was not according to the plan: Aaron shouted to them, “Hear now, ye rebels! Must WE fetch you water out of this rock?” Then Moses raised his rod and struck the rock two times, and just as God had promised, enough water came out of it not only to feed the people, but for the animals as well.

What was wrong with that apparent loss of temper? We find out in verse 12, where the Lord, again speaks to Moses and Aaron, chastising them for taking all the credit for themselves, rather than to give all the glory to God for having performed the miracle for the people (They said “Must WE fetch you water”, rather than to say, “Must GOD fetch you water?”). Then for that ALL of the people of Israel suffered. How? Moses was no longer going to be the one to lead them into the Promised Land, and the people had to wander in the wilderness for 40 years! However, a large part of that was probably because the people of Israel murmured so much against God that they deserved it—but that is only speculation on my part. The Bible says it was because of what Moses and Aaron did—or failed to do.

Moses and Aaron screwed up. They screwed up royal! But have you ever even heard of this story? NEVER! It just isn’t spoken about by any of the Christian ministers or Sunday School teachers. Why? because it simply isn’t NICE to portray a hero in a negative light just because of one (or some) of his blunders. Now does this make the story historically inaccurate? Not a bit! It is simply the way we chose to portray not only Moses, but ALL of our heroes.

Now what of these blunders? Every one of our heroes has made them! They have all lost their tempers, made mistakes, and some of them blatant blunders! We ALL do! It’s all part of being HUMAN! but thankfully, we have a God who oversees our weaknesses, our mistakes, and our blunders, and who sees the good that we have within us—everyone of us!

What the Mormons are saying is that not unlike Moses, Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, and not unlike Moses, he did have his weaknesses. Every man does, but, again for heroes, when we tell their story, out of niceness, we focus on their STRENGTHS and minimize their weaknesses. That is just one of the rules in portraying historical figures.

In closing, what would you do if a friend, relative, or acquaintance were to die suddenly and YOU were asked to deliver the eulogy? Now let’s suppose this person were someone “as nice as Scrooge”. Suppose, at the top of your head, you couldn’t think of anything nice to say about this person. Would you stand before the congregation and deliver the meanest speech that you could muster up about this person? I would hope not! Now suppose that person were YOU—that YOU had suddenly died. Would you appreciate knowing that someone that YOU know is going to deliver YOUR eulogy and make it the meanest eulogy ever given?

Joseph Smith was a hero to the Mormons. Please, in the light of Jesus’ words, to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, please, in all fairness, let the Mormons eulogize their hero the way you would have YOURSELF eulogized, and please let them do it in peace.

[–] blujellorox 17 years ago

thank you fjord_fox for your support and points

[–] happy_baby86 16 years ago

Bravo! Your points were well-delivered and fair to both sides of the discussion.

I´ve seen the movie, and it definitely does shows the strenghts of Joseph Smith. I agree with "when we tell their story, out of niceness, we focus on their STRENGTHS and minimize their weaknesses." I mean, why would we want to see a hero as having fault? Yes, having faults makes us human, but we don´t like to celebrate faults. People are our heroes because they do something they believe to be worthwhile, and this is exactly why Joseph was portayed in that way in the movie.

[–] fjord_fox 16 years ago

Thankyou for your comments, but I hardly feel that it's watered down, truncated, or romanticized.

Watered down? As in important details are missing?

Truncated? That's a good one. Isn't everything truncated--to just show the important details that are pertainent to the story being told? I have already used the example of Moses. How much do we really know about him? Did he play cops and robbers while he was growing up? or cowboys and indians? What kind of grades did he get in school? What did he do for a living? The list can go on and on, but we only know that which the teller of the story thought we needed to know. Would you then say that he trucated the story? When you have to tell a person's life's history in only 2 hours, you can't write everything!

Romanticized? How so? Because the movie shows Joseph Smith as a hero? Was the movie, "The Ten Commandments" romanticized?

[–] jwbinghamus 18 years ago

I would just like to say that the purpose of this movie was not to show a viewpoint of Joseph Smith that fits all historical accounts. It was meant to show people what Joseph Smith had gone through and experianced fighting for what he believed to be true and showing what he sacrificed. It's soul purpose was to uplift the viewer and praise Joseph Smith, not to spend 20 of its short 70 minutes showing us that Joseph had some negative qualities and to bring up the complex issue of polygamy that is always being asked about from members of the church.

The song "Praise to the Man" by William Phelps is very similar. It is meant to praise Joseph, not to cram 39 years of life into a five minute song. Just as the song is an outpouring of gratitude to the man, so is this film.

I saw this movie with a large group after being in Nauvoo for three days. When it ended, the 300 teenagers in the theater were dead silent. Even five minutes later, as we left the theater, the only sound was the sound of footsteps.

It was meant to show the sacrifices of Joseph Smith, not his faults.

[–] musicalnotes88 18 years ago

Agreed!

Polygamy is always an issue with a lot of people. It's a way many people try to put Mormons in a bad light. Since the movie was about Joseph Smith, which also showed the church as it was when it was restored. But it was meant to honor Joseph Smith and tell about his life.

For the nonmembers who feel that they are being jumped upon, we just feel a need to defend our religion. If you don't believe it, or don't try to openly understand it, I can guarantee that you'll realize it someday.

[–] pollylolly123 16 years ago

I was investigating the church and the missionaries invited me to a viewing of the movie that was going on by the Local Santa Monica Temple. I agreed to go and I watched it. They said that it was an historical look at Joseph Smith and his life. They used the movie to show me who Joseph Smith is and what he did to Restore the Church.

Some people were crying during it. It was actually very well done and well acted. At the end, some members said, "Man, they really packed a whole lot of history into that movie." Among other things like that.

After I watched the movie I did a little more inevestigating and read about the money digging, and I read about Joseph Smith's many wives. I read about the 116 pages that Joseph could not re-translate. I read about him claiming that he has done more than any other man including Jesus. I read about him wanting to be President. I READ ALL THAT INFORMATION AND IT WAS NOT IN THE MOVIE!!! If I had just watched the movie and read the book of mormon and only listened to the Missionaries I would be a Mormon right now. But I used my own brain to find things out and I realized that they are hiding so many things from investigators that if found out, (like i did) it would be detrimental to their joining.

Just a little bit of my experience with movie.

[–] BrentTheDuck 14 years ago

A lot of the information you have is correct (you even got the exact number of pages that Joseph was warned not to re-translate). I would just like to reassure you regarding an important point though: Joseph Smith never said he did more than Jesus; that is completely against LDS doctrine. Whoever told you that was probably thinking of a line from Joseph Smith's eulogy, where John Taylor said that Joseph Smith did more for the salvation of men than anyone EXCEPT Jesus:

"Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. In the short space of twenty years, he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and has been the means of publishing it on two continents; has sent the fulness of the everlasting gospel, which it contained, to the four quarters of the earth; has brought forth the revelations and commandments which compose this book of Doctrine and Covenants, and many other wise documents and instructions for the benefit of the children of men; gathered many thousands of the Latter-day Saints, founded a great city, and left a fame and name that cannot be slain. He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people; and like most of the Lord’s anointed in ancient times, has sealed his mission and his works with his own blood; and so has his brother Hyrum."

Anyway, regarding the concerns you had, I had some thoughts I hope you will consider:

There is so much for newcomers who are learning about the LDS church to learn that missionaries teach important things like Jesus Christ's sacrifice and resurrection, repentance, how God restored His church through a modern prophet, God's plan for us (the meaning of life), etc. The things you mentioned aren't hidden; they are available if people like you are interested. They aren't really relevant to why you should choose to accept or reject the message. The relevant question is: was Joseph Smith really called as a prophet to restore Christ's church? The relevant question is NOT if Joseph Smith was perfect. It is not whether or not he was involved in politics, or worked for a gold digger, etc.

Joseph Smith was either a prophet or a fraud. Reading the Book or Mormon and asking God if it is true (see the Book of Mormon, Moroni 10:3-5, or James 1:5 in the New Testament) is how you can know which is the case.

Jesus said that you will recognize false prophets by their fruits (Matthew 7:15-20). The missionaries give investigators the Book of Mormon, one of the "fruits" of Joseph Smith, right off the bat. By studying this and asking God to know if it is really His word given to Joseph Smith, you can know if it is a good fruit and therefore if Joseph Smith was a prophet. That is why missionaries tell you about this rather than controversial topics that don't answer the pertinent question.

For example, Joseph Smith did indeed institute polygamy. What does this tell us about whether he was a prophet? Nothing. Consider history:
1. Prophets in the Bible instituted polygamy sometimes
2. People who weren't prophets have also practiced polygamy
Therefore this does not give any useful information on whether Joseph Smith was a prophet. The same principle applies to the other concerns.

To know whether Joseph Smith was a prophet, there's no way around the way Jesus gave to distinguish between real and false prophets: investigate the fruits. The Book of Mormon is the best way to start.

[–] skimoab 18 years ago

Exactly, this movie was made by the church to praise and recognize Joseph Smith for the good things he did and the sacrifices he went through. It was never meant to be an objective, PBS-style documentary showing every part of his life. It was made with a purpose and I feel it met that purpose. I felt that the events that it did show were historically accurate based on the records they used to get them.