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.

[–] lala808 18 years ago

i appreciate all perspectives... it's hard to read when people don't support you, but i read it and i understand where you are coming from.

The only thing I don't understand or don't FULLY get is in the movie, Joseph baptizes Hyrum, then presuming Hyrum baptizes Joseph... but Joseph and Oliver were the ones that baptized each other right? I might be wrong... but that's just a question.

[–] fcclamormon-1 18 years ago

Actually Lala808 you are correct about that it was Joseph and Oliver. Hyrum wasn't even with them..

and to the non-members it is hard for mormons to not be deffinsive because of all the persacution we have.. untill the 1980's there use to be a law in Missiouri that it was legal to kill a mormon. and now it was tooken away. but here in Ny you still get prejudice people aganist you and it is irrotating but as a descendent of Joseph Smith I know that he was a kind and gentle man who never fought with his siblings or parents and he did make mistakes he never made the mistake to lose his temper. I do have family journals of his and Emmas

[–] MillieMarie 18 years ago

I completely agree with you! How can we not feel the need to defend, when that is what we've had to do for 250 years! It may not be a matter of life and death anymore, but it is still important.

People bash mormons with lies, because if they really did the deepest research, down to the last inch, they could not prove us wrong. I know that for a fact. The gospel of Jesus Christ is true, and was restored by Joseph Smith, who was indeed a MAN, but he was indeed a PROPHET also.

That is amazing that you have some of the Smith family journals! I would LOVE to read them someday!

[–] porkwithrice 18 years ago

I have to agree that the film was not entirely historical. I was waiting for at least a glimpse of a controversial aspect of Joseph Smith's life but saw none. I would think that the LDS Church would want to include some of Smith's faults to show that he was only a man like the rest of us but am continually disappointed to see the historical record whitewashed. I would be more sympathetic to the plight of the early LDS church if Smith were like the apostle Paul, who turned from his former life of persecuting the church to spreading the gospel. The problem is that Smith did not turn from his sinful ways. Smith's continued use of magic and marriage to other men's wives is documented and irrefutable.

[–] electric_blue_eyes 18 years ago

i don't care how accurate it is. i bawled my face off and the church is true.

[–] jwriting 18 years ago

Perhaps this isn't entirely important to the thread, but h-zimmy's post, ignoring the sentences where she states 'I,' is all just a rehash of a review given by an antimormom website. She directly cut and pasted the 'facts' she states all from one antimormom group.

It is true that the movie leaves some parts of Joseph Smith's life out, like polygamy. One reason this may have not been added, is because the film is to give investigators information about the LDS Church. The movie ends with Joseph Smith's death. Polygamy ended later than that. If polygamy had been included, the movie would have ended with polygamy still in practice, and any investigator might assume that we still practice it.

As for any claims made that Joseph Smith practiced withcraft and magic, there are no unbiased sources that state this. President Gordon B. Hinckely did address the issue of people claiming this to be fact, and he said that the only thing considered magic he may have done refers to superstitions. Even now days people say 'Bless You' when someone sneezes. That is superstition. The first reason people would bless someone when they sneezed was to make sure no evil spirits could enter through the nose when its guard was down.

Whether or not Joseph Smith had a temper isn't stated in any unbias resources, because everyone loses their temper sometimes. Forgive me if I ever do when a mob storms into my house, drags my family and I out, tars and feathers me, and essentially kills my baby when it contracts pneumonia.

To anyone who wants to investigate the church: please only read sources that don't have an agenda to get you to hate or love the church. Only unbiased sources will give you the truth you seek. The Joseph Smith movie is entirely true. Yes, aspects of his life have been left out, but only so that the movie didn't go on for hours. It's a movie, not a book. Even books will only give some details, simply because all of someone's life doesn't make for a good read.

In all,I loved this movie. I've seen it three times, and the spirit was in abundance everytime I went. Anyone who sees the film will feel the spirit if they are open to it, and want it.

Everytime I saw the film it showed me something new I hadn't thought about before. For example, families are forever. I've grown up LDS, and always knew it. But watching the film and seeing Alvin, Joseph's brother die, I could see what it must feel like to those that don't know they can be with their family forever, what it's like to think you've lost someone you love forever.

This film is definitely worth seeing. It may change your life.

[–] waltergreen2 18 years ago

I have to agree with those who wonder why the LDS church left out Smith's practice of polygamy.

Obviously this is not a fact the church wants the public to know about.

Why leave out Smith's other wives? That is the big question?

Mormons take any attack on this movie quite personally, yet I have heard several Mormons make negative comments about the the Pope. Seems the LDS are comfortable running down the leader of the world's largest Christian denomonation, but don't like it when critical words are tossed at their prophet Smith.

Since polygamy is left out of this movie it is clearly just a piece of propaganda, and meets every definition of what a propaganda film is.

Walter

[–] tdaz 18 years ago

I know that a lot of people, both LDS and not, have questions regarding polygomy. There are plenty of misconceptions regarding the practice. This is for those that are genuinely curious, not for people who want to tear apart my faith. It ain't gonna happen.
One of the first misconceptions, and I have seen this in my own textbooks, is that the Mormons were persecuted in Missouri because of plural marriage. Plural marriage was not introduced until 1843, less than a year before the Prophet was killed. It is in the heading of Doctrine and Covenents 132, the section were the "laws governing the plurality of wives" was introduced. The largest source of persecution in Missouri was that Mormons were (and still are, I might add) against slavery.
Another is that Joseph Smith had more than one wife. I don't know if he actually married anyone other than Emma, but it might confused with "sealing." In the LDS church, marriages are not "till death do us part," but are sealed for time and all eternity. When the sealing ordinance was first introduced, it wasn't clear exactly what it was for. Men would seal their wives to other men who they thought was better for her. Some would be sealed to say, Moses, Peter, or Joseph Smith. The purpose of sealing was clarified soon after, but you can see where the belief that Joseph had more than one wife could come from.
The church banned polygomy in 1890. Simple as that. Any other church, including what is called the "Fundamentalist" Church or FLDS, is NOT, repeat for emphasis, NOT Mormon, or in any way connected or tied to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The problem that was experienced between the Church and the US government was that the government also wanted to dissolve previous plural marriages. Since the church regards marriage so highly, this was a problem. It was resolved.
A final note, plural marriage was not what people think of when polygomy. It wasn't that a man was wanting to get more than one woman (though that probably happened, I'm sorry to say). Since there was no welfare, social security, etc., and women couldn't really get work, women were supported by their husband. This is a problem when there are not as many men as women in a population. A wife would approach her husband and give him permission to marry, say, her aunt whose husband just passed away, rather than letting her starve. It wasn't even that common. At its peak, plural marriage never reached 10% of the Mormon population.
I hope I cleared things up for some people. If you want information on the church and its history, don't go to anti-Mormon sites or books, though they are sometimes funny(my favorite, and I am not making this up, was from the 1970's: the Mormons were acquiring nuclear weapons from Russia, sneaking them over the Mexican border, and plotting to use them to take over the government.) Just to show what we have to put up with sometimes. And no, Mormons do not have horns.

[–] waltergreen2 17 years ago

Well unfortunately tdaz you lay out a very typical Mormon response to polygamy, here are a few facts you conveniently left out, and none of them are from anti-Mormon resources. They are all LDS church resources.

1) First off you say that Mormons where persecuted in MS because of their anti-slavery position. This may have been the feeling of many chruch members of the time, too bad it was not Brigham Young's position. I think you need to read his Journal's Of Discourse. In there he makes a number of derogotory comments about blacks, including his position that...blacks are cursed and therefore slavery is their punishment, a white person who mixes his seen with the "seed of Cain" is going to hell, and that no man can be exhalted without entering into plural marriage. Read it all for your self, it's in there.

Now a typical Mormon response to all this is that, "oh it was just his opinion, not LDS doctrine." Well when Young says some thing that is not embarrassing to the LDS church all of a sudden it's embraced as doctrine. Sorry you can't pick and choose and have it both ways. Mormons don't let Catholics pick and choose the statements made by Pope's, some are embarrassing to the Catholic church, so Mormon's can't pick and choose either.

2) I see you missed the fact that the US outlawed polygamy in 1862, the church didn't stop as you mention until 1890. Read the BYU church history manual for religion 341-343, bottom of page 425, it says the following "In 1862, President Lincoln signed into law the anti-bigamy bill known as the Morrill Law...." The law was entirely ignored by the Mormons for 28 years. Keep reading the manual and you'll see it explain that the only reason the church quit polygamy was because the US gov't told the church it was going to seize the temples if they did not. So then leader Wilford Woodruff decided to pack it in. My point is that the church did not quit the practice voluntarily as many believe, it was forced to. Read the BYU manual, I have, it's all there starting on page 425.

3) It is another misconception that the church practiced polygamy due to a shortage of men or to take care of widows, as you also state. When Wilford Woodruff was asked why the church practiced polygamy he said, "because it was a commandment of the Lord." Looking after widows had noting to do with it. The idea was to raise up as many children as possible in as short a time as possible.

4) Jospeph Smith did practice polygamy, in fact many of his wives where also married to other men at the same time they where married to Smith! This fact is known by very few Mormons, but again the information is easily found in church history books. Church records show that Joseph Smith had 34 wives that we know of, 11 where married to other men at the same time as JS. In some cases the other husbands knew, in some they didn't. Explain that one!!

It's silly to think that these wives where just "sealed" to other men. Come on, Brigham Young had children with many women, how did those women get pregnant? Immaculate conception?

And I can go on, and on, there's more info than this.

Walter

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ssbass 17 years ago

I don't think anyone on earth can accurately state what was factual about Joseph Smith's life and what was not. Every book ever written about him, every film ever made about him, both on the positive side or the negative, cannot be deemed as fact - much of the data we have is based on opinion or hearsay from his contemporaries, which have included critics, sympathizers, or worse, ignoramuses. Whether or not he was a prophet can only be answered by God himself. So, to you folks who claim to be in possession of the "facts", I invite you to ask the only being who can truly provide you with an answer.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ssbass 17 years ago

Nope. I just don't believe everything I read.

[–] faithinbananas 17 years ago

h-zimmy, I'd like to apologize for everyone of the Mormon faith who attacked your post as being prejudiced and hateful. That was unwarranted and I hope they take time to think over what they said and repent of it.

Here's my defense: the film was an hour long. A LOT happened in Joseph Smith's life. They couldn't possibly include everything. You're right, though---they did leave out a lot of the negative stuff. Joseph Smith DID have many wives. He DID order the destruction of a printing press when it was printing hurtful, destructive, libelous things about the Mormons.

He is, however, the founder of our faith. We have learned to accept Joseph Smith for who he was... he was human. He might have been a prophet, but he was still a man, a man like any of us, a man who made mistakes. The film was geared as much towards Mormons as to those of other faiths, Mormons who know about the negative things that happen as well. It was an excellent movie as a movie, but not a wonderful documentary. So I guess... I agree with you, at least in part; it wasn't as historically correct as it could've been.

Man isn't perfect; therefore, Joseph Smith isn't perfect, and the Church isn't perfect. And we work hard to overcome it.

[–] aragorn12384 16 years ago

"As for any claims made that Joseph Smith practiced withcraft and magic, there are no unbiased sources that state this."

I suppose that it depends on how you define unbiased, but I attended BYU and this was taught in the Church History classes there, so there must be some sources that are "unbiased" enough for the Church.

[–] geode 17 years ago

Every single point you have made was not only plagiarized from another source, you have also lifted it almost word for word. I have to wonder if you did not just come upon the other piece and decided to comment here in the negative without even seeing the film yourself. If you have seen the film, do you have any impressions of your own about its accuracy ? Your lack of scholarship and ethics is disturbing. From one of your other posts it would appear that you are part of a university department, hopefully you are not a professor and it is not a history department. I have not seen the film, so I will not comment upon this aspect. However, I would bet that I would have some of the same impressions that you would upon seeing it in terms of historical accuracy. Unfortunately you have pulled the carpet out from under yourself in the OP.

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.

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no106.htm

With the goal of telling 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."

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.

The Early Years. A significant period of time was given to reenacting Joseph's terrible leg surgery when he was about 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.

In portraying Smith's teen years the film is silent regarding the Smith family's involvement in magical practices during the 1820's. Today LDS historians generally agree that Joseph Smith was involved in magical practices as a young man but tend to minimize the importance of such activity. The film never mentions these activities of the Smiths nor how magical practices affected their lives.

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. D. Michael Quinn observed that Smith was a "church president who physically assaulted both Mormons and non-Mormons for insulting him" (The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, pp. 261-262).

[–] EXPLICITSOUL5 17 years ago

Mormonism is a cult <period> They also had many racist doctrines up until recently.

[–] gjampol 17 years ago

The film is a hagiography and, as such, it doesn't matter how accurate it is. Because I don't believe in "revealed" religions, I treat it as a work of fiction, and any criticisms I have would be based on the acting, production values, direction, etc.

I believe that God does not interfere in the lives of humans and He doesn't reveal Himself through intercessors (e.g., Moses, Mohammed, Jesus, Joseph Smith). So, the film is on par with "Gone With the Wind."

[–] gjampol 17 years ago

[–] all_right_fine 17 years ago

I don't understand what you mean by "as a man". Mormons don't believe the prophet is more than a man just like Catholics don't believe the Pope is more than a man or other religions believe their bishops or preachers are. Joseph smith WAS just a man, though if he had a calling, he was a man with a calling and help from God.