LDS Church film set brings Jerusalem to Utah desert
I have to wonder about the investment here on a set that will last 20 years. Is
it a wise use of money?By the way, I've seen pictures and I think
Utah looks a lot like Afghanistan.
Dear Esquire: The Church is ALWAYS wise with the Lord's money. The brethren
always do what's best with resources. If they have built this set, there's a
good reason for it. It's a lot less expensive than transporting whole film
crews to the Middle East for productions. Over the years, it will be a great
asset to the ChurchI'm dying to see this place. I heard they are
going to allow tours. I sure hope so.
Dear Esquire: If it helps convert even one soul to better follow the Savior, it
will be worth it.
As someone who has been asked to be a part of this unique opportunity to portry
a person during these biblical times, I find this a wonderful opportunity to
bring the spirit of Christ to all. Thru recreation of old Jersusalem and actors
being asked to grow their hair, once actor and set is put together, I feel the
spirit of what is being portrayed will come to life in such a way that will
touch many lives. I for one am excited and honored to be a part of such a
wonderful project. If this film touches one soul to turn to God it will have
been worth all the effort.
esq:if you have those questions and donate to the church, stop donating.
otherwise, let those of us that do not worry what the church does with tithes. i
have NO concerns where the church uses the Lord's money.udder no sense:you obviously have not been to SC's Heritage USA. No connection whatsoever. it
was an amusement park.
@Utter Nonsense | 9:24 a.m. Aug. 2, 2011PAYSON, UTHow tacky. Tacky,
tacky, tacky. Reminds me of the Bible theme park built by Jim and Tammy Faye
Baker.________YOU are tacky. This is not a theme park or anything
of the kind. It's a movie set, for heaven's sake (pun intended!).
Re: Utter Nonsense | 9:24 a.m. Aug. 2, 2011 "How tacky. Tacky, tacky,
tacky."Ebenezer Scrooge probably would have agreed with you.
Only he'd have said 'humbug'. It is a movie set for crying out loud.
I kind of wonder if they've gone a little bit overboard with the making
everything look old. In the time of Christ, Jerusalem was 2000 years less old
than it is now. The Roman buildings in particular, were relatively new when
Pilate ruled. Did they remember that?
(Finally!) Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ left out all of His teachings.
What a disappointment that was. I can't wait to see these vignettes. People
are hungry for that which resonates in the soul. So many young people are
growing up with no guiding star to point to the better way. No one gives them
the Scriptures. The teachings of the Master in these vignettes will help fill
the empty meaninglessness that life otherwise offers.
It's interesting that in the real Goshen in Egypt there have been no
archelolgical discoveries that indicate that Israelites were every there. We
know right where Goshen was and according to the Bible, they were there for
hundreds of years and had a population into the hundreds of thousands. Why no
archeological evidence? Does lack of archeological evidence in Goshen disprove
the Bible? Does the lack of archeological evidence disprove the Book of Mormon?
Actually there is archeological evidence that supports the Bible in many ways
and the Book of Mormon. The problem is that it is really depending on what one
is looking for to say there isn't any proof. The proof is there, just maybe not
in the manner someone is looking.There is a place in Central America
that dates back over 2000 years to the time of the Book of Mormon. Scientist
have stated "We don't know who these people were, where they came from or
the proper names of the place. Only that they lived here." Now answer
this does this prove the Book of Mormon. No, and it isn't meant to be but
science can only go so far.
Bill, My point was that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence." If people discredit the Book of Mormon because of absence of
evidence, then the same faulty logic can be used to discredit the Bible. I
accept both as being true. However, the discovery of "Nahom" is a
hard one for sceptics to get around. Not "proof" perhaps. But, I've
yet to hear or read a logical explanation by the sceptics.
To JSB: I apologize as I misunderstood what you were saying. Thank you for the
clarification and I agree with what you are saying completely. It is true that
NAHOM is not proof but it is proof of plausibility and that Joseph Smith didn't
just make it up. There are those who frequent these boards that completely and
totally disagree with us and that is their right. However, when they ask for
proof and it is given to them they basically ignore it or try to rationalize it
away. As stated earlier, proof is in the eye of the beholder.
Bill in Nebraska said, Actually there is archeological evidence that supports
the Bible, True.Biblical Archeology review Magazine has many
articles like Ancient Artifacts, from skeletal remains to long-lost cities
buried under desert sands, archaeological finds continue to prove Bible history.
Top Ten Archaeological Discoveries of the Twentieth Century
Relating to the Biblical World Keith N. Schoville Professor Emeritus of Hebrew
events to life and affirms God's infallible Word with tangible proofs.As the Apostles creed says, He suffered under Pontius Pilate. Pilate was a
real person in history, Jesus was in true history.
Darn, and after settling in Goshen in the 1850s my family left it to go to
Canada in 1901. I was there in 1997 and it was a guiet little place and I was
related to most of the folks in the cemetary.I hope to get to see
this project at some point.
If the church used every penny spent on this set and the films they will make on
feeding and clothing the poor instead, they would have done a far greater
service and brought more people to Christ.Can you see Christ
directing His church to make movies about him rather than help people?
"Should I use this money to make movies about me or help the poor? Let's
make movies about me!"Yeah - I know - the LDS church does help
the poor. They must have money to burn, then.
utahpac12--Perhaps this project by the church WILL help the poor. The poor in
spirit.Oh, and the project is employing many people. Employment--also a
good way to help the poor.
It just to me like the church tries too hard to say "Look at us - we are
Christians! - We are spending all this money and using all these resources to
make movies about Christ! - This proves we are Christians!"In
my eyes if they would stop all the silly PR business trying to draw attention to
themselves and just greatly increase their level of unconditional acts of
charity and service they would improve their image and show they are Christians
as a by-product. They obviously have the resources to do this.
As a biblical scholar and Presbyterian Minister - and a son of the Utah
Pioneers, I wasn't so concerned with this story's attempt to bless LDS
understanding of the Bible/Book of Mormon or any other scriptures. As one who
has been to Palestine/Israel twice, and one who as studied biblical archeology,
I was most concerned that the representation of this new theme park/theatrical
back drop looks more like a 20th century expression of conceptions of the Holy
Land than the real thing.
First off, the three wooden crosses look nothing like the Roman crucifixes,
which were top bars placed on a wooden post, more in the shape of a T, or a Tau,
as the ancient Romans called it. The Roman cardos (market streets) were much
wider with porticos for merchants. However, the ancient Israeli streets (now
buried below 3-6 feet of remains) were very narrow. The climate was that of the
eastern Levant, a Mediterranean climate with olive trees, grape vines, almonds,
sheep, and goats. While there are parts of the Judean hills that resemble the
desert of the Western U.S., there is nowhere the level of rockiness and what the
indigenous people call white gold - the special white limestone that was able to
be polished to look like marble in the construction of the second temple.
Neither the back drops, nor the landscapes of Utah resemble much of the Levant.
To pretend otherwise is to import the pretended geographical nomenclature of one
area onto it's original.
One way to ask the question about the "use of money" is what are the
other options? Well, film is a powerful media and used well can present the
gospel in a way that other media can not quite do. There is a need for multiple
appraoches, but film has a place.Making the film needs to be done.
So the question is, is the oportunity cost of this project worth it. First off,
there is something do be said for well done sets. Some people get distracted if
your set is not realistic.So at some level you have the choice of
building a set or shooting in Jerusalem. Not only is there a cost of going to
Jerusalem, but the fact that Israel does not believe in religious freedom and is
extremely suspicious of Chrstiainity makes it much easier to do such filming in
the US than there. Plus there is not as much a threat of violence. So the
gains from this set are great, even in non-monetary respects. In the case of
money this is probably if anything cheaper than filming in Jerusalem.
This is not a theme park, so it would be nice if people paid attention to
distinctions. The charge of the Church is to bring all unto Christ,
and this certainly does that.Art is a good thing. Without art life
would not be worth living.
It would also really help if people paid attention to the article. It mentions
bringing in sheep and goats. They are going for in the city shots and are not
going to go for wide broad shots. Basically we have two people who gripe too
much money is spent, and than Mac who wants the Church to spend way more money.
That is because any sight that is anything like what he describes would cost a
whole lot to build.It is bad enough to have people who get hung up
on minor details in films instead of hearing the message. For people to attack
film sets because they do not understand the whole function of a film set is to
provide a controlled backdrop but it is only the part you capture in camera that
matters is just plain frustrating.This is a film set, not a theme
park. It is meant to be taken in small chucnks for the film. If people
understood this than some of their complaints would not occur.
I am amazed at how people interpret what they see and read. Pastor Willy Mack,
you say you were from Utah. I pray that you have not left the church to be a
leader in another faith. I have seen the start of the set in Goshen, I have a
daughter that lives in Goshen. I think it is great that this creation is being
finished to benefit those who want to know more about the Lord's Church. I
bear my Testimony that the Church of Jesus Christ was restored to the earth by
Joseph Smith Jr. I am grateful that my ancestors joined the church, and many of
them made the trek west so that the gospel could be spread to all the world. If
anyone wants to know more, they should contact the Missionaries or active
members of the church in your area. yes I am proud to say I am a Mormon.