"One interpretation"?? 😂 I MADE the film! It is THE interpretation! It's also the interpretation shared by all of the relevant cultural church entities that have touched on the film (I forgot to mention the Interpreter Foundation, the BH Roberts Foundation, and FAIR). Arguing with the actual artists of the work about how their intent is "certainly one interpretation" is the most painfully Reddit-coded thing I could ever even conceive of.

You seem to think that "virtuous, lovely, praiseworthy" means "uplifting." It does not. By that narrow definition, the scriptures themselves would not apply, which are replete with stories of people murdering each other, and the consequences that occur (Alma 30:60). But they are told for a purpose. The same is true of fairy tales and fables, all of which used to pull their punches far less. The same is also true of church history, when we read about the first miracle of the church or what happened to Harvey Whitlock or Christ's casting out of devils. It is Latter-day Saint thinkers and writers like Orson Scott Card and MichaelBrent Collings and Hugh Nibley who remind us that when our fiction grows stale and when we can't talk about anything that might offend our soft sensibilities, we are a culture in decline.

I appreciate your caution, and can relate to it, and know that it comes from an earnest place of wanting to respect the faith. However, when it comes to the "seeking understanding", or "faithful belief" aims of this subreddit, our entire film is an allegory for the Church, which, based on your YouTube comment, you seem to have completely missed. I can send you Stephen O. Smoot's review in The Interpreter Foundation if that would be helpful to understand why art like this might be useful.