cinepro

That's an interesting question. I remembered hearing the JS studied Hebrew, but it looks like it went a bit beyond that. If Joseph Smith spent time studying all those languages, he obviously recognized that there was some sort of regular translation to be done.

I have to admit I really feel out of the loop on a lot of this, since I don't live in Utah and I (apparently) don't ever roam the same corners of the internet as "Deznat". It seems to be another one of those things where extremism in the Church is ever-present and prevalent to some people, but it just leaves me scratching my head. Take the Jan 6 insurrection/riot. Some critics have pointed to there being some LDS people in the crowd as being evidence of the Church "breeding" this kind of extremist violence. Certainly, cosplay Moroni guy doesn't help the optics. But from the estimated 2,000 - 2,500 rioters, and the 800 who have been charged, how many were LDS? I have no idea. 20? 50? 100? Then consider how many adult men are in the LDS Church in the United States. There are 12,000 wards, so estimate how many active, adult men are in an average ward. I would guess 40, but insert your own number here. So with my estimate, there would be about 480,000 active adult LDS men in the US, and 100(?) participated in the capitol riot. How many are associated with "DezNat"? I have no idea, but is it more than 100? 1,000? The point being, if it's the Church's purpose to create extremism and violence (or we're going to argue that extremism is simply a bi-product that is concerning enough to warrant a Hulu miniseries), this would have to be chalked up as one of the things at which the Church is massively and totally failing. I mean, if my experience in EQ was any indication, the Church could barely muster enough energy in its men to home teach a couple times a year, or even come to Church regularly. Over-zealousness was not something that seemed to be a big problem.

I agree with that article too. I think the problem is that defenders of the show equate its message and the meaning they get from it (and frankly, what they desperately want it to mean) with the value of the show in general. But when I say the dialogue is terrible, the acting and direction are overdrawn, and from what I can tell, the depictions of 1984 American Fork Mormon culture stilted and off-key, I'm not saying that what happened wasn't a tragedy, and the problems of zealotry and violence in the Church shouldn't be discussed. I'm just saying it isn't a very good show. This reminds me of when Star Wars Episode 1 came out in 1999, and the shock Star Wars fans experienced. We wanted to like it so much. It was supposed to be the greatest movie ever. But I saw it three times in theaters before I finally admitted it was terrible. I haven't been able to sit through it since. Likewise, I expect this show will be discussed and referenced for many years to come in some quarters. But it won't be being re-watched.

Well, historical inaccuracies like that also bug me. But if we're saying that UTBOH is on par with ham-fisted Church propaganda videos in its accuracy, tone, and intent (not to mention the quality of the acting and writing), I guess...I agree?

If you recall, the documentary had lots of recreations, with actors and sets and costumes depicting Hofmann and his associates. Those are the scenes I was referring to. Granted, I don't think there was much dialogue, and it's hard to over-do a couple guys in an MR2 going out to the desert to shoot Uzis.

But from what I'm seeing, that isn't the issue. The issue isn't historical facts and what is being left out or included in the narrative. The problem is the world that is being re-created. "Banner of Heaven" is re-creating a setting of Utah/Mormon culture in American Fork, Utah in the summer of 1984. This is a real place, at a real time, even if some of the specific characters are fictional. The complaints seem to focus on the show going out of its way to make things a lot weirder than they were. The language isn't the language that was used. People aren't relating to each other the way people in American Fork, Utah did in 1984. If you make a based-on-reality show about American Fork in the summer of 1984, and people who lived in American Fork in 1984 (and similar communities in Utah) are mystified at why people are talking to each other oddly and acting weirdly, then that's a failure. The show seems to go out of its way to make the language and culture weirder than it was to appeal to people who wouldn't know better. Like I've said, I didn't live there. So if I watched the show and thought it was weird but people who lived there were saying "Wow, it's like watching home movies of how things were back then!", I would consider it instructional on how weird Utah was in 1984 and salute the filmmakers for a job well done. The Hofmann documentary seems to have really gotten it right with their recreations. So it can be done.

FYI, I tried to send you the article in your private messages but it gave me an error and said you can't receive messages. Maybe it can be read without a subscription? https://www.wsj.com/articles/about-those-dangerous-mormons-under-banner-heaven-dustin-lance-black-latter-day-saints-11651783480?link=TD_fnlondon_home.27995a643976ebba&utm_source=fnlondon_home.27995a643976ebba&utm_campaign=circular&utm_medium=WSJ

I don't think I've seen any LDS complain about the actual historical recreations being inaccurate. The complaints I've seen are more about the culture and experience of early 1980s Utah. Granted, I (thankfully) grew up outside of Utah in the early 1980s, so I can't speak from personal experience. And I've only watched the first episode. But it seemed like some really odd Twilight Zone episode more than a story placed in any real-world setting. I'm surprised there hasn't been more comparison to the Netflix Mark Hofmann documentary. It's obviously a different format (a documentary with dramatizations), but I don't recall a single complaint from any LDS, and the dramatizations depict almost the same time and place. The sets and scenarios all felt like totally authentic mid-1980s Utah as I would imagine it, and people from that place and era seemed to agree. And it dealt with similarly difficult history and issues, but it was almost universally lauded by TBM and exMo alike for its presentation. Heck, I even get weird nostalgia flashbacks from "Stranger Things." I would expect a well produced show to be giving people who were living in Utah in the 1980s similar flashbacks, instead of leaving them scratching their heads about why people are talking so funny and acting so weirdly about their crazy-violent church.

I've only been in four baptismal interviews for kids: my own, and my three kids. So it's a pretty small sample. But I don't recall ever hearing any questions that were unusual for a soon-to-be eight year old. It was more like a conversation about different Church things. The one thing I remember from my interview is that I had recently watched a science show on PBS where they talked about ice, and the segment ended with the hosts putting ice in iced tea and saying "I love it in iced tea. It's delicious!" So when the bishop asked me about drinking coffee, tea etc., I said "nope, except for ice in iced tea. It's delicious!" I can still remember how shocked my mom looked. Somehow I was still able to get baptized.

I apologize if the exaggeration in my original statement was not evident. I obviously don't think every former member of the LDS Church would agree on anything (since the number is presumably in the millions, or at least the high six figures), let alone all share the same opinion of a specific book. I wouldn't even say that all members of the LDS Church think the Book of Mormon is "true", so obviously a disparate group of "ex Mormons" wouldn't all agree about anything (except maybe that the LDS Church isn't "true"?) To be clear, my statement should have said: "That story is actually found in the scriptures, so we are sure it happened. And by 'scriptures', I mean 'No Man Knows My History', which is scripture to many exMos, especially those represented in online forums such as the eMo subreddit, but that view may not be shared by many other exMos, and this comment is not meant to represent the views of all exMos. It is merely a parody of the devotion many exMos feel towards that book. This statement is intended as a humorous observation, exaggerated for effect, and should not be taken literally."

Not really. Go to any exMo forum and say "Hey, I've been a member my whole life and am just now exploring church history because I saw an ad for that 'Banner of Heaven' show on Hulu. I'm thinking of reading 'No Man Knows My History.' Is it any good?" You will get dog piled by people trying to out do each other with their praises of the book (and the idea of a faithful LDS reading it will move them to a state of ecstasy). From what I can tell, there is zero awareness that there are any problems with the book.

That story is actually found in the scriptures, so we are sure it happened. And by "scriptures", I mean "No Man Knows My History", which is scripture to exMos.

I was going to note that in 2022, no group has truly arrived until they are represented by a headlining superhero in their own film. But then I remembered that Trey Parker and Matt Stone covered that for us in 1997.

You forgot about Nephi killing Laban because it was better for him to perish for the benefit of posterity. That's like listing Rolling Stones songs and leaving out "Satisfaction."

My guess (and back to the point of the article in the OP) is that most women choose to give preference to the trans-female because they are scared out of their minds about what will happen to them if they express otherwise. Also, as with many such decisions, the biological females that get disadvantaged are largely invisible. The focus is almost entirely on the trans-female athlete. If people were also shown a picture of the biological woman who will lose her spot on the team and be replaced by the trans-woman, and the answers would be kept confidential, I wonder if the statistics would change. Maybe include a description of how hard the biological female has also worked to reach that level of skill in the sport. Here's where we disagree. Biological sex is the territory, not the map. Male/female boxes aren't something that culture and people made up to randomly sort people. They are terms we give to describe reality (i.e. the territory). Even if we called them something else, or nothing at all, the biological reality would continue to exist. About half the people would be distinctly biologically male, about half would be distinctly biologically female, and a very small percentage would be intersex or not distinctly one or the other. And i know it's probably rude to say it, but intersex is more of a mutation than a new biological sex. I have a genetic mutation that makes some of my organs work a little differently than most other humans, but that doesn't make me a new kind of human. I'm just a regular human with a genetic mutation.