Des News Article Re: "Under the Banner of Heaven" Mini Series

[smac97]

First, from the Tribune: Oscar winner doesn’t expect Latter-day Saints to love his miniseries about the Lafferty murders 

Quote

Oscar winner Dustin Lance Black does not expect a lot of positive feedback from Latter-day Saints about his miniseries “Under the Banner of Heaven,” because it not only recounts the infamous Lafferty murders in 1984 but ties them to the faith’s history.

“There is no world in which Mormons on the whole are going to embrace this show,” he told The Salt Lake Tribune. “We — and I say ‘we’ because I grew up as a Mormon — are very uncomfortable with other people examining who we are, who we’ve been. Period.”

Right.  Because nothing "examines" who the Latter-day Saints "are" like a big splashy mini-series about the Lafferty Brothers.

By Black's reasoning, gay people "examining who {they} are, who {they've} been" should do so by examining and emphasizing and broadcasting the lives of John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer.  These guys are about as representative of the "gay community" as the Laffertys are of the Latter-day Saints.

Quote

In the first episode, Allen Lafferty (Billy Howle), the husband and father of the victims, tells the lead investigator, “Our church breeds dangerous men.”

Imagine this being said of Muslims.  Or Jews.

"Our mosques breed dangerous men."

"Our synagogues breed dangerous men."

Quote

The miniseries is “inspired by” Jon Krakauer’s 2003 book of the same title. It is, in part, a true-crime drama about the horrific 1984 murders of Brenda Wright Laffery (Daisy Edgar-Jones) and her 15-month-old daughter, Erica, in their American Fork home.

The FX-produced series, which starts streaming Thursday, April 28, on Hulu, centers on a fictional police detective (Andrew Garfield), a devout member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose faith is shaken by what he uncovers during his investigation.
...
The miniseries dives into not just the murders but what led up to them, all the way back to 19th-century history. The portrayal of the 1984 investigation into the brutal murders includes multiple Latter-day Saint Church officials who, if not actually obstructionist, were less than helpful. And Pyre questions whether that was on orders from the First Presidency.

That, Black said, he learned when he interviewed several of the detectives who investigated the murders.
...
The miniseries is replete with Latter-day Saint references, most of the everyday sort: Baptismal interviews, CTR rings, the Tabernacle Choir, the First Vision, early morning seminary, bishops, stake presidents, “Lamanites,” missionaries, family home evening, and people calling each other “brother” and “sister” in both church and non-church settings.

There are darker things as well — such as the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the One Mighty and Strong, blood atonement, outer darkness, excommunication and allegations that Brigham Young’s bodyguard shot the governor of Missouri.

And there’s a consistent throughline that the motive behind the murders can be traced back through Mormon history, and that the modern Latter-day Saint church is intentionally trying to obscure that history. “They’ve hidden our truths with the secret combinations,” Allen says in Episode 1. “If you really still believe your God is love, then you don’t know who you are.”

Oi.

Quote

And there are a few things that locals are going to find odd. Brenda (who was raised in Idaho) seems to be under the impression that Brigham Young University is in Salt Lake City, and that the Laffertys were famous there. There are multiple references to them as “Utah’s Kennedys” and “Mormon royalty,” although most Utahns — certainly most who didn’t live in Utah County — were unaware of them until the murders.

Having grown up in American Fork - a mile or so away from Brenda Lafferty - I can attest that everyone in Utah County in the 80s knew where BYU was located.

As for the Laffertys being prominent .  . . nope.

Quote

The show’s promotional materials refer to this as a murder that took place in “the Salt Lake Valley,” which is in error. American Fork is in Utah Valley.

BYU in Salt Lake City.

American Fork in Salt Lake Valley.

Boy, Dustin Lance Black really did his homework.

Quote

“Under the Banner of Heaven” tells three interrelated stories — bits of Latter-day Saint history from Presidents Joseph Smith to John Taylor; the story of the Lafferty family before the murders; and the story of the investigation into the murders.

It’s not a documentary, however. It’s a dramatized version of reality. “The bulk of the fictionalization” is in the murder investigation, Black said. “But even the bones of that story are based upon the trial transcripts and the information that was shared by people who actively investigated the case. …

"'The bulk of the fictionalization' is in the murder investigation."  Black says was obstructed or hindered by the Church.  Right.

Quote

“You have to make it entertaining. It’s a television show. I have 7-and-a-half hours to tell a story that started in the early 19th century and ended in August of 1984.” So he compressed some storylines, combined some characters and changed some names, “but I do think it is truthful. I know I’ll be challenged on that. I know that’s going to be a debate and I’m ready to have it.”
...
Black spent a good deal of time with several detectives who investigated the murders, who told him that local church officials were less than helpful. And that they suspected the local officials were acting on the orders of higher-ups in Salt Lake City — up to and including the First Presidency.

Black was “purposely vague” about who he talked to, having promised not to reveal their identities. “They were very helpful, but I was asked to not depict them specifically,” he said. “They didn’t want to have to revisit this yet again.”

Lots of "fictionalization."  Conveniently anonymous sources.  Nice.

Quote

Black did “a tremendous amount of research” for “Under the Banner of Heaven” — including two years, a decade ago, when he devoted a great deal of time to the project. He came to Utah and interviewed members of the Lafferty family. He went to Idaho to talk to Brenda’s family, who gave him access to her journals and to letters she wrote to her sister.
...
“How do I set out to depict someone like Dan Lafferty without meeting him?” Black asked. “I needed to depict him as he was — as close as I possibly could. Because if I just made him the stereotype of a sociopathic monster, well, that’s not half as terrifying as it ought to be.”

The miniseries doesn’t offer excuses for what Ron and Dan became, but it does, perhaps, offer some explanation. In one scene, to punish the brothers for not doing their chores, their father beats their dog to death with a baseball bat. In another scene, he beats Dan.

Hmm.  Sounds like Black was more solicitous and careful about his depiction of Dan Lafferty than he is about the Church.

Quote

Krakauer’s book, “Under the Banner of Heaven,” came in for no small degree of criticism from the Latter-day Saint community. Cogent arguments were made that much of the violence he plucked from history was the result of violent attacks against church members; that his attempts to tie the Lafferty killings to Mormon history were weak; and that he displayed a disregard — if not actual disdain — for religion in general.

When the book was published in 2003, church-affiliated scholars wrote lengthy critiques of Krakauer’s prose and process. In a typical comment, author Robert L. Millet — now the emeritus dean of religious education at BYU and then the Richard L. Evans professor of religious understanding at BYU — called the book “not only a slap in the face of modern Latter-day Saints but also a misrepresentation of religion in general.”

Black holds the book in high regard.
...
Black said there are many things “in Mormonism that are worthy of being protected. Things about Mormonism that I miss — family, community. And at the same time, there are things that I am critical of.”

And Black insisted that he had no vendetta against the church. “This isn’t an attack,” he said. “This is a conversation that’s long overdue.”

Right.  About as overdue as the gay community being "overdue" in conversing about Gacy and Dahmer.

Quote

In addition to the suggestion that church leaders hindered the investigation into the murders, there are other scenes that will cause controversy in the Latter-day Saint community. In one, Ron Lafferty’s teenage daughter cuts the marks out of his temple garments after he’s excommunicated — he puts the garments on and stands in front of a mirror.

In another episode, there’s a reference to “secret LDS handshakes” in the temple. In another, Brenda and her soon-to-be sisters-in-law are inside a temple. Brenda says, “A woman older than Jesus’ sandals just put oil very, very close to my private parts.”

They talk about blood atonement, a disputed early church teaching that some sins required execution and the shedding of blood onto the ground. And they’re shown vowing to keep temple secrets at the cost of their own lives, complete with a throat-slashing motion.

Black makes no apologies for including the scene. “You need to know that young men and women were taught that in the temple. You need to learn that, until recently, that was a part of the ceremony in order to understand this case,” he said. “Because let me tell you what — a young woman and her 15-month-old baby had their throats cut.”

Wow.

Quote

When Allen Lafferty tells Pyre, “Our church breeds dangerous men,” he’s not just talking about fundamentalist Mormons, he’s talking about the mainstream church. “I think you can simply look at the history of the church and understand that that’s been true,” Black said.

In the second episode, Pyre tells Allen that Latter-day Saints wouldn’t kill someone “for stepping out of their place,” as the Lafferty brothers believe Brenda did. Allen replies, “It’s all over our history. And our scripture. God told Nephi that it’s better for one man to perish than for a whole nation to dwindle in unbelief.”

He’s not wrong. That’s God telling Nephi to kill a man in “The Book of Mormon.”

Krakauer’s detractors have long argued that his attempt to link 19th-century violence to 1980s murders was a stretch, if not entirely invalid. Black sees it as an attempt to look toward the future. “You can’t fix the present or the future if you don’t understand where the problem is coming from. If you don’t understand the source,” he said. “This show is going to make it clear what some of the sources are.”

There are scenes from church history showing Joseph Smith and other early church leaders involved in violent exchanges. There are flashbacks to the Mountain Meadows Massacre in 1857, when church members and some Native Americans murdered at least 120 settlers traversing southern Utah. There’s a flashback to the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper in 1844.

Not all the violence depicted is perpetrated by church members. There are flashbacks to church members being attacked, including a chilling re-creation of the Haun’s Mill Massacre, when a Missouri mob murdered 18 Mormons in 1838. There’s a flashback to Smith being murdered at Carthage jail in 1844.

One flashback ventures into conspiracy theory territory, suggesting Brigham Young helped facilitate Joseph Smith’s murder so that he could take control of the church and preserve polygamy — because Young feared Emma Smith was going to persuade her husband to abandon plural marriage.

Black said he felt “a responsibility to my Mormon brothers and sisters” to bring “Under the Banner of Heaven” to the screen. “Somebody’s got to shout it loud that things have got to change,” he said. “And so I do this for my mom more than anyone, because she loves her church. And at a certain point couldn’t reconcile why she was being treated as a servant in this life and eternity when she had such a capable mind.”

Yeah, nothing bespeaks "responsibility" like fabricating an accusation that Brigham Young conspired to murder Joseph Smith.

Meanwhile, here's the Deseret News' take: Perspective: Under the Banner of Hollywood

Quote

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints my faith teaches me to forgive 70 times 7. “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,” Jesus Christ says, “turn to him the other also.”

My faith admonishes me to love my enemies, to bless those that curse and to do good to those who hate. The current president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the 97-year-old former heart-surgeon Russell M. Nelson, recently pled with fellow Latter-day Saints “to do all you can to end personal conflicts that are currently raging in your hearts and in your lives.”

And yet, FX’s new serial drama “Under the Banner of Heaven,” a redux of Jon Krakauer’s book by the same name, is built on the premise that my faith is dangerous — violent even.

It’s an odd thesis.

But the logic goes something like this: by placing “revelation” above “reason” religionists are particularly susceptible to violence.

The irony, of course, is that Krakauer extols “reason,” while committing a fundamental logical fallacy — the fallacy of composition — assuming that what’s true of the parts (some religionists are violent) is also true of the whole (all religions/religionists are violent).

Yep.

Imagine if someone did this to the gay community by assuming that what is true of the parts (John Wayne Gacy) is also true of the whole (the gay community in general).

Dustin Black and Jon Krakauer can and will get away with it, though.

Quote

But, in fact, when it comes to Latter-day Saints, statistics support the idea that communities with a high percentage of Latter-day Saints tend to have lower-than-average rates of violent crime. Utah, the state with the highest percentage of Latter-day Saints in the country, ranks as the 13th least violent state in the nation, according to annual FBI statistics. Idaho, the state with the second-highest percentage of Latter-day Saints, ranks as the 10^th least violent state.

Some of the safest cities in Utah (Bountiful, Farmington, Pleasant Grove, Spanish Fork, etc.) are communities with higher-than-average Latter-day Saint populations (between 70%-90%). Meanwhile, the safest city in Idaho, Rexburg, is home to Brigham Young University-Idaho with a population that’s 90% Latter-day Saint.  

These don't mesh well with Black's preferred narrative, though.

Quote

When Krakauer’s book first arrived in the years following Sept. 11, 2001, violence and religion were still on the minds of many Americans. Some commentators thankfully drew careful distinctions between the very small group of violent terrorists who carried out the attacks and the millions of Muslims for whom faith inspires peace.

But Krakauer, Richard Dawkins and other atheistic types (Krakauer says he’s a nonbeliever, not an atheist) often displayed the limits of their own rationality by painting with too broad of brushstrokes and, ipso facto, equating religion with violence.

In his book, Krakauer uses the Lafferty murders, and the conflicts of early Mormons, to weave together a clever narrative that makes for an entertaining read, but ultimately presents an irrational argument.

The redux of “Under the Banner of Heaven” commits similar sins, depicting a fictional detective who gradually become disillusioned with his faith while investigating the Lafferty murders. But these sins seem less justified coming more than two decades after Sept. 11. With a release date in 2022, the schtick comes across as anachronistic at best, and just plain bigoted at worst.

Yep.

Quote

There’s an actual war in Ukraine right now. Latter-day Saints are sending humanitarian aid. Meanwhile the self-styled auteurs behind “Under the Banner of Heaven” are doing media junkets.

In fact, if any American community has the nation’s attention today for its acts of violence and irrationality, it wouldn’t be the suburbs of Salt Lake City. It would probably be Hollywood.

From the steady stream of Kevin Spacey-type #MeToo revelations to the recent right hook heard around the world to Johnny Depp’s ramblings on a witness stand to the shocking events on the set of “Rust,” the one culture that seems closer to producing “dangerous men” — a phrase used in the first episode of “Under the Banner of Heaven” — would likely be Tinseltown.  

So while there’s certainly room for reasoned critiques of religion in general, and my faith in particular, Hollywood today lacks the moral authority and “Under the Banner of Heaven” simply misses the substance.

Quite so.

Quote

When the Deseret News asked if any active Latter-day Saints were hired to help with the production of “Under the Banner of Heaven,” a publicist said they would check. They later confirmed that no active church members were paid to write or produce the show. But they did find some active Latter-day Saints working in costume design and with the “crew.”

So, there’s that.

Imagine Hollywood spending millions of dollars to produce a series focusing negative attention on a minority faith in America and then deciding not to integrate their voices into the writing or production. 

You don’t need to imagine. Hollywood just did that.

That's a pretty fair question.  Were active Latter-day Saints excluded from participating in the substantive part of the production?  Or could they not find anyone willing to sign on to this project?

Quote

To be fair, the show’s 47-year-old writer-producer Dustin Lance Black grew up as a member of the faith. And they had two other former church members involved. But Black’s career has also been punctuated by projects needling his childhood church.

For those not attuned to the oh-so-important happenings of Hollywood, Black cut his teeth (and a few checks for himself) while working on HBO’s “Big Love,” a drama about a polygamist family, as well as the not-so-friendly documentary titled “8: The Mormon Proposition.”

“Perhaps it’s controversial,” Black recently said about his latest work, “Under the Banner of Heaven,” “but listen, if you do a deep dive into any religion, but I think particularly the Mormon religion, there’s only two ways to go. It is either going to become a musical comedy or it’s going to turn to terror and horror.”

Seems pretty even-handed.

Imagine Dustin Black saying this about Muslims, Hindus, or Jews.

Quote

Utah has actually been in a nearly-two-century-long “deep dive” into the “Mormon religion” and today the state has one of the strongest economies in the country (The Wall Street Journal dubbed it an economic “star”) as well as one of the highest rates of upward mobility. By at least one measure, the state ranks as the happiest in the country and has the highest percentage of children being raised by two parents under the same roof.

Oh, the terror. Oh, the horror.

It’s public knowledge that Black takes issue with the church’s past political efforts to define marriage as being between one man and one woman (reminder: in 2008 Barack Obama believed the law should define marriage as being between one man and one woman). Black was angered by the politics of California’s Proposition 8.

But we’re now almost a decade and a half removed from Proposition 8. Same-sex marriage is the law of the land. As recently as 2019, Utah ranked second in the nation in terms of overall support for LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws. The church is pushing for federal legislation that seeks to balance religious liberty and LGBTQ rights. Noted thinkers and long-time advocates of same-sex marriage such as Jonathan Rauch of Brookings and William Eskridge of Yale Law School, among others, have publicly encouraged such efforts.

None of this fits Black's preferred narrative.

Quote

Despite the constant drumbeat in some quarters that gay Latter-day Saint kids are far worse living in Latter-day Saint homes, researchers from Bowling Green State University recently published findings suggesting that gay Latter-day Saint kids may actually have lower suicidality than non-Latter-day Saint kids in Utah. Scholars attribute these findings to lower rates of drug use — Latter-day Saints eschew drugs and alcohol — and more stable two-parent households. 

Utah, of course, isn’t all glowing statistics. It has plenty of flaws. And so too do Latter-day Saints. 

But “Under the Banner of Heaven” doesn’t take much of an interest in the contemporary issues that could actually foster a better understanding of my faith tradition. Instead, the production comes across as yet one more mile marker in a decades-long trail of angst.

In old times you heard the words “thou shalt not kill,” Jesus says in his sublime Sermon on the Mount. But anyone who is “angry,” he continues, is in danger of judgment and in need of reconciliation. So leave your offering at the temple, he tells his followers, and go and make things right.

America is in desperate need of reconciliation.

We must work to foster genuine peace. But it won’t happen if our entertainers continue to sell us fear and resentment. Sadly too much of the latter is what’s produced these days under the banner of Hollywood. 

Good stuff, this.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 14, 2024 by smac97

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Good stuff, this.

Thoughts?

There's a good piece in the Deseret News website on the series

https://www.deseret.com/2022/4/25/23037480/under-the-banner-of-heaven-in-hollywood-latter-day-saints

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In the first episode, Allen Lafferty (Billy Howle), the husband and father of the victims, tells the lead investigator, “Our church breeds dangerous men.”

 

"From the steady stream of Kevin Spacey-type #MeToo revelations to the recent right hook heard around the world to Johnny Depp’s ramblings on a witness stand to the shocking events on the set of “Rust,” the one culture that seems closer to producing “dangerous men” — a phrase used in the first episode of “Under the Banner of Heaven” — would likely be Tinseltown.  

 

So while there’s certainly room for reasoned critiques of religion in general, and my faith in particular, Hollywood today lacks the moral authority and “Under the Banner of Heaven” simply misses the substance."

[ksfisher]

Also this, responding to the "violent men" line, from the Deseret News article:

"But, in fact, when it comes to Latter-day Saints, statistics support the idea that communities with a high percentage of Latter-day Saints tend to have lower-than-average rates of violent crime. Utah, the state with the highest percentage of Latter-day Saints in the country, ranks as the 13th least violent state in the nation, according to annual FBI statistics. Idaho, the state with the second-highest percentage of Latter-day Saints, ranks as the 10^th least violent state.

Some of the safest cities in Utah (Bountiful, Farmington, Pleasant Grove, Spanish Fork, etc.) are communities with higher-than-average Latter-day Saint populations (between 70%-90%). Meanwhile, the safest city in Idaho, Rexburg, is home to Brigham Young University-Idaho with a population that’s 90% Latter-day Saint. "

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

Also this, responding to the "violent men" line, from the Deseret News article:

"But, in fact, when it comes to Latter-day Saints, statistics support the idea that communities with a high percentage of Latter-day Saints tend to have lower-than-average rates of violent crime. Utah, the state with the highest percentage of Latter-day Saints in the country, ranks as the 13th least violent state in the nation, according to annual FBI statistics. Idaho, the state with the second-highest percentage of Latter-day Saints, ranks as the 10^th least violent state.

Some of the safest cities in Utah (Bountiful, Farmington, Pleasant Grove, Spanish Fork, etc.) are communities with higher-than-average Latter-day Saint populations (between 70%-90%). Meanwhile, the safest city in Idaho, Rexburg, is home to Brigham Young University-Idaho with a population that’s 90% Latter-day Saint. "

I hadn't realized this had already been quoted in the OP.  Need to read closer.

[jkwilliams]

I’m always curious as to how outsiders portray my religious culture, so I figured I’d probably check it out. The overwrought reactions of some of the most uber-aggressive apologists before even seeing it tend to increase my interest. 

I did read some comments from one of the story consultants (a wretched apostate like me), and it sounded to me like he had a good approach. And I think Lindsey Hansen Park’s involvement suggests at least some attempt at accuracy. 

But I haven’t seen it yet, so my speculation is just that. I’ll just have to watch it and report back. 
 

Edited April 25, 2022 by jkwilliams

[CA Steve]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m always curious as to how outsiders portray my religious culture, so I figured I’d probably check it out. The overwrought reactions of some of the most uber-aggressive apologists before even seeing it tend to increase my interest

Hey John,

I hope you are doing well.

It's not only that we are uncomfortable with outsiders examining who we are and who we have been, I think that we as Mormons are very uncomfortable even when other Mormon's ask questions about ourselves. Just look at the overwrought (I like that word!) reactions to Dehlin, Bill Reel, Gina Colvin and many others who comment publicly on Mormonism. I am sure you of all people are aware of how other members react to questions. or even the hint of controversy. I remember calling my dad up to tell him about this new website called "The Joseph Smith Papers." and telling him excitedly how it was going to publish this enormous treasure trove of historical documents relating to Smith. Dad's first question was: "Is this an anti site?"

 

 

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m always curious as to how outsiders portray my religious culture, so I figured I’d probably check it out. The overwrought reactions of some of the most uber-aggressive apologists before even seeing it tend to increase my interest. 

If members of the gay community were being told by Hollywood bigwigs that they need to "examine" their community by having "conversations" about John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer, I don't think you would characterize their negative reactions as "overwrought."

I am not calling for violence.  Or censorship.  Or mobs and protests.  Or anything else along these lines.  I'm criticizing the project on a message board.  Calling this "overwrought" seems . . . overwrought.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

13 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Hey John,

I hope you are doing well.

It's not only that we are uncomfortable with outsiders examining who we are and who we have been, I think that we as Mormons are very uncomfortable even when other Mormon's ask questions about ourselves. Just look at the overwrought (I like that word!) reactions to Dehlin, Bill Reel, Gina Colvin and many others who comment publicly on Mormonism. I am sure you of all people are aware of how other members react to questions. or even the hint of controversy. I remember calling my dad up to tell him about this new website called "The Joseph Smith Papers." and telling him excitedly how it was going to publish this enormous treasure trove of historical documents relating to Smith. Dad's first question was: "Is this an anti site?"

 

 

I’m well, just recovering from shoulder surgery. 2 more months of PT. I remember having knee-jerk reactions to any “nonfaith-promoting” discussions of the church. I’m not sure where that discomfort comes from, but I know it wasn’t just me. 

I’m told, by the way, that the CP stake center is up for sale, leaving my parents’ ward the only remaining ward in what used to be that stake. Makes me sad and nostalgic. 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m always curious as to how outsiders portray my religious culture, so I figured I’d probably check it out. The overwrought reactions of some of the most uber-aggressive apologists before even seeing it tend to increase my interest. 

I did read some comments from one of the story consultants (a wretched apostate like me), and it sounded to me like he had a good approach. And I think Lindsey Hansen Park’s involvement suggests at least some attempt at accuracy. 

But I haven’t seen it yet, so my speculation is just that. I’ll just have to watch it and report back. 
 

Seeing how my religion is negatively portrayed always makes me think about how I view others faiths.  Do I laugh at a joke about the Pope that I would fight offensive if the subject was President Nelson?  How do I view negative stereotypes of Jews or Muslims?  I don't know if I have a good answer as to when a negative portrayal of a faith goes to far, but it's a good thing to think about.

Edited April 25, 2022 by ksfisher

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If members of the gay community were being told by Hollywood bigwigs that they need to "examine" their community by having "conversations" about John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer, I don't think you would characterize their negative reactions as "overwrought."

I am not calling for violence.  Or censorship.  Or mobs and protests.  Or anything else along these lines.  I'm criticizing the project on a message board.  Calling this "overwrought" seems . . . overwrought.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Gay folks are told all the time they should examine their community by having conversations about the perceived worst aspects of said community. 

Comparing a miniseries to homophobia and antisemitism seems overwrought to me. Is Shtisel an attack on Orthodox Judaism? Maybe some people think so. 

Like I said, I’ll watch it and then share my reaction. Who knows, maybe it will turn out to be this century’s “Der Ewige Jude.”

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Seeing how my religion is negatively portrayed always makes me think about how I view others faiths.  Do I laugh at a joke about the Pope that I would fight offensive if the subject was President Nelson?  How do I view negative stereotypes of Jews or Muslims? 

I guess we’ll have to see if this miniseries stereotypes or ridicules church members. 

Edited April 25, 2022 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Gay folks are told all the time they should examine their community by having conversations about the perceived worst aspects of said community. 

And those "conversations" are . . . narrated in big splashy Hollywood mini-series and written by people hostile to that community?  With no discernible input from that community?

Right. 

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Comparing a miniseries to homophobia and antisemitism seems overwrought to me.

It is the content of the miniseries that makes the comparison apt.

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Is Shtisel an attack on Orthodox Judaism? Maybe some people think so. 

Like I said, I’ll watch it and then share my reaction. Who knows, maybe it will turn out to be this century’s “Der Ewige Jude.”

It's not unreasonable to survey Black's prior characterizations of the Church and its members, and to review his preemptive defenses of this project, and to review the content of what we know so far, and surmise that it's going to be pejorative.  A diatribe.  Unfair.  

If your comparison to the Nazis holds ("maybe it will turn out to be this century’s 'Der Ewige Jude'" - interesting how it was "presented as a documentary"), it seems pretty absurd to say "Hey, maybe this time the Nazis will play it straight in their characterization of Jews."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 25, 2022 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

Ben Park has weighed in, for what it’s worth. 

https://religiondispatches.org/fxs-under-the-banner-of-heaven-adaptation-rejects-reductive-elements-of-krakauers-book-but-confirms-that-mormonism-breeds-dangerous-men/?fbclid=IwAR1nT42e3YVTPonPpRP1Qe209K5Y6NqQuIO2RUNE19kY-U35YOj_HW6SsLE

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And those "conversations" are . . . narrated in big splashy Hollywood mini-series and written by people hostile to that community?  With no discernible input from that community?

Right. 

It is the content of the miniseries that makes the comparison apt.

It's not unreasonable to survey Black's prior characterizations of the Church and its members, and to review his preemptive defenses of this project, and to review the content of what we know so far, and surmise that it's going to be pejorative.  A diatribe.  Unfair.  

If your comparison to the Nazis holds ("maybe it will turn out to be this century’s 'Der Ewige Jude'" - interesting how it was "presented as a documentary"), it seems pretty absurd to say "Hey, maybe this time the Nazis will play it straight in their characterization of Jews."

Thanks,

-Smac

So, you’re doubling down on Lance Black as a Nazi? 

[smac97]

A review by Ben Park: FX’S ‘UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN’ ADAPTATION REJECTS REDUCTIVE ELEMENTS OF KRAKAUER’S BOOK, BUT CONFIRMS THAT ‘MORMONISM BREEDS DANGEROUS MEN’

Quote

I was a twenty-year-old missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Washington DC in 2003. My companion and I, temporarily serving in a rural community about an hour southeast of the nation’s capital, had been teaching an elderly gentleman for several weeks. He was a widower, retired, and seemed mildly interested in our message. But something had changed when we returned on a clear-skied Thursday afternoon, as he appeared much more aloof and uninterested. When asked why, he pointed to a new book, just released, sitting on his coffee table. 

It was Jon Krakauer’s Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith. 

No book on Mormonism has sold more copies in the past two decades than Krakauer’s riveting tale. It appeared on The New York Times Best Seller list for weeks in 2003 and remains a top seller nineteen years later. Other than the Book of Mormon itself, Under the Banner of Heaven has likely shaped more Americans’ minds about the LDS faith than any other book.

Park has both the training and personal experience to gauge the accuracy and fairness of this project, I think.

Quote

Rumors concerning a film adaptation appeared almost immediately, but the story will finally make its dramatic appearance as a true-crime miniseries this week. It stars Andrew Garfield as police detective Jeb Pyre investigating a tragic case that leads him to question a faith he thought he knew, uncover a past he didn’t know existed, and penetrate a community that many wish didn’t survive.

The series is bound to ask questions once again concerning not only America’s most famous home-grown religion, Mormonism, but also the nature and implications of belief more generally.

A vehicle for condemning Muslim violence 

The LDS Church was coming off a publicity high at the moment Krakauer’s book arrived. Led by Gordon B. Hinckley, a nonagenarian with an infectious smile who’d directed the Church’s publicity outreach for decades before becoming its president in 1995, the faith had recently taken a much more congenial approach to American media. Hinckley was the first LDS president to hold sit-down, substantial, and televised interviews, which began with CBS’s 60 Minutes in 1996, and continued with Larry King, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Time. 

Hinckley’s exuberant optimism and insistence on Mormonism’s gregariousness did much to change the faith’s reputation. The culmination of this new congenial approach was Salt Lake City’s hosting the 2002 Winter Olympics, which received international acclaim. The Church finally appeared to be gaining mainstream acceptance.

The honeymoon period wouldn’t last. Krakauer’s Under the Banner of Heaven appeared the very next year, immediately becoming a bestseller. The book tells the story of the grisly murders of Brenda Lafferty and her infant daughter, Erica, at the hands of her brothers-in-law, Ron and Dan Lafferty. 

Though excommunicated from the LDS church, Krakauer argues that the brothers were inspired by their religious heritage. The Laffertys were the natural culmination of 150 years of history centered on blind obedience, religious zealotry, and violence. “Make no mistake,” Krakauer insists, “the modern Mormon Church may now be in the American mainstream, but it usually hugs the extreme right edge of the flow.” 

There was a particular cultural context for this argument. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Krakauer wanted to discover the roots of “violent faith.” He insists that any belief in God is fundamentally irrational, therefore making violence its inevitable result. The “dark side to religious devotion” is that it “predictably” led to evil actions. Mormonism was, in the end, the means to condemn radical Islam.

Yeah, Krakauer was pretty obviously trying to create an equivalence between the Laffertys to "Muslim violence" (as did the folks who made September Dawn).

Quote

The Church pursued by its plural past

The book’s immediate reach demonstrated how it struck a chord for an American public still trying to understand Mormonism. It seemed to confirm a suspicion that, despite a century of efforts toward cultural assimilation, the homegrown religion headquartered in Utah could not be fully trusted. Casting the Mormons as zealots was one topic on which secular humanists, who distrusted most ecclesiastical institutions, and evangelicals, who never fully accepted the faith, could agree. That the book was published shortly after Elizabeth Smart’s kidnapping at the hands of another Mormon extremist only added fuel to the fire.

Scholars were unpersuaded by Krakauer’s argument, and several historians outside the LDS faith have written about the problems with its reductive history and arguments. But mainstream Latter-day Saints were simply aghast. The Church felt so threatened by the book’s mass appeal that they issued three statements that meticulously challenged both specific historical facts as well as its general thesis. A legion of volunteer apologists penned tedious responses. Cultural acceptance seemed, once again, to be fleeting.

A crucial part of Krakauer’s tale is exposing the history of Mormon fundamentalism, the diaspora of polygamists spread across the Mountain West and constantly covered in American popular culture. Though LDS leaders publicly denounced plural marriage in 1890, it took several more decades to completely detach from the practice. When they did, many devoted believers saw it as a betrayal, and some eventually formed their own churches. 

There are now over a dozen polygamous churches that each claim to be the “true” institution. Some are more traditional, like the FLDS sect led by incarcerated Warren Jeffs, while others appear more modern, like those that appear in the TLC reality series Sister Wives. All, however, are denounced by the LDS church, who take pains to distance themselves from what they see as an unfortunate connection to the past, and excommunicate anyone who enters a polygamous relationship.

In Krakauer’s tale, these fundamentalists are the link between Mormonism’s violent past and the Laffertys’ violent present. And while scholars have critiqued his understanding of fundamentalist history, and most fundamentalists emphasize that the Laffertys were part of a small and unrepresentative schism, the association forced the Latter-day Saint community to emphasize the difference once again between them. That this often requires Mormons to downplay their own past only adds to the complicated dialogue.

Two decades later, Under the Banner of Heaven is still a literary force. It often tops Amazon’s ranking for top sellers on Mormonism, and the new show will likely assure that doesn’t change.

Whether it is accurate and fair, however...

Quote

A walk through Mormonism’s dark history

Krakauer wasn’t involved in the television series beyond his book serving as a primary source. It shows. Mormonism is depicted as far more multi-layered in this adaptation, and viewers will catch glimpses of a religious depth that the book never offered. 

It also avoids the trappings of Krakauer’s fixation on the fundamentalist movement, only touching on those aspects that immediately influenced the Laffertys. And while there are the historical anachronisms one might expect given creative license, the dramatic retelling appears much truer to the historical picture than the book, with a few notable exceptions.

The miniseries improves on the book in terms of accuracy?  Well, sorta...

Quote

The series, adapted by acclaimed screenwriter Dustin Lance Black (Big Love, Milk) and directed by David Mackenzie, also exhibits several cultural fascinations from the post-Krakauer period. The political and libertarian influence on the Laffertys’ radicalization have echoes of more recent anti-government movements led by Cliven and Ammon Bundy. The focus on the brothers’ grievances toward their wives reflect the current anxieties concerning manhood. And the frequent examination of gender roles moves beyond the often-misogynistic undertones of Krakauer’s analysis.

The creation of a fictional detective at the heart of the story, Andrew Garfield’s Jeb Pyre, is a compelling move, as it provides a sympathetic viewpoint from which to follow the story, which goes to great lengths to emphasize the parochial and superficially sweet community that was 1980s Utah. (Viewers might assume it was against the law to complete any sentence without the word “brother,” for example.) 

 

Despite these divergences from its source text, however, the series ultimately follows Krakauer’s general thesis. Whereas Pyre’s faith is innocent and simplistic, the role of truth-teller is given to Allen Lafferty, who’s introduced in the first episode as a sympathetic and credible confessor. Sympathetic, because his own wife and child were tragically killed by his zealot brothers; credible, because he was exposed to his brothers’ ideas but wise enough to reject them. 

It’s Allen who walks Pyre—and, therefore, the audience—through Mormonism’s dark history, warning him that the church had “hidden our truths with their secret combinations.” Allen is our guide to what being a “good Mormon” really means, because he defines it as “extremists” like his brothers.

Allen is also an embodiment of the Krakauer-like figure driven by rational skepticism. Upon learning of Mormonism’s true past, he’s ready to dismiss it as a fraud and pronounce its flaws. Then, over seven episodes, he helps Pyre uncover the sickening plot that proved religion’s depravity.

This is helpful.  Here's the best part:

Quote

The connection between sincere belief and violence

The show should be applauded for its commitment to depicting multiple versions of Mormonism: the compassionate yet structured Mormonism in which Brenda Wright (later Lafferty) was raised; the sweet yet naïve Mormonism of Detective Pyre and his wife; the caring and service-minded Mormonism of the Relief Society sisters who help Pyre’s family; and the radical and violent Mormonism of the Laffertys. All these versions of the faith make up the modern community.

Yet the show goes further. Of all these different genres of Mormonism, only one is depicted as the true successor of the religion’s origins. To be a “good Mormon,” according to the series, means being willing to do unspeakable things. The frequent and compelling cross-cutting between sacred and horror scenes—for example, between the early saints praying and an American general kneeling at the remains of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, or between Joseph Smith holding up his arm during the First Vision and a bloody hand opening Brenda’s daughter’s door—imply a direct, and perhaps even predetermined, connection between sincere belief and violence.

A generous interpretation is that the series demonstrates how some fundamentalist Mormons repackage the past to buttress their present. However, if that is the showrunners’ aim, it’s far from clear. Instead, the perspective follows that of Allen Lafferty who, after digging into the faith’s past, and witnessing its worst expression, issues a clear verdict: “If you really still believe your god is love,” he tells Pyre, “then you don’t know who you are, brother.” Mormonism, at its root, “breeds dangerous men.” Far from countering this opinion, offered in the first episode, the series only confirms it.

This notion that devoted obedience to the faith’s fundamentals “breeds dangerous men” fits into the much longer trajectory of how Americans have viewed Mormonism. It confirms a deep-seated suspicion that beneath the faith’s beguiling smiles and intrepid politeness is a rotten core—that the only thing required to transform a loyal saint into a cruel murderer is a deeper knowledge of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The true history is hidden because, if known, it creates killers.

Mormonism must, indeed, come to reckon with its violent past and patriarchal present. The community’s deep and entrenched reticence has itself contributed to onlookers assuming the worst. Mormons must be hiding something, is easy to conclude. But progress is also stymied by reductive depictions that make Latter-day Saints feel like their rich, complicated, and multi-layered faith and history has been condensed to its worst elements. The TV series does much better than Krakauer’s book at depicting the multitudes that Mormonism contains, but it still presents maliciousness as its core.

We’re living in a golden age of television, and Under the Banner of Heaven represents much of the industry’s best. It’s beautifully shot, impeccably acted, and movingly scored. The storyline vacillates from suspense to soul-searching, and the cinematic effects are useful and riveting. Though the storytelling can at times be a tad loose—the Pyre family’s narrative is never fully developed, nor is Ron’s descent to madness fully believable—it remains overall quite compelling. 

Even if religion scholars might wince at Mormonism’s reductive framing, much of which takes place in the first episode, most will enjoy the show as it settles into the well-established groove of a true-crime mystery. Whether or not the series makes a big splash, or has a lasting impact, it’s unlikely to significantly alter the legacy of the Church left by Krakauer’s book.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, you’re doubling down on Lance Black as a Nazi? 

I didn't compare him to Nazis.  You did.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 25, 2022 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A review by Ben Park: FX’S ‘UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN’ ADAPTATION REJECTS REDUCTIVE ELEMENTS OF KRAKAUER’S BOOK, BUT CONFIRMS THAT ‘MORMONISM BREEDS DANGEROUS MEN’

Park has both the training and personal experience to gauge the accuracy and fairness of this project, I think.

Yeah, Krakauer was pretty obviously trying to create an equivalence between the Laffertys to "Muslim violence" (as did the folks who made September Dawn).

Whether it is accurate and fair, however...

The miniseries improves on the book in terms of accuracy?  Well, sorta...

This is helpful.  Here's the best part:

Thanks,

-Smac

Apparently, it’s possible to be critical yet not overwrought. Who knew?

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I didn't compare him to Nazis.  You did.

Thanks,

-Smac

It was a joke, obviously. 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, from the Tribune: Oscar winner doesn’t expect Latter-day Saints to love his miniseries about the Lafferty murders 

Right.  Because nothing "examines" who the Latter-day Saints "are" like a big splashy mini-series about the Lafferty Brothers.

By Black's reasoning, gay people "examining who {they} are, who {they've} been" should do so by examining and emphasizing and broadcasting the lives of John Wayne Gacyand Jeffrey Dahmer.  These guys are about as representative of the "gay community" as the Laffertys are of the Latter-day Saints.

Imagine this being said of Muslims.  Or Jews.

"Our mosques breed dangerous men."

"Our synagogues breed dangerous men."

Oi.

Having grown up in American Fork - a mile or so away from Brenda Lafferty - I can attest that everyone in Utah County in the 80s knew where BYU was located.

As for the Laffertys being prominent .  . . nope.

BYU in Salt Lake City.

American Fork in Salt Lake Valley.

Boy, Dustin Lance Black really did his homework.

"'The bulk of the fictionalization' is in the murder investigation."  The investigation Black says was obstructed or hindered by the Church.

Lots of "fictionalization."  Conveniently anonymous sources.  Nice.

Hmm.  Sounds like Black was more solicitous and careful about his depiction of Dan Lafferty than he is about the Church.

Right.  About as overdue as the gay community being "overdue" in conversing about Gacy and Dahmer.

Wow.

Yeah, nothing bespeaks "responsibility" like fabricating an accusation that Brigham Young conspired to murder Joseph Smith.

Meanwhile, here's the Deseret News' take: Perspective: Under the Banner of Hollywood

Yep.

Imagine if someone did this to the gay community by assuming that what is true of the parts (John Wayne Gacy) is also true of the whole (the gay community in general).

Dustin Black and Jon Krakauer can and will get away with it, though.

These don't mesh well with Black's preferred narrative, though.

Yep.

Quite so.

That's a pretty fair question.  Were active Latter-day Saints excluded from participating in the substantive part of the production?  Or could they not find anyone willing to sign on to this project?

Imagine Dustin Black saying this about Muslims, Hindus, or Jews.

None of this fits Black's preferred narrative.

Good stuff, this.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

But you're going to watch it...right?

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Jon Krakauer

LOL Krakauer.  The stuff he said/wrote when people were paying attention, got eclipsed when he said things when he thought people weren't paying attention.  Like the interview he gave to the Ghanian Chronicle back in 2003.  (The link died, but here's my cut-and-paste from some of it):

Quote

Exerpts from an article appearing in _The Ghanian Chronicle On The Web_, Volume 12, No. 57 - Thursday, November 20, 2003   http://www.ghanaian-chronicle.com/231120/page2b.htm

According to Krakauer, "The Strengthening Committee is the KGB of the Mormon Church," and that "To gain an ID card to get into the temple, which is considered the entrance to heaven from earth, you will be called in for investigation. They check you pay your 10% tithe and are not having extra-marital or pre-marital sex. God forbid that you are gay. Then they will ask about you at the bookshop. "What has he been buying lately?"

Krakauer says, "Because Mormons believe there is a fixed number of souls and that by giving birth, you give them life, there is huge emphasis on having as many children as possible. The birth rate in Utah-the headquarters of the Mormon Church is higher than in Bangladesh. But boys and girls aren't allowed to meet, let alone flirt, so there is a lot of sex between siblings. There is also a lot of father-daughter sex. When sex is repressed, it erupts."

"I predict that the Mormon Church is going to face a sex abuse scandal every bit as serious as the Catholic Church," he says, adding, "Abuse against children has been going on since the beginning. Things are coming back to bite them in the arse."

Krauker intimated "There are incrementally higher rates of kidney failure because of in-breeding and the church sweeps it under the rug," "The Mormons are keen on genealogy and know about their genetic defects, but they have covered it up."

"Polygamy is what attracts the attention but it is racism, white supremacy, that is the real scandal," says Krakauer. "In some books sanctioned by the church, it is still suggested that black skin is a curse, the Mark of Cain."

Until he finds his next subject, Krakauer is following up an unfinished story, Under the Banner, of an American Mormon living in Mexico who is abusing each of his young daughters as they reach their 12th birthday.

 

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

LOL Krakauer.  The stuff he said/wrote when people were paying attention, got eclipsed when he said things when he thought people weren't paying attention.  Like the interview he gave to the Ghanian Chronicle back in 2003.  (The link died, but here's my cut-and-paste from some of it):

 

Huh……he sure has some interesting takes.

[pogi]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Imagine if someone did this to the gay community by assuming that what is true of the parts (John Wayne Gacy) is also true of the whole (the gay community in general).

Is this truly the claim or premise made in the mini series - that all Latter-day Saints are violent, or more violent than average?  Are all members, or even most, portrayed as dangerous and violent in the series? 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Imagine Dustin Black saying this about Muslims, Hindus, or Jews.

To be fair, he did say that about these religions too:

Quote

but listen, if you do a deep dive into any religion...there’s only two ways to go. It is either going to become a musical comedy or it’s going to turn to terror and horror.”

That kind of tells you what we are dealing with here.  We can't expect much in terms of an even-handed approach to religion from someone with this perspective.  I fully expect a slanted and distorted portrayal of religion (mine in particular) in this series.  I think the best approach and defense against stuff like this is the approach the church took to the Book of Mormon musical with a - meh, if you really want to know what we are about, here is a good book...

One thing that can't be denied is that our history, religion, and culture, make for endless Hollywood fodder...

 

Edited April 25, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Dustin Lance Black really did his homework.

Someone probably mentioned this, but it is much more likely he doesn’t expect viewers to do their homework.  Provo?  Where’s that?  Or worse…American Fork?  My grandmother lived in Provo and I lived there 4 months and visited other times, but I had never registered American Fork driving by it on the freeway until college age.  Same with Salt Lake instead of Utah Valley…but it would have been better to trust the audience wasn’t intentionally ignorant and take a moment to educate on where it took place imo.

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

If members of the gay community were being told by Hollywood bigwigs that they need to "examine" their community by having "conversations" about John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer, I don't think you would characterize their negative reactions as "overwrought."

I am not calling for violence.  Or censorship.  Or mobs and protests.  Or anything else along these lines.  I'm criticizing the project on a message board.  Calling this "overwrought" seems . . . overwrought.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I think this argument and comparison by you, now numerous times, is specious. The gay community is diverse made up be people from all walks of life and beliefs.  Mormonism and Latter-day Saints have a common heritage and a 200 year culture that contributes both in a positive way to what Latter-day Saints are and negative ways as well.  I do agree that the Lafferty's are not representative of what by far the majority of Latter-day Saint are.  But there are components of LDS history, doctrine, teaching, speculation, culture and so on that can lead to such off beat tragedies.  This is also true of other religions as well.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Teancum

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think this now argument and comparison by you, now numerous times, is specious. The gay community is diverse made up be people from all walks of life and beliefs.  Mormonism and Latter-day Saints have a common heritage and a 200 year culture that contributes both in a positive way to what Latter-day Saints are and negative ways as well.  I do agree that the Lafferty's are not representative of what by far the majority of Latter-day Saint are.  But there are components of LDS history, doctrine, teaching, speculation, culture and so on that can lead to such off beat tragedies.  This is also true of other religions as well.

Anything can lead to off beat tragedies, even atheism.  
If anything, evidence suggests that our common Mormon heritage leads to less violence than average, as pointed out by the article Spencer quoted.

These type of things say more about the people than anything - that’s why it is said to be ”off beat”.

Edited April 25, 2022 by pogi