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

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

ok to punch someone who flirts with you if you don't like it.

Longview stated it as “aggressively ‘flirting’ “ and has not clarified if he meant actual, solely verbal flirting as far as I can tell (I searched “flirt”).  The opening poster gave a upvote, so it seems at most two are claiming it is okay, but I think it needs to be clarified.  
 

The “aggressively” makes me wonder what he actually means, though it being followed by “harassment” implies to me he wasn’t talking about physical touching that would qualify as assault.  But I have seen some call an unsolicited, surprise kiss on the cheek or stroking of a arm or head as well as backing a person into a position where they can’t escape the attention as flirting and an aggressive version of those would qualify as assault in my view, so it would be useful for Longview to clarify if he meant verbal only flirting or not before assuming he did, imo.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

guess I am somewhat surprised at the casual attitude towards violence and death.

I don’t believe asking for accuracy in comparison implies a casual attitude towards violence and death.  If anything, to me it implies a more serious, focused examination.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Even as a believer I was not surprised at how some went off the deep end and used LDS doctrine to justify it.

Is anyone arguing this does not happen?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

the 19th century members were expected to spill the blood of the murderers of the prophets if they ran across them. 

CFR

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Longview stated it as “aggressively ‘flirting’ “ and has not clarified if he meant actual, solely verbal flirting as far as I can tell (I searched “flirt”).  The opening poster gave a upvote, so it seems at most two are claiming it is okay, but I think it needs to be clarified.  
 

The “aggressively” makes me wonder what he actually means, though it being followed by “harassment” implies to me he wasn’t talking about physical touching that would qualify as assault.  But I have seen some call an unsolicited, surprise kiss on the cheek or stroking of a arm or head as well as backing a person into a position where they can’t escape the attention as flirting and an aggressive version of those would qualify as assault in my view, so it would be useful for Longview to clarify if he meant verbal only flirting or not before assuming he did, imo.

True, this could be a case of someone getting 'handsy', and under those circumstances a punch might be exactly what is called for.  I don't know that we can tell for sure with the amount of information that we have on it.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what you mean by #2.

And yet, they do.

Not really.  I think the Church is improving gradually and consistently.  

I think you'll need to get down to brass tacks as far as past teachings that are still promulgated or tolerated by the Church today.

I suspect you won't, though, because that will undermine the narrative you are trying to create.  Very much in the "Cancel Culture" way of things.

I prefer Mormon 9:31.  We can move beyond endlessly condemning dead people for their imperfections by A) leaving such judgments to God, and B) learn from those imperfections and become more wise than our ancestors.  A big part of that learning process is listening to what the prophets and apostles are saying today. 

Quite a few disputable presumptions in there.  The expectation of perfection and infallibility being the most obvious ("a non zero body count").  

Ask not for whom the Cancel Culture Mob comes.  It comes for thee.

Thanks,

-Smac

Interesting response.

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think you are understanding what I'm asking. 

For example, the Lafferty murders wouldn't qualify because those murders got the members excommunicated, thus you can't argue that mormon theology condones or supports those actions.  Violence committed by mormons but not because of or condoned by mormon theology also wouldn't qualify. 

Sorry that I wasn't more clear earlier.  

Sigh....It is not just the SLC Mormon Church we are talking about here. It is the doctrine of Mormonism which just not reside only in your brand of it.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

To the extent you are attempting to indict the Church and its teachings because some few misappropriate and abuse those teachings to engage in terrible behavior, I think a clear-eyed review of things is in order. 

Oh please.  A bit over dramatic don't you think?  But if you think the some of teachings of the church are not in part a motivation for the Lafferty's then where did they get their ideas from?: 

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

if you think the some of teachings of the church are not in part a motivation for the Lafferty's then where did they get their ideas from?: 

What do you believe that the Lafferty's were taught in church that started them on the wrong path?

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

To the extent you are attempting to indict the Church and its teachings because some few misappropriate and abuse those teachings to engage in terrible behavior, I think a clear-eyed review of things is in order. 

Oh please. 

Right back atcha.

22 minutes ago, Teancum said:

A bit over dramatic don't you think? 

No.

• You: "But there are components of LDS history, doctrine, teaching, speculation, culture and so on that can lead to such off beat tragedies."  ("Tragedies" being . . . murders and such.)
• Also you: "I think there is plenty of evidence so support that Mormonism and its dogma has led to its fair share of crazies."
• Also you: "It is not just the Lafferty's."
• Also you: "The Church is very conservative and has some doctrines that can lead to extremism."  ("Extremism" like . . . murdering a mother and her infant child.)
• Also you: "And there are extreme teaching in Mormonism that lends to things like the Lafferty's. Snuffer, Julie Rowe, Daybells, preppers, Conspiracy theorists, anti vaxxers, and the list could go on."
• Also you: "Mormon history, meaning any that are under the Mormon umbrella is replete with violent events. From Mountain Meadows to the Allreds, the Laffertys, The Daybells, and Warren Jeffs."
• Also you: "{S}ome of the teachings of Mormonism in all its falcors play well into some who think God is talking to then ending up with violent actions. I think there are plenty of examples."
• Also you: "If you want to turn a blind eye to the extremism and violence that has followed the Mormon tradition from the beginning ok by me."
• Also you: "{T}o know that Mormonism has elements of violence in its teachings that can be carried away with."

This sure sounds indict-ish.

Also you: "I lived near the Lafferty's when they committed their murders."  So did I!  I lived about a mile away.  I remember seeing flashing lights that night to the southwest of my house ("that night" because the murders were all over the news later that evening).  A few months back I looked up the address where the murders took place and confirmed it was about a mile southwest of my house.  

22 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But if you think the some of teachings of the church are not in part a motivation for the Lafferty's then where did they get their ideas from?: 

Virtually every good and virtuous thing can be distorted and twisted and misappropriated to inappopriate, or even evil, ends.

Doctors advocate that we moderate our caloric intake and exercise regularly.  There are some people who then take these things to extreme and unreasonable ends.  A woman may become anorexic.  A man may take steroids to boost his exercise regimen.  And so on.

By your reckoning, then, medical advice about moderate caloric intake and regular exercise contributes to anorexia and steroid abuse.  "Where did they get their ideas from?" and all that.

Again: We aren't the first ones to deal with people taking a correct precept and "going down the rabbit trail of extreme behavior."  As Paul said in Romans 10:

Quote

1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

An individual can take a single element or principle of the Restored Gospel, decontextualize it, distort it, and then misuse it to commit terrible wrongs.  That is not an indictment of the element or principle, however.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Sigh....It is not just the SLC Mormon Church we are talking about here. It is the doctrine of Mormonism which just not reside only in your brand of it.

I realize this.  Nothing that I said in that post implies that I'm only talking about the SLC church. 

As an aside, I think we've reached critical mass on sighing in the thread.  Maybe you and ttribe can get together and decide which one gets the sigh.  The one who doesn't get to use it could have the Ryan Reynolds facepalm meme instead.

Edited April 27, 2022 by bluebell

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I realize this.  Nothing that I said in that post implies that I'm only talking about the SLC church. 

As an aside, I think we've reached critical mass on sighing in the thread.  Maybe you and ttribe can get together and decide which one gets the sigh.  The one who doesn't get to use it could have the Ryan Reynolds facepalm meme instead.

Not cool.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Not cool.

Come on. Props to Bluebell. It was pretty funny  

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

An individual can take a single element or principle of the Restored Gospel, decontextualize it, distort it, and then misuse it to commit terrible wrongs.  That is not an indictment of the element or principle, however.

Blood atonement, oaths of death in the temple, oaths of vengeance and let's not forget about the rage and retribution that will happen when Jesus comes again.  The Lafferty's and others behavior all have their roots in certain LDS teachings.  Did they carry it to far.  Sure.  But they did get their distorted ideas from somewhere.

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

So, when I hear the statement "Mormonism creates dangerous men" (and that accusation is meant to be taken as a comment on the current state of affairs), then I expect the person making such a claim to be able to back it up with evidence.

I did not make that statement.  And I don't agree with it just for the record.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Is anyone arguing this does not happen?

But I understood why. Seems like most the believers here simply seem indignant with the idea that there are unseemly doctrine in the broad umbrella of Mormonism that can be carried to extremes.  JLProof seems to acknowledge that. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But I understood why. Seems like most the believers here simply seem indignant with the idea that there are unseemly doctrine in the broad umbrella of Mormonism that can be carried to extremes.  JLProof seems to acknowledge that. 

For the record on my part, I totally get why as well.  I'm not at all indignant with the idea that some people use our teachings to justify their bad acts.  It's the conclusions that some make with that information that can get me a little indignant.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Blood atonement,

Had no application to Brenda Lafferty or her baby.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

oaths of death in the temple, oaths of vengeance

Also no application to Brenda Lafferty or her baby.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

and let's not forget about the rage and retribution that will happen when Jesus comes again. 

Also no application to Brenda Lafferty or her baby.

Are you suggesting that the tumults of the end times will be authored by, approved by, God?

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The Lafferty's and others behavior all have their roots in certain LDS teachings. 

And an anorexic's behavior has its behavior is medical advice about moderate caloric intake.  And yet nobody is going around trying to indict that medical advice because it has been distorted and misapplied.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Not cool.

I'm willing to do my part as well. I'm thinking of going with this meme moving forward.  

 

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

CFR

he oath of vengeance was an addition made to the Nauvoo endowment under the direction of Brigham Young by 1845 in the Nauvoo Temple, soon after the 1844 death of Joseph Smith.^[2] Participants agreed to be bound by the following oath:

You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation.^[1]

The prophets referred to are Joseph and Hyrum Smith, who were killed by a mob in 1844 while jailed in Carthage, Illinois. The nation referred is the United States.^[3]

The oath entered the endowment when many Mormons yearned for retribution for the murder of their church's founders.^[4] At least one member felt the oath to include a personal obligation that "if he had ever met any of those who had taken a hand in that massacre he would undoubtedly have attempted to avenge the blood of the martyrs."^[5] However, members understood the oath to require only prayer.^[6]

The prayer to which endowed members obligated themselves took place in at least some cases as part of the prayer circle ceremony,^[7][8] which was also part of the endowment but was often performed separately.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_vengeance

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Replete means "full of" something. 

I said in the post that you responded to that it was probably a poor word choice.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For the record on my part, I totally get why as well.  I'm not at all indignant with the idea that some people use our teachings to justify their bad acts.  It's the conclusions that some make with that information that can get me a little indignant.

It is a nobrainer for me our teachings will be used to justify bad behaviour.  I save my indignation for those who abuse the Word in this way.

[Teancum]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Had no application to Brenda Lafferty or her baby.

Also no application to Brenda Lafferty or her baby.

Also no application to Brenda Lafferty or her baby.

Are you suggesting that the tumults of the end times will be authored by, approved by, God?

And an anorexic's behavior has its behavior is medical advice about moderate caloric intake.  And yet nobody is going around trying to indict that medical advice because it has been distorted and misapplied.

Thanks,

-Smac

Blood atonement and the temple penalties certainly did play into Brenda Lafferty's death.

Your analogy is weak and foolish.

The Book of Revelation certainly does put the unleashing of the end time tribulations as being authored by God as does the burning of the so called wicked.  Sort of like that flood thing.

 

 

 

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, ksfisher said:

 

Jana Riess: What ‘Under the Banner of Heaven’ miniseries, like the book, gets wrong about religion

Despite excellent performances and production values, the show left me with the same wary bewilderment I felt after reading Jon Krakauer’s 2003 volume.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/04/25/jana-riess-what-under/

There are some very good thoughts from Jana Riess here (for those of you who can get behind the paywall).  There are actually so many that I'm not sure which ones to quote for fear of leaving out others that are equally good.

Wow.  Some praise for Jana Riess.  

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

When you click on link to the Trib article, the article pulls up and then, 2-3 seconds later, throws up the paywall thing.  As soon as you see the text of the article, hit Ctrl+A (select all) and Ctrl+C (copy) as fast as you can.  You should be able to capture the text of the article, which you can then paste into notepad, Word, whatever, and read from there.  I'm not sure how I feel about this maneuver, but there it is.

Alternatively, you can do a google search for the title of the article and often find it published in venues other than the Tribune (here, for example).

As for the article itself, Riess is not impressed with the source material (Krakauer's book) :

Good stuff, this.

As for her assessment of the miniseries itself?  Well...

I sense a "but" coming...

She concludes well:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

And this must be a first. SMAC sort of likes what Riess wrote.  Amazing.😏