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

[ttribe]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

Meh. It isn't like God, Himself is operating with a non-zero body count.

That definitely isn't helping dispel the notion that religion breeds violence, by the way.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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

It's one of the first times she has given the Church a fair and reasonable shake, so yeah.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Come on. Props to Bluebell. It was pretty funny  

 

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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

 

Perhaps I mistook good-natured ribbing for a mean-spirited swipe. Dealing with a certain poster or two around here will raise that in me.

[smac97]

On 4/27/2022 at 5:26 PM, Teancum said:

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

In the same way anorexia and bulimia play a part in following medical advice about moderating caloric intake.

In the same way taking steroids plays a part in following medical advice about physical exercise.

On 4/27/2022 at 5:26 PM, Teancum said:

Your analogy is weak and foolish.

Your continued refusal to differentiate between A) a sound principle and B) a gross distortion and misapplication of that principle is even more so.

But when it comes to casting blame on the Church for the murder of a woman and her baby . . . any port in a storm, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 13, 2022 by smac97

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

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

If you read the thread I have provided this already. Also the idea that God speaks directly to us and gives us revelation can lead to bad decisions from small to large. When someone thinks God is really telling them to do something then they can carry it pretty far.  Just think Nephi and Laban and that story.

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's one of the first times she has given the Church a fair and reasonable shake, so yeah.

Thanks,

-Smac

Right. Just because she backs up your position on the issue.  

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But when it comes to casting blame on the Church for the murder of a woman and her baby . . . any port in a storm, I guess.

And you continue to distort and twist and be dishonest about what I have said. I blame the Lafferty's.  I just point out that there are teachings in the BROAD UMBRELLA OF MORMONISM that they and others can and have taken to extremes.  Your dogged denial of this and misrepresentation of what I have tried to say is tiresome.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In the same way starving plays a part in following medical advice about moderating caloric intake.

In the same way taking steroids plays a part in following medical advice about physical exercise.

Your continued refusal to differentiate between A) a sound principle and B) a gross distortion and misapplication of that principle is even more so.

But when it comes to casting blame on the Church for the murder of a woman and her baby . . . any port in a storm, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

Blood atonement is a sound principle?

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your continued refusal to differentiate between A) a sound principle and B) a gross distortion and misapplication of that principle is even more so.

By the way the temple oaths and penalties are not sound principles in any way.  So it was not distortion or misapplication of a sound principle. It was the carrying of a bad principle to its extreme.

[Teancum]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Blood atonement is a sound principle?

And penalties of death as well I guess.

[bluebell]

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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

Oh I know.  You didn't seem to know the exact meaning so I thought it would be helpful.  I use words wrong all the time; I'm constantly looking them up before I post them and needing to choose something different.  If it wasn't for that "look up" function built into the program I would frequently have a mess on my hands.

[bluebell]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

I recently saw an article about a movie that repurposed a child's slide to make it look like a penis going into a vagina for a scene they were shooting.  If people can misuse a children's slide then yeah, they can misuse anything.

[Analytics]

14 hours ago, Teancum said:

By the way the temple oaths and penalties are not sound principles in any way.  So it was not distortion or misapplication of a sound principle. It was the carrying of a bad principle to its extreme.

Exactly, and it’s strange he would argue with you on this point. If things like the penalties and Oath of Vengeance were sound principles, why were they removed?

[jkwilliams]

I watched the first two episodes. Some first thoughts:

1. I appreciate the portrayal of different types of Mormons, from the more laid-back and mainstream folks like the Wright family and the protagonist to the more fanatical, patriarchal Laffertys. 

2. That said, the characters seem to be overly serious and sober about their beliefs (not sure how to put it). Every time someone talked about praying for guidance and following the spirit, I’d find myself thinking that no one talks like. But then I reminded myself that I used to talk like that. I guess it’s just jarring to have someone reflect who I was.

3. So far, the roots of violence are shown as coming more from the Laffertys’ dysfunctional, abusive family than directly from LDS teachings. The flashbacks to Brigham Young and Joseph Smith seem to be laying the groundwork for any violent teachings in the church (and the Laffertys’ right-wing political beliefs) as reactions to early and perceived ongoing persecution of the church. 

4. The acting is uniformly good, but the dialogue is stilted, as if every word is exposition rather than character development. 

5. The musical score is over the top in its brooding and foreboding approach, such that it almost sounds like a parody at times. 

6. Some of the quibbles people have made about geographic errors (such as BYU in Salt Lake City) seem more designed as shortcuts. Most outside viewers don’t distinguish Wasatch Front locales, so Salt Lake is a catch all, like Hollywood instead of Burbank. 

Overall, it so far works pretty well as a crime story. The difficulty is in presenting the Mormon context. I don’t see it—this far—as the kind of Mormon-hating propaganda that others see. Depicting multiple varieties of Mormons goes a long way toward making the necessary connection between the murders and historical Mormonism without tarring all Mormons as inherently prone to violence. 

[rockpond]

I've only watched the first episode.  I think @jkwilliams critiques are accurate but it's drawing me in and I'll keep watching.  I never read Krakauer's book.  Warning:  It's Hulu and there is some brief female nudity at the end of episode one.  I do wish they'd leave that out -- a different camera angle wouldn't have changed the scene at all.

My questions though:

1. In that timeframe, did Utah church members let talk of the church infuse THAT MUCH of their dialogue?  I spend most of my time almost entirely with LDS people and nobody talks about the church or God as much as the people in this movie.
2. Was there a time when we (LDS) prayed with our hands clasped and held up in front of our chests?  As long as I've been a member, nearly everyone either folds their arms or clasps/rests their hands in their laps.  I know this is a small detail but it makes me feel that the director didn't bother to sufficiently observe LDS people.  Spend one Sunday at an LDS church and you'd know what we do with our arms/hands while praying.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I've only watched the first episode.  I think @jkwilliams critiques are accurate but it's drawing me in and I'll keep watching.  I never read Krakauer's book.  Warning:  It's Hulu and there is some brief female nudity at the end of episode one.  I do wish they'd leave that out -- a different camera angle wouldn't have changed the scene at all.

My questions though:

1. In that timeframe, did Utah church members let talk of the church infuse THAT MUCH of their dialogue?  I spend most of my time almost entirely with LDS people and nobody talks about the church or God as much as the people in this movie.
2. Was there a time when we (LDS) prayed with our hands clasped and held up in front of our chests?  As long as I've been a member, nearly everyone either folds their arms or clasps/rests their hands in their laps.  I know this is a small detail but it makes me feel that the director didn't bother to sufficiently observe LDS people.  Spend one Sunday at an LDS church and you'd know what we do with our arms/hands while praying.

I lived in a 95% LDS town in Utah County back in the 90s. Church was discussed everywhere: at the town council meetings, when I was paying my utility bills, at town picnics, parades, and everywhere else. I worked in Provo, and the church was a  constant topic of discussion. 

The clasped hands thing was a little odd. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

did Utah church members let talk of the church infuse THAT MUCH of their dialogue?

I will see if I can get my husband to watch it as he is Utah born and bred, but my memory is I wanted to talk religion and no one else was interested (I was at BYU from ‘76 till ‘85 missing quite a few summers).  Church activities were, however, talked a lot about as singles since many were to find mates and they had lots and we were in student married housing for almost three years and there were tons of activities done through the wards that likely would have been clubs or university sponsored at other schools.

Edited April 28, 2022 by Calm

[JAHS]

FAIR specifically addresses the misinformation and misrepresentations in this series.
They say they will update it as more information comes in.

[Calm]

Just now, JAHS said:

FAIR specifically addresses the misinformation and misrepresentations in this series.
They say they will update it as more information comes in.

That is the plan.  Should get a variety of reviewers as well, not just a couple.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is the plan.  Should get a variety of reviewers as well, not just a couple.

My biggest issue is ridiculous dialogue so far. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I lived in a 95% LDS town in Utah County back in the 90s. Church was discussed everywhere: at the town council meetings, when I was paying my utility bills, at town picnics, parades, and everywhere else. I worked in Provo, and the church was a  constant topic of discussion. 

The clasped hands thing was a little odd. 

I grew up in Orem in an active household and had a totally different experience from you.  Church was only talked about at church, family home evening, young men's activities, and seminary, and only rarely outside of those contexts.  That is still a lot compared to most Americans experience, but hardly was it a dominant focus of discussion in my life.  But it sounds like I was also younger with my junior-high and high-school years being in the 90's   

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I grew up in Orem in an active household and had a totally different experience from you.  Church was only talked about at church, family home evening, young men's activities, and seminary, and only rarely outside of those contexts.  That is still a lot compared to most Americans experience, but hardly was it a dominant focus of discussion in my life.  But it sounds like I was also younger with my junior-high and high-school years being in the 90's   

I just remember that my wife and I were very uncomfortable with the predominance of Mormonism in so many aspects of our little town’s life. Texas was a pleasant change. 

[cinepro]

On 4/27/2022 at 4:06 PM, Teancum said:

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.

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."

[bsjkki]

In ‘Under the Banner of Heaven’ a Decapitated Baby Reveals the Ugly Depths of Mormon Extremism (msn.com)

A review. Sorry if already posted. Did a quick check. 

"As Under the Banner of Heaven eventually explicates, Brenda’s demise was related to the Laffertys’ escalating ties to fundamentalism (and their embrace of polygamy and anti-government, anti-taxation sentiments). Yet while it touches upon many intriguing aspects of LDS life, the series falters when it comes to portraying the bigger picture of the Laffertys’ slide into zealotry. Black’s narrative is frustratingly jagged, failing to strike a consistent rhythm. Much of that is the corollary of his decision to spell out certain elements of Mormonism and to leave other key points and dynamics vague and confusing. It’s also, however, due to an onslaught of off-putting rapid mini-montages that strive to convey Pyre’s headspace, and his tormented questioning of his own faith and its vicious underpinnings.

Those hastily edited interior-state interludes are this venture’s biggest misstep, both because of their grating incessantness and because they interfere with Garfield’s performance; rather than letting the actor express, on his own, Pyre’s increasingly complicated feelings about the case and his church, Under the Banner of Heaven routinely does it for him. The result is that Garfield’s turn comes across as schematic and skin-deep, sabotaged by a formal approach that wants to explain the very things he should have been allowed to communicate himself. Unfortunately, that shortcoming is emblematic of the enterprise as a whole. There’s at once too much packed into the series’ installments and yet not enough, with Black and company expending unwarranted attention on a cornucopia of detours and diversions that are only sometimes fleshed out, go nowhere illuminating, and muddle this affair’s primary censure of the Mormon church as a violent 19th-century-style cult-y outfit.

Consequently, one can imagine Under the Banner of Heaven more successfully succeeding as an in-depth 10-part series or, preferably, as a streamlined film devoid of its unnecessary tangents. As it stands, however, it’s a lopsided look at LDS horrors whose impact is muted by its messiness.'

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My biggest issue is ridiculous dialogue so far. 

I just started.  It showed the picture of a dead bird on some farmland before showing Provo.  Does that have any significance besides something ‘drama’?