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

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Amazon reviews?

Thanks,

-Smac

Wow! Didn’t have to look far to find that bonanza of vitriol. 

[jkwilliams]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Amazon reviews?

Thanks,

-Smac

So, a selection of Amazon reviews speaks for all former believers. Sheesh. 

[smac97]

On 5/4/2022 at 3:38 PM, jkwilliams said:

So, a selection of Amazon reviews speaks for all former believers. Sheesh. 

I was responding to this inquiry: "So where do I need to go, specifically, to find these exMormons who think No Man Knows My History is scripture?"

Nothing in that inquiry, or in my response to it, seeks to characterize "all former believers."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 4, 2024 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I was responding to this inquiry: "So where do I need to go, specifically, to find these exMormons who think No Man Knows My History is scripture?"

Nothing in that inquiry, or in my response to it, about it pertaining to "all former believers."

Thanks,

-Smac

“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.”

That is the statement Analytics was responding to. Are you saying you agree with him that we Ex-Mormons don’t collectively consider Brodie’s book “scripture”?

[smac97]

Just now, jkwilliams 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 exMos.”

That is the statement Analytics was responding to.

But not the one I was responding to.

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Are you saying you agree with him that we Ex-Mormons don’t collectively consider Brodie’s book “scripture”?

I think such a stereotype is inaccurate.  Way too much diversity of thought and perspective to warrant such a sweeping characterization.

That said, I think there are plenty of ardent, self-identifying, hostile former members (a relatively small but noisy subset of "Ex-Mormons") who lionize Brodie's book, who credit it was having a big adverse impact on their perspective on the Church, and who encourage others to read it for that reason.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

But not the one I was responding to.

I think such a stereotype is inaccurate.  Way too much diversity of thought and perspective to warrant such a sweeping characterization.

That said, I think there are plenty of ardent, self-identifying, hostile former members (a relatively small but noisy subset of "Ex-Mormons") who lionize Brodie's book, who credit it was having a big adverse impact on their perspective on the Church, and who encourage others to read it for that reason.

Thanks,

-Smac

I admit I prefer Brodie’s writing style to Bushman’s, but that’s about it. The objection we have made is precisely to that stereotype you speak of. I’m not sure why cinepro made such a derogatory statement about us wretched apostates in general, but I object to it as much as I object to making blanket statements about church members. That you went out of your way to dig up these reviews suggested to me that you were seconding cinepro’s derision.

[smac97]

On 5/4/2022 at 4:05 PM, jkwilliams said:

I admit I prefer Brodie’s writing style to Bushman’s, but that’s about it.

I think the "psychobiography" angle let her do too much mindreading and projecting, but the merits of Brodie's book have been debated forever.

On 5/4/2022 at 4:05 PM, jkwilliams said:

The objection we have made is precisely to that stereotype you speak of. I’m not sure why cinepro made such a derogatory statement about us wretched apostates in general,

Perhaps he was - like you - being a bit over-the-top?  Or is your repeated use of "wretched apostates" supposed to be taken at face value?

On 5/4/2022 at 4:05 PM, jkwilliams said:

but I object to it as much as I object to making blanket statements about church members.

Perhaps avoiding hyperbole is the better way to go, then.  For both sides.

On 5/4/2022 at 4:05 PM, jkwilliams said:

That you went out of your way to dig up these reviews suggested to me that you were seconding cinepro’s derision.

I was not.  I was responding to Analytics' "So where do I need to go" statement.

I am someone confused at your position on "derision," though.  You have repeatedly described yourself and people like you as "apostate" or "wretched apostate" or "foul apostate" or "evil apostate" or "filthy apostate" or "angry apostate" (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here).  You also use the term humorously or sardonically (here, here, here).  It's a standard part of your repertoire here.  Cinepro was critiquing a scene depicting Joseph Smith.  He made an exaggerated statement, but then clarified that the denizens of"exMo" forums tend to lionize Brodie's book.  His overstatement was, I think, intended to be taken as seriously as your various "wretched apostate" commentaries.  That is, exaggerated but still making a substantive point.

There is, of course, risk of using derision to describe others.  But Cinepro was not being derisive IMO.  I think he was being sardonic/ironic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 4, 2024 by smac97

[Rayjaysworld]

If anyone wants to know this is not the only time Mr. Dustin Lance Black fumbled on the Truth look no further than his movie Milk. In the movie they avoid mentioning Harvey's fondness of Cult leader Jim Jones (real religious killer). Also in the movie Harvey's Assassin is depicted wrong. The book Cult City explains this

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Rayjaysworld said:

If anyone wants to know this is not the only time Mr. Dustin Lance Black fumbled on the Truth look no further than his movie Milk. In the movie they avoid mentioning Harvey's fondness of Cult leader Jim Jones (real religious killer). Also in the movie Harvey's Assassin is depicted wrong. The book Cult City explains this

Could it be that Dustin didn't want to be on any hit list? Wow, news to me about all of this and haven't seen the movie Milk.

https://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=30886

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Could it be that Dustin didn't want to be on any hit list? Wow, news to me about all of this and haven't seen the movie Milk.

https://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=30886

Started watching episode 3. I didn’t think the temple depiction, brief as it was, would dredge up so many emotions after all this time. I still hate the show’s dialog, but this was an unexpected reaction for me. 

Edited May 5, 2022 by jkwilliams

[MiserereNobis]

I started watching last night. I'm looking at it through the lens of entertainment based on some actual events with a lot of splashy stuff thrown in because it's entertainment. I'm not expecting to get any "truth" about the your church out of it. It's like watching Da Vinci Code or some other show that stereotypes and caricatures Catholicism for entertainment value.

I haven't finished the 1st episode.

Does anyone here feel that watching the show is disrespectful to your faith? Sincere question.

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I started watching last night. I'm looking at it through the lens of entertainment based on some actual events with a lot of splashy stuff thrown in because it's entertainment. I'm not expecting to get any "truth" about the your church out of it. It's like watching Da Vinci Code or some other show that stereotypes and caricatures Catholicism for entertainment value.

I haven't finished the 1st episode.

Does anyone here feel that watching the show is disrespectful to your faith? Sincere question.

No.  I think those who chose not to watch it knowing our feelings about the temple, etc are being charitable and respectful, but I don’t see the reverse as automatic.  I think though there may be reactions to the show that are disrespectful, hopefully few, but knowing how many treat religious rituals other than their own, I suspect there will be quite a few making derogatory remarks, etc.

[MiserereNobis]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think those who chose not to watch it knowing our feelings about the temple, etc are being charitable and respectful,

Ah, I hadn't really read this thread, but now I see there is a depiction of temple ritual in the show. I've intentionally not looked up LDS temple stuff on the internet out of respect to you (plural), so I'll probably not watch the show now. Honestly, the 1st episode wasn't all that great; that's why I haven't even finished it yet.

Instead, I'll watch something way cooler -- Star Trek: Strange New Worlds was released today. Whoo hoo!

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ah, I hadn't really read this thread, but now I see there is a depiction of temple ritual in the show. I've intentionally not looked up LDS temple stuff on the internet out of respect to you (plural), so I'll probably not watch the show now. Honestly, the 1st episode wasn't all that great; that's why I haven't even finished it yet.

Instead, I'll watch something way cooler -- Star Trek: Strange New Worlds was released today. Whoo hoo!

If one watches it out of curiosity about the killings and investigation, what I have read so far suggests it is too fictionalized to give more than some broad strokes one can pick up better reading Wikipedia.  If one watches it out of curiosity about Latter-day Saint culture and history, there is enough misinformation mixed in with information that I think there will be more misunderstandings that then have to be overcome for actual understanding to make it worthwhile.  There are better sources out there for that. 

As far as fundamentalist culture, I don’t know that well enough now, let alone back in the 80’s to judge.  The only kind I have been around is the version in Canada where the women wore pioneer dresses and a certain hairstyle.  They would come into the church themed bookstore I worked at on occasion in small groups of women.

Watching it for entertainment is the only thing of real value I can see in it, so if not enjoying, skipping it completely sounds like a good idea. 

Edited May 5, 2022 by Calm

[Rivers]

Just finished the third episode.  This show is so unbelievably bad that I’m not sure I want to continue watching it.

[HappyJackWagon]

On 4/28/2022 at 4:32 PM, 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. 

While watching my wife commented about the detective going to a woman's door, knocking and then calling her Sister __________ when she answered even though he was on official police business. She commented that no one would do that. I reminded her that we used to do that, even out in public or professionally when we would see a member of the ward. She thought for a moment. "oh yeah."

I agree with your earlier comment that the dialogue is stilted and I'm struggling to know if it is accurate and my memory has faded or if it really is over-the-top religious language. My guess is it's some kind of combination of the two. It really was a different time

So far, I've enjoyed the show and plan to continue watching.

Side note- there was a scene in which one of the brothers was performing a kind of spiritual healing as a chiropractor, hovering his hands over a man's belly as he sought inspiration and uttered some words. It reminded me of Reiki and I'm not sure if that is historically accurate or not. But Reiki became somewhat prevalent in my area a number of years back. It seemed strange to me that it was so acceptable to many "good LDS saints" in our stake, but maybe there really are some similarities in belief and practice.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

While watching my wife commented about the detective going to a woman's door, knocking and then calling her Sister __________ when she answered even though he was on official police business. She commented that no one would do that. I reminded her that we used to do that, even out in public or professionally when we would see a member of the ward. She thought for a moment. "oh yeah."

That wasn't my experience (growing up in Utah County - American Fork and Highland).  I remember once in high school a teacher accidentally referred to another teacher as "Sister Johnson."  He immediately caught himself and said "Mrs. Johnson, I mean."  We chuckled for a moment, then moved on.

It wasn't a big deal, but it was unusual enough for me to remember the incident.  "Brother" and "Sister" were used in church venues only.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with your earlier comment that the dialogue is stilted and I'm struggling to know if it is accurate and my memory has faded or if it really is over-the-top religious language. My guess is it's some kind of combination of the two. It really was a different time

I grew up mostly in Utah County (from 5 to 17 years old).  I then went into the Army.  With one notable exception, I did not notice any change in dialogue or everyday communications I experienced in Utah County and the communications I had with friends and such in the Army, who were from all over.  The one big exception was . . . profanity.  Prior to Basic Training I made the conscious decision to totally refrain from swearing, and that did make me stick out a bit.  But I do not recall having to skip over or jettison "church"-style terms or lingo ("over-the-top religions language").

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So far, I've enjoyed the show and plan to continue watching.

Side note- there was a scene in which one of the brothers was performing a kind of spiritual healing as a chiropractor, hovering his hands over a man's belly as he sought inspiration and uttered some words. It reminded me of Reiki and I'm not sure if that is historically accurate or not. But Reiki became somewhat prevalent in my area a number of years back. It seemed strange to me that it was so acceptable to many "good LDS saints" in our stake, but maybe there really are some similarities in belief and practice.

I have noticed that some chiropractors can get a bit "off" as pertaining to this sort of thing.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

seemed strange to me that it was so acceptable to many "good LDS saints" in our stake, but maybe there really are some similarities in belief and practice.

My sister-in-law does massage and was studying something similar to that for awhile, though iirc that was late 80s.  She stopped because she felt it was going down the wrong spiritual path.  Energy healing has always been pretty common with Saints who are into alternative healing at least since the 70s.

Edited May 5, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

have noticed that some chiropractors can get a bit "off" as pertaining to this sort of thing.  

My first personal exposure to alternative medicine was at a chiropractor. My sister-in-law took me. I was grateful because he finally paid attention to my headaches from whiplash when I was 13 and possibly some falls when I was a toddler and like to climb out of my crib and then over the fence when a little older. It was good to know at least one cause.    I have been to a couple of chiropractors since then who were into energy work and sidelines off of that as well.

I didn’t live there though (it was in Colorado) and I never found a chiropractor that was as gentle and effective. I wonder if I would have gotten more into alternate healing like my sister-in-law if I had been treated by him long term.

Added:  the alternative medicine chiros of my experience were all nonmembers and nonUtahns, besides one who is in SL, not a member iirc.  Certainly does not use ‘Mormon language’.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

While watching my wife commented about the detective going to a woman's door, knocking and then calling her Sister __________ when she answered even though he was on official police business. She commented that no one would do that. I reminded her that we used to do that, even out in public or professionally when we would see a member of the ward. She thought for a moment. "oh yeah."

I can definitely see calling someone from my ward Sister __ or Brother __.  But I don't think it is normal to call a person not from my ward that.  Growing up in a non-mormon town, I'd always call my ward members Sister __ or Brother __.  I had a teacher who was in my ward and I confused my fellow classmates because I'd always call her Sister.  But in the other wards in the town, the members were always Ms/Mrs or Mr.  I think it stems from familiarity so having a detective using Sister __ is weird unless they were in the same ward.

[Calm]

I was in grade 6 in Provo for 4 months. We never called anyone Brother or Sister outside of the ward.  My grandmother might have though at her club, but I just remember her using first names. She used Mister for a neighbour who was completely inactive iirc.  She had lived back East for a number of years, don’t know if that made a difference. 

Edited May 5, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, webbles said:

I can definitely see calling someone from my ward Sister __ or Brother __.

We do that now if we are not on a first name basis and are walking in the neighborhood and see them.  Have always done so when talking about members in my wards since I was a kid. Both my parents were born in Utah, but grew up elsewhere. 

[Tacenda]

https://www.ldsliving.com/when-a-friend-sees-temple-rites-depicted-in-mainstream-tv-how-can-we-respond/s/10634?fbclid=IwAR2TeMKRzTFQg_m3iDdLGvVYweFieFxoJWA5sMPt1GwUlIUnYlcAW8nlS88

[Rivers]

Did the Lafferty brothers really get excommunicated for wanting to access church history?

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Did the Lafferty brothers really get excommunicated for wanting to access church history?

Pretty sure not.  They were into polygamy after all.