Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Screen rant is doing a fact check of the show.

There was no son named Sam, so it is unknown who the daughter was supposed to be the child of.  There is no record of questioning the grandkids anyway.

The dad’s name isn’t even Ammon, it’s Watson.  Guess that’s not Mormon enough for Black.  Since his characters are practically fictional, I suppose I shouldn’t get upset that Black is erasing the real dad’s identity.

There is no record of Allen being arrested for tickets.

https://screenrant.com/under-banner-heaven-episodes-3-true-story-fact-change/

Here is for the first two:

https://screenrant.com/under-banner-heaven-episodes-1-2-true-story-fact/

If the writer refuses to even keep with the real names of the Lafferty family, why should this show be taken seriously as an exploration of a real crime?  He is perfectly willing to ignore the impact of the events on real people for his creative agenda.  Does he even care about the victims as people and not as plot devices?

Quote

While some of the more significant characters in Under the Banner of Heaven, like Brenda, Allen, Dan, Ron, Matilda, and Dianna Lafferty, are all depicted with their real names, Hulu’s true crime story changes the identities of several of the family members. The other Lafferty brothers, Robin (Seth Numrich), Sam (Rory Culkin), and Jacob (Taylor St. Pierre), are depicted under fictional names, with the real-life figures being named Mark, Watson, and Tim. Similarly, the Lafferty family patriarch in Under the Banner of Heaven’s series goes by the name of Ammon, whereas his real name was Watson Lafferty, Sr. Likely changed in order to allow more creative freedom with the 2022 TV show, Under the Banner of Heaven seems to give every family member a larger role in the murderous events that unfold.

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

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").

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

Thanks,

-Smac

A really weird usage drives me nuts, and I am not sure where it comes from but I wish it would disappear, and that's the way that "even" is sometimes used in a weird idiom:

"Please bless the apostles and prophets,  even President Nelson...."

EVEN HIM??...  ;)

Where did that come from?? ;)

 

 

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

As a kid, I do remember people, including my mother, using their temple recommend as a form of ID when paying for something with a check.

I think I recall hearing (I think it was from a local member talking about a visit to SLC), someone recounting a similar story about someone accepting their TR as a form of ID.  That was quite a while ago though.

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

As a kid, I do remember people, including my mother, using their temple recommend as a form of ID when paying for something with a check.

Oy vey!

Link to comment
9 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I think I recall hearing (I think it was from a local member talking about a visit to SLC), someone recounting a similar story about someone accepting their TR as a form of ID.  That was quite a while ago though.

During high school I worked as a teller at Zion's Bank close to the church office building and I'd get a lot of people showing their temple recommend as ID. And silly me accepted it. 

 

Link to comment
18 hours 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!

I just started the 4th season of Star Trek Discovery and I LOVE that show.  And I'm not a trekkie at all.  Let me know how Strange New Worlds is.

Link to comment
17 hours 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 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.

If I ran into someone from church out and about, and knew them through church but didn't know their first name or wasn't really on first name basis with them, I would likely refer to them as sister or brother so and so.  If I was in a professional space I don't know what I would do.  Using Mr. or Mrs/Ms. would probably seem weird for someone I knew, but jumping in with a first name for an acquaintance I'm not really on first-name basis with, in a professional setting, might feel just as wrong.  That really would be a conundrum.

I haven't seen the show but it would make sense for an investigator to use the term that the person they were speaking to was most comfortable with, since they are trying to put the person at ease, so they are trusting and willing to talk.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

As a kid, I do remember people, including my mother, using their temple recommend as a form of ID when paying for something with a check.

I was with my brother at a movie rental store and he didn't have his ID so he used his TR instead. I couldn't stop laughing. Only in Utah

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I just started the 4th season of Star Trek Discovery and I LOVE that show.  And I'm not a trekkie at all.  Let me know how Strange New Worlds is.

My understanding is that Strange New Worlds is going to step away from the series- and season-long story arch mode and return to the "episodic" approach used in the original series and (mostly) in TNG.  I am also hoping it will return to something closer to Roddenberry's optimistic vision of the future.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
21 hours 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!

Strange New Worlds is excellent so far, IMO.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
On 5/4/2022 at 2:38 PM, jkwilliams said:

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

I apologize if the exaggeration in my original statement was not evident. I obviously don't think every former member of the LDS Church would agree on anything (since the number is presumably in the millions, or at least the high six figures), let alone all share the same opinion of a specific book. I wouldn't even say that all members of the LDS Church think the Book of Mormon is "true", so obviously a disparate group of "ex Mormons" wouldn't all agree about anything (except maybe that the LDS Church isn't "true"?)

To be clear, my statement should have said:

"That story is actually found in the scriptures, so we are sure it happened. And by 'scriptures', I mean 'No Man Knows My History', which is scripture to many exMos, especially those represented in online forums such as the eMo subreddit, but that view may not be shared by many other exMos, and this comment is not meant to represent the views of all exMos. It is merely a parody of the devotion many exMos feel towards that book. This statement is intended as a humorous observation, exaggerated for effect, and should not be taken literally."

Edited by cinepro
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It is merely a parody of the devotion many exMos feel towards that book. This statement is intended as a humorous observation, exaggerated for effect, and should not be taken literally."

You parody is matched by a mirrored one of animosity current Mos feel about the same book.

And, for the record, I don't believe either group has, for the most part, even read the book.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, smac97 said:

My understanding is that Strange New Worlds is going to step away from the series- and season-long story arch mode and return to the "episodic" approach used in the original series and (mostly) in TNG.  I am also hoping it will return to something closer to Roddenberry's optimistic vision of the future.

Thanks,

-Smac

I love how Discovery has been really heavy on the power of family and the love of friends and teamwork, and doing what is right even if it's hard.  This last season had a really cool redemption arc for a pretty messed up character that I really liked.  It's turning into an ensemble show with great character development for characters that used to just be very minor.  But not in a weird "lets have an entire episode about ensign Miller" kind of way.  I never really like it when they do that.

The first season got a bit weird with the klingon storyline and the baby.  I was happy when that one was over.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, bluebell said:

I just started the 4th season of Star Trek Discovery and I LOVE that show.  And I'm not a trekkie at all.  Let me know how Strange New Worlds is.

you're making me seriously contemplate a binge watch of season 4....didn't realize it was complete and I AM a lowkey trekkie :P 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

Heh.  I'm crossposting this in Smac's thread on patriarchy, because episode 3 certainly has things getting patriarchical!  (At least, as seen through the eyes of Krakauer and company.)

1- As the trouble-makin' upstart woman one of the Lafferty boys married starts arguing with her husband, all the brothers gang up on her to instruct her on minding her place, and calling her out on arguing with her priesthood holder after he'd made his mind up.  The other women in the room flee upstairs (good acting - they both flee, and are bored at the same time to convey this happens a lot).

2- As our hero, the youthful faithful cop, continues his dark slide into learning the horrible suppressed secrets of our faith's past, he is so troubled that he decides to postpone his twin daughters' baptism.  Wife freaks out more and more until our hero pulls rank: Saying he holds the priesthood so it's his decision, and he needs her support.  That ends it, she kicks off marital intimacy by reminding him that the priesthood may be his, but it's up to her to decide when it gets held. 

3- After the girls' baptism interview, our hero stays after for counsel from his Bishop and priesthood leader.  Bishop tells him how to take care of his mother and her growing dementia, basically prescribing her antipsychotics and whatnot.   And bishop strongly commands him to stop looking into the church's past.  This is setting up a conflict between our hero's faith and his job as detective!

4- And all of the preceding 3 scenes have similar dark bassy horror-music soundtrack stuff happening in the background.  #3 is so faint it's almost undetectable.  If anyone missed it, go back and turn the volume up way loud.  It's right there - almost sounds like the sound of trucks in traffic.

I guess it can't be good patriarchy without ominous music to help manipulate the viewer's emotions.  Imma get some deep bass speakers to make my family PPIs more effective.  Or something. 

I wonder if we shouldn't just incorporate this article into our Handbook and teach it openly: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/how-the-hidden-sounds-of-horror-movie-soundtracks-freak-you-out

No really - put this vid on loop as you read this thread.  It's as if you're watching the show!

 

As for Star Trek: 

Picard S2 ends in ways that, as any other true fan can attest, is both pleasing and maddening.  But I'm glad I'm watching it. 

Discovery is now in it's 2nd season of going full-blown megaWoke.  Endless scenes of the trans character, surrounded by the wide toothy grins of their supportive crew members happily using their preferred pronouns.  Federation destroyed by the emotional cry of angry child.  Proudly showcasing the greatest black representation in any ST franchise.  Every week, I encounter more hardcore trek fans on social media, setting aside fears of being cancelled, blocked, and shadow-banned, to just call out how horrible Discovery has become.  There are even liberals expressing nausea about how all the social justice is sucking all the plot and character development out of the room.  There is much argument, and plenty of folks are blocked and shadow-banned.

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
Link to comment

Not sure if anyone is interested in how a non-Mormon viewed Under the Banner of Heaven, but for those that are, I will tell you what my partner thought of it so far.  First, by way of background, he has a pretty positive view of the Church.  He sees how my children (the ones that are still active) interact with the Church and has attended both baptisms and a baby blessing.  While he doesn't believe any of it, he sees the Church as a positive influence in their lives.  He asks questions all the time, mostly about jargon used in the Church (an endless source of confusion).  He has always been curious about the Church and what it teaches.  

First two episodes, he wasn't all that interested in.  Last night he watched the third episode with me.  He sees clearly that this is about a handful of fundamentalists that went off the rails and in no way thinks this is typical Mormon behavior.  But what kinda freaked him out was the temple ceremony.  We have talked about the temple before and that the purpose of the temple is for baptisms for the dead and ordinances, including weddings for time and eternity.  I have never gone into detail about what that exactly means.  When he saw the ceremony, he was shocked.  The way they were dressed, especially the men looked so strange.  When they did the blood oath thing, he pointedly asked me if I ever did that.  I was honest and said yes.  It seemed so cultish to him.  He asked a bunch of other questions about what they were doing and why, which I didn't really want to get into with him.  He could tell the discussion was making me uncomfortable and just agreed that he didn't have to know more about what goes on in the temple.  I thought it would just freak him out more if I told him about the washing and anointing, secret handshakes and the whole veil process.  I have to say, having some space between when I was regularly going to the temple and now looking at it more from a distance, I could certainly see why it was really a strange thing to require members to do.  

The other issue that troubled him was asking an 8 year old if they were paying a full tithing as a condition of being worthy of baptism.  My grandson was just baptized a couple of weeks ago and he wanted to know if that was asked of him as well.  I assumed it was.  He thought that was a bit much and that it was grooming them at an early age to determine their worth before God based on whether they contributed to the wealth of the Church.  Yeah, he doesn't know about the 100 billion plus stock portfolio.

The other thing that he wanted to know is what did the Mormons do that upset the people at Haun's Mill to resort to executing all of them.  

 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, california boy said:

Not sure if anyone is interested in how a non-Mormon viewed Under the Banner of Heaven, but for those that are, I will tell you what my partner thought of it so far.  First, by way of background, he has a pretty positive view of the Church.  He sees how my children (the ones that are still active) interact with the Church and has attended both baptisms and a baby blessing.  While he doesn't believe any of it, he sees the Church as a positive influence in their lives.  He asks questions all the time, mostly about jargon used in the Church (an endless source of confusion).  He has always been curious about the Church and what it teaches.  

First two episodes, he wasn't all that interested in.  Last night he watched the third episode with me.  He sees clearly that this is about a handful of fundamentalists that went off the rails and in no way thinks this is typical Mormon behavior.  But what kinda freaked him out was the temple ceremony.  We have talked about the temple before and that the purpose of the temple is for baptisms for the dead and ordinances, including weddings for time and eternity.  I have never gone into detail about what that exactly means.  When he saw the ceremony, he was shocked.  The way they were dressed, especially the men looked so strange.  When they did the blood oath thing, he pointedly asked me if I ever did that.  I was honest and said yes.  It seemed so cultish to him.  He asked a bunch of other questions about what they were doing and why, which I didn't really want to get into with him.  He could tell the discussion was making me uncomfortable and just agreed that he didn't have to know more about what goes on in the temple.  I thought it would just freak him out more if I told him about the washing and anointing, secret handshakes and the whole veil process.  I have to say, having some space between when I was regularly going to the temple and now looking at it more from a distance, I could certainly see why it was really a strange thing to require members to do.  

The other issue that troubled him was asking an 8 year old if they were paying a full tithing as a condition of being worthy of baptism.  My grandson was just baptized a couple of weeks ago and he wanted to know if that was asked of him as well.  I assumed it was.  He thought that was a bit much and that it was grooming them at an early age to determine their worth before God based on whether they contributed to the wealth of the Church.  Yeah, he doesn't know about the 100 billion plus stock portfolio.

The other thing that he wanted to know is what did the Mormons do that upset the people at Haun's Mill to resort to executing all of them.  

 

I think it is very interesting to hear his take on it. Since I didn’t go to the temple until 1993 I didn’t know anything about the blood oath, but I’m now wondering if at least one of the signs hearkens back to that. I won’t get into any more than that.

As far as the baptismal interview, I don’t remember my children being asked about tithing. I wasn’t great about paying my own at that time (we were always broke) or having my kids pay theirs so I would be surprised if their baptism depended on it. 

I don’t know much about Haun’s Mill so I’m interested to hear other’s take on that.

I’m enjoying the series so far, and I also see it as a story about how dangerous fundamentalism can be. The LDS church certainly hasn’t cornered the market on extremism, but for some reason, our history is prone to being hijacked by some bizarre and dangerous groups. 

 

 

Link to comment
On 5/5/2022 at 9:40 PM, Calm said:

Screen rant is doing a fact check of the show.

There was no son named Sam, so it is unknown who the daughter was supposed to be the child of.  There is no record of questioning the grandkids anyway.

The dad’s name isn’t even Ammon, it’s Watson.  Guess that’s not Mormon enough for Black.  Since his characters are practically fictional, I suppose I shouldn’t get upset that Black is erasing the real dad’s identity.

There is no record of Allen being arrested for tickets.

https://screenrant.com/under-banner-heaven-episodes-3-true-story-fact-change/

Here is for the first two:

https://screenrant.com/under-banner-heaven-episodes-1-2-true-story-fact/

If the writer refuses to even keep with the real names of the Lafferty family, why should this show be taken seriously as an exploration of a real crime?  He is perfectly willing to ignore the impact of the events on real people for his creative agenda.  Does he even care about the victims as people and not as plot devices?

 

I believe they changed the names of family members who were not convicted.

Quote

 Hulu’s true crime story changes the identities of several of the family members. The other Lafferty brothers, Robin (Seth Numrich), Sam (Rory Culkin), and Jacob (Taylor St. Pierre), are depicted under fictional names, with the real-life figures being named Mark, Watson, and Tim.

 

https://screenrant.com/under-banner-heaven-episodes-1-2-true-story-fact/

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

Allen wasn’t convicted…but I get them doing that for the living, why the dead?  Okay, I think I answered my own question as the dad was Watson Sr.  Obviously it would be connected with Watson Jr. who is still living perhaps? And why not Mom since we changed Dad’s.

Given how twisted some of the stuff that Black came up with, possibly without any reason besides he thought the story was better, it is probably best he changed the names.  If I was Allen I would be tempted to sue.  Apparently he was not held in custody for long and he cooperated and told them about the brothers as soon as the car was described iirc; he was and is an active member, never excommunicated like his brothers were even if he went weird for a time iirc.

Quote

Allen also testified, “I told [Ron] that God had made no such revelation to me, and I would protect [Brenda and Erica] with my life.” But he didn’t take sufficient steps to do so, and on July 24th, 1984, he found his wife and daughter dead in their home. He knelt next to Brenda and prayed. He was taken into custody as the prime suspect — after all, he was the husband and father of the deceased, and he was covered in blood — but he successfully explained the story to the investigating detectives, who then began searching for Ron

 

Watson Jr. seemed normal until I got to the end of the article…he’d be another one I can see suing.  If there are no solid similarities besides birth order…it still seems like there would be legal issues given they are currently alive, very different from writing a historical fiction based over 100 years ago on some actual persons.

Quote

Watson Jr. and Tim Lafferty, two of the youngest brothers in the family, were the least involved in the crime — although they, too, bought into Dan and Ron’s fundamentalism and participated in the School of the Prophets. As mentioned above, Watson Jr. actually introduced Dan to Onias, and expressed enthusiasm for “destroying the wicked” — via a straight razor he brought to the group. More recently, though, he spoke reflectively to the Weekly about the effects of growing up in an abusive household (see above, regarding Watson Sr.) and said he feared that he might have the same violent impulses as Ron and Dan. He left Utah and the Mormon Church for over 25 years while reckoning with this question. In 2014, he told the Weekly that he’d reconciled his faith, and that “I know in my heart that those are two good men that the devil took ahold of. But the devil doesn’t care about them now; he’s hung them out to dry.”

https://www.cityweekly.net/utah/blood-brothers/Content?oid=2469422

Quote

Watson Jr. left Utah for more than 25 years, running from the horrors committed by his brothers. It took decades to for him to regain his faith.

“Enough time goes by, and you actually realize that the experience makes you a better person because you know what a big thing is and what a little thing is,” Watson says. “A washer breaks ... that’s nothing, but if someone in your family loses their soul—that’s the deepest, darkest hole you can go in.”…

Watson Jr. says he was involved in the school, but only until Ron announced his revelation. He dismissed it as just angry talk, he says, but cut ties with the group.


https://www.bustle.com/entertainment/lafferty-family-siblings-parents

Given how Dan idealized his abusive father and their family, I don’t see how we can trust his description of himself as the perfect Mormon boy.

https://www.deseret.com/1996/3/26/19232983/brother-says-ron-told-him-pair-had-to-be-removed

Got to wonder why Ron strangled Brenda if he was the one intent on “slashing their throats”.  And given Dan wanted to shoot them, it doesn’t sound like he connected their death with the temple penalties.

Quote

Horton said Dan Lafferty wanted to shoot the victims, but his older brother insisted on slashing their throats.

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 5/5/2022 at 9:20 PM, Rivers said:

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

Quote

Though he’s now one of the faces of religious fundamentalism, Ron says it was his politics that caused a church court to excommunicate him, essentially putting him on his path.

https://www.cityweekly.net/utah/blood-brothers/Content?oid=2469422&storyPage=2

Link to comment

I did not enjoy the first season of Picard. So, it sounds like season 2 does not improve. Watched an episode of Discovery. I didn’t watch more. Doesn’t sound like I would like it. Tried watching the new Law and Order but it is terrible. I think I’m too old and too conservative to enjoy the scripts written these days.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, california boy said:

The other issue that troubled him was asking an 8 year old if they were paying a full tithing as a condition of being worthy of baptism.  My grandson was just baptized a couple of weeks ago and he wanted to know if that was asked of him as well.  I assumed it was.  He thought that was a bit much and that it was grooming them at an early age to determine their worth before God based on whether they contributed to the wealth of the Church.  Yeah, he doesn't know about the 100 billion plus stock portfolio.

As a parent, I've been through several in the last few years with two different bishops (I've always been in the room with my child).  They will talk about tithing but don't ask if they are a full tithe payer.  They really doesn't ask any interview questions (such as the ones asked to a convert) but instead goes over the various covenants and promises of the baptism and asks if they understand what is being talked about.  He uses a book that talks about it (I think it is published by Deseret Book but I can't find it on their website) and it has "cutesy" pictures of the different promises.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, webbles said:

As a parent, I've been through several in the last few years with two different bishops (I've always been in the room with my child).  They will talk about tithing but don't ask if they are a full tithe payer.  They really doesn't ask any interview questions (such as the ones asked to a convert) but instead goes over the various covenants and promises of the baptism and asks if they understand what is being talked about.  He uses a book that talks about it (I think it is published by Deseret Book but I can't find it on their website) and it has "cutesy" pictures of the different promises.

Yeah, that made me wonder because if they're not a member officially before they're eight then tithing didn't apply. But then I wondered if back in the 80's it was a thing. Or when growing up, cannot remember. 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...